| Monday, July 27, 2009 - 04:40 pm |
What about adding green building, green power (solar, wind), environmental clean up, certain industries pollute and need clean up.
| Saturday, September 5, 2009 - 04:28 am |
Good point Shawn
If it's gonna be a Sim it should atleast keep up with the times.
The less you invest in being green, the higher your government and healthcare costs should be.
Anyone out there think otherwise ?
PS. Hope everyone's been keeping well
| Monday, September 7, 2009 - 03:36 pm |
NIX! Welcome back!
| Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - 01:29 am |
Good to see ya
What do you recon about this green idea any how?
We should start a green revolution. Hey, we could even police it. Any country that breaks the environmental pact (Maybe built too many of one kind of corp) would get bombed.
| Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - 04:08 am |
I hope this is a joke, along with the bankster-created carbon credits money making scheme.
You're not going to remove my country's sovereignty and double my energy prices just so somebody can make some money off of me, irl or in game.
| Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - 04:19 pm |
Mother Natures Army does not make jokes.
You see Mother Nature is under threat from the actions of the captains of capitalisum and their followers.
Also, anyone who does not take this threat to Mother Nature seriously is also Her ememy.
So if you are a captain of capitalisum, a soldier of capitalisum or just an ignorainus.
Mother Natures Army will seek you out and make you pay for your blatant dis-respect to Mother Nature and our future generations. Who's rights to have a natural life are being destroyed by your self-centered actions.
But if you are none of the above, join me and together we will teach these life sucking parasites of our worlds a new lesson in what it means to be responsible (either by Tax's/game changes through the GM or by War and Terror through the hand's of Mother Natures Army)
What say you Troy?
Which side are you on?
Capitalisum or Environmentalisum?
PS. At the end of the day someone will have to pay for our actions.
Tell me, Why should it be the future that pays for our life style's?
| Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - 05:03 pm |
(This is purely whimsical and not debate)
Alas, i am reminded of a old but true phrase
"Necessity drives Invention"
Without the push people would never invent better ways for the future?
Without needing to travel far would we ever needed the car?
Without the car would we ever have realised the car could polute the atmosphere so fast?
Would then we of considered lowering emissions?
Would we ever then of considering a electric powered car?
We then have a future founded on past "errs" that is considered green. A electric car that gets us travelling WITH the knowledge of what happens if we chose another route.
The past is a text book of trial and error we should read. Without it there can be no progress.
SKY - fireflys caught high up
FIRE - element in all things, putting next to alight objects coaxes the fire out!
RAIN - only comes if you sacrifice a virgin or goat
1897 - Lead plated hot air balloon anyone?)
| Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - 06:41 pm |
Also profit drives ignorance of what is necessary.
Without the desire for profit, alot of the inventions, that due to necessity have already been invented, would be already in production. But they are not.
The corporations that run the world by making money from the very things that need to be changed have brought the rights to these new green ideas so their current products will keep on making a profit. Only when these products stop making a profit will they invest to bring online the new products.
All of these green products that we will start to see have been around for years. They just wer'nt economically viable to invest in.
If these corps were interested more in ethics rather than profit we could have saved Mother Nature years ago with the fraction of the cost that it will cost us and the future in lives and money.
Trial and error only works when you realise the error and change it. We have known for more than a hundred years that man, if he continued down the path he was going, would destroy Mother Nature. But for the sake of profit and comfort he chose to stick his head in the sand.
2009 - Making and spending money is a good ting
| Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 05:28 pm |
NOT (just in case you did'nt get where I was coming from)
| Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 10:30 pm |
I'm all for a green program in SimC. CO2 and other emissions would cause shorter lives and more sick days. It'd be really hard to come up with emmisions level for each industry, then a green investment program to reduce and ofset the emissions. The feds would have to come up with a way to deal with determined polluters if their emissions affected their neighbors.
Implementing this idea might give the game some free publicity and bring in new players. I think that'd be good.
| Friday, September 11, 2009 - 01:55 am |
What if each country (the 3700+ say on LU) had a exact quota of pollution permission that was divided equally per year.
Any country that was using more would have to pay a levy fine or buy from countries not utilising full capacities of emissions at a discounted rate to levy fines so there's a incentive)
These quotas could be traded on the cash market/open market like any other item we already use. This idea is rigid, corps in countries would shut down for the rest of the year if quotas were used up (interesting for supply and demand availability)
Or, and here, please stick with me, it gets drawn out to explain
Once per game year, the total expected emissions were calculated worldwide and then compared to a expected "Tolerance zone", a number of metric tonnes of co2 fixed, say by an average of 2 corps of a certain type per country worldwide so theres probably going to be a need for the next idea.
Include "Green Corps" (wind,solar etc) with each having a output of "credits" per month but a time limit on how long they could be stored unsold to make each year or two anew. Example
Example Tolerance zone;
500b metric Tonnes CO2
Expected Output (of all corps)
600b metric Tonnes CO2
+100b metric Tonnes @ 100sc per metric tonne
(per metric tonne price calculated at 1 per 1b metric tonnes over. If there are heavy polluters next years price will be higher, but not worrisome for those keeping in quotas as they're not paying fines)
Corps will have to pay per tonne when their quota runs out:
25 per tonne
(sourced from low quota users) over tolerance x0.25
200 per tonne
(fines if no green credits are available) over tolerance x2.00
(price paid to seller of green credits)
fine is set so green corps cant charge massive amounts or the person is just gonna pay the fine
This years quota - Corp output @ 90,000 (40,500 State -/- 29500 Private -/- 20,000 Green; note green factories are not included in the total count which goes down to 70,000) Green corps aren't included as them en masse would cause quota figures to become tighter and they would further capitalise on that (see below)
Tolerance 500b metric Tonnes (pollution tolerance)
Divide by 70,000 (corps) = 7.14m metric tonnes permitted per corp! (average)
Your corps total (insert count here) example 109
Total corp pollution (each type of corp would have a expected output variable by its productivity) example 1.3 billion metric tonnes
Your quota for the year 2480 was 778.571metric tonnes
You are OVER your quota by: 521.4m metric tonnes
Your expected fine is: 104.28B
If you source credits from low quota credit suppliers your fine will be: 13.03B (spread to the appropriate suppliers)
Alternately you can buy from (hyper link to green credit buying screen)
Countries would be responsible for state fines, CEO's for theirs.
| Friday, September 11, 2009 - 02:24 pm |
What about our pollution of space with cosmic debris now that inter-planetary travel is imminent?
Space junk harvesters? Salvage rights?
Note, this is becoming a real life issue.
| Friday, September 11, 2009 - 04:14 pm |
I'm for this, the only problem is cost. W3c would have to hire 2 programmers at 60K per month for 4 months to design and debug which comes out to $480,000. I'm thinking of a new world so the bugs wouldn't mess up the current game. Yes, someone with experience at this would come up with a far different guess. If someone has a different estimate let's see it. Just be sure it's not a lowball.
Are there any people out there good at writing grant proposals? Both the education and green communities might be willing to underwrite this.
| Friday, September 11, 2009 - 11:01 pm |
| Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 04:39 am |
I don't want a new pollution feature. All that would do, if it is realistic is that the whole world would get polluted, people would then die from it...and the net result would be to lower the population limit for countries even more.
| Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 08:45 am |
So many posts here! This probably means we've got a bunch of economists trying to understand what are the determinants of the Green Wave in the real world, and trying their hypothesis to adapt them to the game? What? No? I naturally assumed...
Don't bother with this yet. It would only expand the diversity of the Market and affect punctuation. There are other things to be done first.
Although, I do have to say, given the boost the current financial crisis to the cause, and the tendency of the EU, I would see this implementation into the game as inevitable. Games tend to accompany their surroundings.
| Monday, September 28, 2009 - 04:24 pm |
As much as I like this idea, I think Laguna's right. There's a million small fixes out there that would make the game more playable. At the rate things are going I expect my grandchildren will be listening to my semicoherent stories of SimC before most of the fixes are made.
| Thursday, October 1, 2009 - 06:08 pm |
Simulate: To imitite the conditions of (a country).
Unless you want your Grandchildren listening to your semicoherent excuse to why their country did'nt do all it could to save their natural environment, we need to act now. And what better way to do it than changing people's perpective on what is important through a game about running a country?
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE
| Friday, October 2, 2009 - 10:33 am |
I agree with nix, only I think this idea should be carried further. I would like to see all weaponry banished from the game; no more awards for "good" (that is, "capitalistic") performance, and an prohibition against any corporation that uses electricity, as the use thereof might offend the Amish. Also, wages should be the same for both the proletariat and the bourgeois... Oops, did I say that out loud? I meant low level workers and hi-tech engineers and executives! Or maybe I am just an "ememy" and an "ignorainus" ;)
| Friday, October 2, 2009 - 05:25 pm |
WOT NO GUNS
Now if we could fist fight then sure. But how would Mother Natures Army punish those who have no respect for her? Is it not them who refuse to change their reliance on desire for love or life? Dam, these people will kill in the name of money/power. In their world it's kill or be killed. Unfortunatly they don't respect/understand the fine line between life and death. Thats where Mother Natures Army (as a last resort) comes into it
And how can MNA (as a last resort) do that without guns?
| Monday, October 5, 2009 - 09:06 am |
Alas, the heavy hand of satire knocks in vain once again!... :|
| Thursday, November 26, 2009 - 01:46 am |
You see GM.........Your just not thinking are you!
Why didn't you label the new car engine corps 'Hybrid car engines'?
| Saturday, November 28, 2009 - 08:19 am |
As long as I can keep buying Humvee engines...
| Saturday, November 28, 2009 - 09:45 am |
Well, you can always rename the corporations, Nix.
| Saturday, November 28, 2009 - 06:25 pm |
That should be up to the GM to do. But if I have to I will (I dont own any) ;)
| Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 01:07 am |
LAST CHAT SIM COUNTRY HAD WITH JOZI.
Meeting Log, 10/01/10
Simcountry: Simcountry Bulletin Board: General: Meeting Log, 10/01/10
[15:07] [Jozi] at the same time, we are starting to add alternative power sources, to start with nuclear power but will add several more
[15:07] * Deathsight has joined #jozichat
[15:08] [Jozi] we plan this as part of the alternative energy sources combined with CO2 emmissions and pollution in general. we will add small features and make it step by step.
Mother Natures Army would just like to say that Mother Nature will be greatly chuffed about these moves. For we know that they should ultimatly increase the chances of Her survival.
I small step for man. One giant leap for life.
Bigg Up to the GM.
| Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 07:23 pm |
I wouldn't mind having an green system in the game, but it shouldn't have a massive effect.
An environmental index would drive me crazy, screw up my profit/loss, and lower my score. Greenness should be optional.
| Saturday, January 30, 2010 - 08:00 pm |
An Environmental index.............Now theres a thought. Like all index's, it would only take a minute to make any adjustments. It also would'nt have any influence on your score as long as you respect it. And if you don't respect it................maybe it should only influence population growth and your war index. Why the war index? Because its your soldiers that need to be in peak physical condition and pollution would inhibit that.
If greenness was an option there would be no point in-it. Greenness is a sacrifice.
Why would anyone sacrifice if there was no point in-it?