Too much oil

[Mergle]

Originally posted by James M
In my last game there wasn't any copper on the *entire planet*. Standard map. God knows how we discovered bronze working...

I know you're joking, but I can rationalise this - there was copper on the planet, just not enough to actually use on any scale. So small bits of bronze jewellry, OK. Spearmen? Not so much.

[Shogun Gunner]

that would make bronze the "new gold". Talk about re-writing history -- it's all what civ is about.

[Mandla]

Originally posted by MasterDave

Also, why should environmentalism create happiness? I have yet to hear about or talk to an environmentalist who was not angry, bitter, and ranting about some horrible affront to an obscure endangered species.

Perhaps you're allowing the idiocy of a few extremist nutjobs to colour your perception of the very idea of environmentalism which, in this day age, shouldn't need defending.

[Unimatrix11]

As an enviromental scientist i just need to jump on this, too...

The only reason why most enviromentalists are bitter is, because there are people like you, who still dont get what it is all about. If everyone finally would get it, then the probabilty for all of us being more healthy and happy are pretty high i guess. So the civic makes a lot of sense to me...

But this also gives me the idea, that maybe additional oil resources could be used to raise happyness while it would lower health under a new certain civic.

Personally i'd wish that the global warming feature of the older civ-games would still exist (apart of the use of nukes) - that way the use of oil by one civ to make its citizen happier would piss everyone else off (like in reality) and also would provide for another vote for the U.N. to ban that civic (Kyoto protocol alike).

[Sleestax]

I think most people are ok with Environmentalism until it hurts their lifestyle. You want to plant grass on my roof? Go for it. You want to dig a geo-thermal well and warm/cool my home? Fine. But try to take away my car and I'll stab you in the eye, with a blunt stick....several times, until you might develop a sore or something.

[petermarkab]

its not about taking your car away a la taking a new toy away from a naughty child; its about making people aware that their over-use of the car (in this example) is harming others around them, whether its people getting knocked down on the street, the spewing forth of heavy particulates causing respiratory problems in kids, the over-reliance on oil skewing foreign and domestic policy, the increase in CO2 emissions contributing to the warming effect on the globe to name but a few.

It is about making people aware of their responsibilities when using the car, or taking short-haul flights, or when buying food out of season.

Live and let live, but not if it harms others.

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11
As an enviromental scientist i just need to jump on this, too...


Personally i'd wish that the global warming feature of the older civ-games would still exist (apart of the use of nukes) - that way the use of oil by one civ to make its citizen happier would piss everyone else off (like in reality) and also would provide for another vote for the U.N. to ban that civic (Kyoto protocol alike).

In most of my previous civ4 games, I never built coal plants or very many airports, and I never saw global warming. However, in my last game I had few rivers and was in a desperate space race with a couple of powerful ai's, so I could not wait for nuclear stations or the three gorges dam to provide clean power. I put up about 10 coal plants around my empire as well as more airports than I usually build, and sure enough, I got global warming once every three or four turns!!! I have never seen this before, and I do not know if it was the patch or the coal plants and airports that suddenly brought this on. The warming was pretty nasty too, turning useful tiles into deserts!

Now to the issue of the bitter environmentalists. I am not speaking from complete "right-wing neanderthal " ignorance here, having worked in the hazardous waste business for three years and learned much of the science about what is truly harmful to our ecology and what is not. I also am a big nature fan, enjoying hikes, marine biology, and generally being outside. Unfortunately, most of the "whackos" who comprise the loudest voices of the environmental movement are not in the least bit scientific in their approach often base their rantings on hysteria, panicing, and what "seems" morally right in their very myopic view.

Aside from the multiple examples of people's private property being taken ( a big deal in America at least) or restriced to protect a species that is not truly endangered or perhaps not even found to be present ("just because we never FOUND any blind cave squirrels in the study we just made you pay for, does not mean they not there..."), here are two specific examples of environmental extremism that would be funnier if they were not true.

Wind power is one of the sacred cows of the clean power movement in California. As they often do, these guys got their way, and hundreds of highly expensive and inefficeint windmills went up on a local mountain pass in Northern California. Half of these things are not even running most of the time, and the maintainence and repair costs I have seen reported far exceed the value of the tiny amount of megawattage they produce.

At any rate, along comes a different gang of environmentalists who are now claiming that these windmills are directly responsible for the deaths of hundereds of thousands of birds every year!! Including (possiby, no evidence of course) the possible deaths of highly endangered California Condors!!!! Of course there is no actual PROOF that this many birds are being killed, there are no pictures or reported counts of the huge piles of mangled corpses, yet they expect us to believe that each windmill chops up over 1000 birds every year! It is a claim so bizarre and assinine that even most of my fellow Californians laugh about it (and these people are about as Green as they come). What really makes it funny is one group of environmentalists railing about and trying to shut down the moronic project of different environmentalists.

A second example of the madness revovles around a whale watching tour in Boston I went on. Now I admit that I have a soft spot for whales, and am very glad to see many formerly endangered species making a comeback. At any rate, we had just come back from an amazing trip looking at humpback whales near Boston Harbor when some nut job accosts us with a yarn that whale watching boats directly kill hundreds of whales every year, mostly by "bumping into their heads". Once again there is absolutely ZERO proof of this claim, and logically it does not make much sense that a 50-foot whale, or even a 10 foot calf is going to be harmed from contacting a 60-100 foot boat with its engines cut. If anything, whale-watching trips help make people care more about whales, as I tried to explain to this whacko, but he had no interest in hearing a differing opinion.

Accosting the people that might otherwise be his allies in conversation is one of the reasons that I contend that the environmental whack-os out there definitely should NOT produce happy faces.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by MasterDave
Now to the issue of the bitter environmentalists. I am not speaking from complete "right-wing neanderthal " ignorance here, having worked in the hazardous waste business for three years and learned much of the science about what is truly harmful to our ecology and what is not. I also am a big nature fan, enjoying hikes, marine biology, and generally being outside. Unfortunately, most of the "whackos" who comprise the loudest voices of the environmental movement are not in the least bit scientific in their approach often base their rantings on hysteria, panicing, and what "seems" morally right in their very myopic view.

I think the loudest voices are the ones to which pretty much everyone listens to and largely agree.

Originally posted by MasterDave
Aside from the multiple examples of people's private property being taken ( a big deal in America at least) or restriced to protect a species that is not truly endangered or perhaps not even found to be present ("just because we never FOUND any blind cave squirrels in the study we just made you pay for, does not mean they not there..."), here are two specific examples of environmental extremism that would be funnier if they were not true.

I would point out that it is a fact that species that are not found in such studies can indeed be in the environment. Indeed, even species that were considered extinct have been found to still be alive. In America most of the species that are considered endangered are indeed endangered....we do not take very good care of our environment, especially compared to other first world countries.

Originally posted by MasterDave
Wind power is one of the sacred cows of the clean power movement in California. As they often do, these guys got their way, and hundreds of highly expensive and inefficeint windmills went up on a local mountain pass in Northern California. Half of these things are not even running most of the time, and the maintainence and repair costs I have seen reported far exceed the value of the tiny amount of megawattage they produce.

Wind Power is constantly improving and the newest systems are quite competetive with traditional forms of power. It is one of the best sources of clean power and a good supplement to the power grid. If there's a particular place where it was innefficiently placed and used then that's unfortunate, but the underlying technology and principle is quite sound.

Originally posted by MasterDave
At any rate, along comes a different gang of environmentalists who are now claiming that these windmills are directly responsible for the deaths of hundereds of thousands of birds every year!! Including (possiby, no evidence of course) the possible deaths of highly endangered California Condors!!!! Of course there is no actual PROOF that this many birds are being killed, there are no pictures or reported counts of the huge piles of mangled corpses, yet they expect us to believe that each windmill chops up over 1000 birds every year! It is a claim so bizarre and assinine that even most of my fellow Californians laugh about it (and these people are about as Green as they come). What really makes it funny is one group of environmentalists railing about and trying to shut down the moronic project of different environmentalists.

Studies have shown that most wind turbines do not cause birds to die. Birds veer out of the way. However there are a few species of birds that don't seem to do this. The California Condor seems to be one of them.

Originally posted by MasterDave
Accosting the people that might otherwise be his allies in conversation is one of the reasons that I contend that the environmental whack-os out there definitely should NOT produce happy faces.

I think other people are contending that Environmentalism does not mean "wackos" are in control of everything. It means doing things like making companies pay for the clean-up of the pollution they make (an economically sound thing to do). It means stopping species from dying so you can do things like go out and see those whales. It means preserving national forests and other areas so people can enjoy them. Environmentalism is about caring about how we are harming the environment.* You are taking the term well out of context. Everyone movement has its extremist followers.

You might as well say all capitalists don't care for anything except money and wouldn't lift a finger to help a starving child right in front of them. One should not base an opinion of an entire movement and philosophy on the actions of the extremists.

-Drachasor

*Things that you admit make you happier.

[Strudo]

Originally posted by Drachasor
You might as well say all capitalists don't care for anything except money and wouldn't lift a finger to help a starving child right in front of them.

I would say this. Plenty of time people or corporations are generous to give the impression that they care, but really I think it's just to win over people to buy their products or services. Money is a disgusting concept and as far as I can tell, nearly everything bad in the world can be linked back to greed.

I am hoping for the time of Star Trek, where there is no money and no net worth and all people have the common goal of bettering themselves for the benefit of everyone. I also want to travel faster than light though so maybe my mind is a little bent out of shape about everything...... now where is my medication

[Unimatrix11]

Oooops ... sorry - i seem to have missed that global warming due to too much production still exists... and also i'd like to apologize if i offended you...

I still think that the civic enviromentalism makes some sense, tho... and also i'd like to hear your opinions about that theoretical civic which uses oil for happiness on the expense of health and (global) pollution...

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Strudo
I would say this. Plenty of time people or corporations are generous to give the impression that they care, but really I think it's just to win over people to buy their products or services. Money is a disgusting concept and as far as I can tell, nearly everything bad in the world can be linked back to greed.

I am hoping for the time of Star Trek, where there is no money and no net worth and all people have the common goal of bettering themselves for the benefit of everyone. I also want to travel faster than light though so maybe my mind is a little bent out of shape about everything...... now where is my medication

I think it is unfair to make such a gross generalization about all people who believe in capitalism. There are some like this and they are memorable (or others easily charicatured), but they all aren't selfish bastards.

-Drachasor

PS. Star Trek is a nice place to live, though I am uncertain how well it would work given certain aspects of human nature -- though we could theoretically rewrite some aspects with genetic engineering and others discourage through upbringing. There are good parts to capitalism, but you never want a pure capitalism (that's just a nasty place to live). Market forces are handy for efficiently doing many things, you just have to be aware of what they don't do well, such as public goods (which, in my opinion, includes healthcare).

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11
Oooops ... sorry - i seem to have missed that global warming due to too much production still exists... and also i'd like to apologize if i offended you...

I still think that the civic enviromentalism makes some sense, tho... and also i'd like to hear your opinions about that theoretical civic which uses oil for happiness on the expense of health and (global) pollution...

I'm not offended by anything in this thread, I just think my stories about whacked out environmentalists are funny and was looking for an opening to tell them

Speaking from experience in the environmental business I will say that some of the regulations the American government has imposed since the RCRA laws went into effect in 1977 have been effective in reducing emission and solid hazardous waste production. In fact, that business is in serious decline because less waste is being produced by American ("eeeeevil" capitalist) Companies yearly. There is some good that comes out of the movement as a whole, but the environmental extremists are still hiralious in their absurdity.

I think that the environmentalism civic makes sense as a gameplay mechanic, and I do think that the health effect is somewhat logical. The happy face effect is what I was poking fun at, although I do find myself keeping some trees around my cities just in case I need the health later.

[MasterDave]

double post

[Ramasesmort]

I can never seem to find coal and that sucks never having railroads to speed up movement of forces built or created in citys not needing them and usefull elsewhere (For example a great scientist in a city with an academy and you want loads of academys)