Global Warming. It would be nice if...

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

Sticking strictly with game play issues, pollution is poorly executed. Pollution comes into play far too early. Production pollution should not come into play until industrialization, and population pollution not until combustion. When global warming occurs, it should make deserts/plains expand, jungles turn into forests, forests into grassland etc. I dont like the pure randomness of picking which tile changes. Having a grassland that is completely surrounded by other grass turn into plains makes no sense. Having a grassland that borders the plains turn into plains makes great sense. Also, radiation pollution should be a different and substantially harder type of pollution to clean, if at all.

[WarpStorm]

I agree with you Wolf, the terrain that is bad should expand, not random tiles.

[Traelin]

HAHA Tiberius, you sound like Carl Sagan from the '70s when he predicted a serious climactic cooling from pollution and the use of nukes. OH NO! WE'RE ALL DOOMED!

So tell me, Tiberius..do you think ALL the Senators support the oil industry? Do you think our politicians enjoy importing oil from the wackos in the MidEast? Hrm, again do your research on how PACs work in this country, which ones funnel their coffers to which candidates, and how those candidates actually vote. Do you think Al Gore and Gray Davis, two very liberal environmentalists, support the oil industry?

2% -- yes that's right -- 2% of the greenhouse gas emissions are from humans. I'm not a rocket scientist, but I think that's pretty darn low. I mean 98% from Mother Nature? What, do you want humans to perform mass suicide, stop breathing, and put an end to Homo Sapiens? My God, they very fact that we breathe and breed like cockroaches causes more problems than our cars.

[Switch]

It seems that people are missing some points in weather. For example, people seem to blame the drought in Western Canada or the floods in Europe on Global Warming. Pah!
The Prairies have been unusually wet recently, and are just returning to normal. The floods in Europe also happened ~100 years ago (otherwise it would've been the biggest flood, not the biggest flood in 100 years). And in fact, the weather is just returning to normal. It is naive to think that the weather is predictable. It has acutally been UNUSUABLY predictable recently, and is normally known to be one of the least predictable things known to man.

The weather is just returning to normal, not getting worse because of our pitiful emmisions. THe only real impact our pollution is having is on cleanliness of air/water/ground, deaths of animals, and strength of the Ozone layer.

We still should reduce pollution for said reasons, but not because of global warming.....

Next time a disaster occurs in Europe, don't come begging the U.S. for help.

Now who's burning the orchard for a few bad apples?
The only thing worse than ignorance is stupid hypocracy.

[Tiberius]

If pollution hurt the american economy, the senat would have voted exactly vice-versa.

They are emphasizing the american rather than the international/global goals, that is.

[itsagreenday]

Tiberius

If pollution hurt the american economy, the senat would have voted exactly vice-versa.

They are emphasizing the american rather than the international/global goals, that is.

Well, of course. No one else looks out for America, so we have to do it ourselves. Apparently, even liberal environmentalist senators thought Kyoto would hurt America more than it would help.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by SwitchMoO
The only thing worse than ignorance is stupid hypocracy.

You're right Switch, my comment was inappropriate. I think it was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Nevertheless, I shouldn't have used Ad Hominem attacks when trying to make my point. I also agree with everything you said, especially the fact that we should explore renewable energy sources and decrease pollution, but not because of global warming. It just makes long-term environmental and economic sense.

I think the thing that frustrates me the most is when people incessantly opine about a topic, but have absolutely NO evidence to back things up. I mean we're all talking about a THEORY here, not a FACT.

WRT CivIII, I have serious issues with global warming in the game. The damage caused by global warming in the game is ridiculous and way too random. For a game that's supposed to deal in an abstraction of reality, it fails miserably here. In fact, this is the only serious problem I have with the C3. If they're going to implement an unrealistic global warming scenario, please PLEASE implement the U.N. to have international treaties so I can force the damned AI to clean up their messes!

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by itsagreenday
Zachriel

Why would you want to forest grassland after railroad? If it has a bonus resource, mining produces 2 food, 3 shields, without, 2 food, 2 shields, IIRC. Not to mention pollution is cleaned up twice as fast.

For fun, and 'cause it looks cool. The forested area was undeveloped land, so I created a huge French National Park.

Why do real people create real parks, or wonders for that matter? Because they have more productive capacity than they need for basic essentials. "Man does not live by bread alone."

[itsagreenday]

For fun, and 'cause it looks cool. The forested area was undeveloped land, so I created a huge French National Park.

Why do real people create real parks, or wonders for that matter? Because they have more productive capacity than they need for basic essentials. "Man does not live by bread alone."

When I'm in park-building mode, I load up SC3K (and eagerly awaiting SC4).

[Traelin]

Originally posted by itsagreenday


When I'm in park-building mode, I load up SC3K (and eagerly awaiting SC4).

Is SC3K any good? The last one I played was 2K, and I loved it! The Civil Engineering Department at my Alma Mater was actually exploring the idea of using it in a class project.

[metalhead]

*sigh*

At least I'm not the only one who hasn't bought into the global warming BS. I love stating scientific fact and then getting attacked by a bunch of ignoramuses (or is it ignorami?) because of it. It's a shame that people don't read before putting forth an opinion.

To all you euros out there who seem to know what is in the US best interests, the reason we will never respect your opinion on world affairs is because when you need us, we step up and help. When we need you to help us oust a dictator bent on nuclear destruction, you criticize us, hold demonstrations, attack our leaders, etc. And then you sit around and wonder why we're not going to listen to you and go oust Saddam without you. This really burns me up. All the flag waving we saw in Europe after 9/11 was such a sham. It has become obvious now that the time has come to do something about it, you are content to sit on the sidelines and criticize the US for taking action. Shame on you and your governments. I for one am thankful that George W. Bush doesn't take the advice of cowards.

[Demerzel]

mostly we get upset because "you Americans" like to go gung-ho into a situation without thinking through all the consequences first.

Say you did go in and remove Saddam Hussein, would you leave troops there for the next ten years or so whilst the successor regime has a chance to rebuild Iraq into a competent state?

I doubt it, you'll go in and remove Saddam and then you'll leave. Which will leave the EU with a massive headache on its borders and we'll be left to deal with the consequences over the next ten to twenty years. Oh joy, thank you Mr. Bush!

We want to go through all the possible actions to resolve this peacefully first before we commit to a violent solution. Forgive us if that isn't gung-ho enough for you.

I think you'll find that most of the sympathy from the European nations at the 9/11 tradegy and others was quite genuine because maybe, just maybe we've all gone through it before...

Britain had to survive the terror attacks of the IRA and other paramilitary organisations from N. Ireland & Ireland.

Spain has had to deal with the ETA car-bombing their police, judges & politicans

Germany had terrorist attacks against it in the '60s & '70s - i forget the name.

Israel has had to deal with constant suicide-bomb attacks for a long, long time.

This is a small fraction of the terrorist organisations out there and the countries that have been affected.

America hasn't had to deal with terrorism before and it's showed in your post 9/11 actions. Before that it was "naughty, naughty Mr. terrorist. Aren't you a bad boy! Sure we'll let you in Mr. Gerry Adams to get funds for the continuing terrorist actions of the IRA."

Now "it's all terrorists must be hunted down!"
"There is an axis of evil out there which must be destroyed!"

Your actions stink of hypocrisy pure and simple, before you couldn't give a monkeys when people got injured or killed because it didn't affect you. Now it had and you're suddenly telling us how to behave.

I was horrified by the evil actions of the terrorists when they killed so many US citizens and in no way condone their actions. I condone no actions of terrorists, any terrorist action is wrong. Whether it is a suicide bomb, a car bomb or using an airliner to hit civilian towers.

Welcome to the fight against terrorism America, just don't come on to the scene late and trumpet yourselves as the saviour of us all.

Oh and before you accuse of being cowards, what about your beloved president bush? On the days of the attack & the few days after where was he? Mayor Guiliani ( pardon any mis-spelling ) was right there reassuring and helping people. Bush was hiding away in some nuclear bunker. If he wanted to help his nation he should have been where he was needed not hiding away like a coward.

[metalhead]

First of all, Bush was not "hiding away in some bunker." He returned to Washington, I believe either late that night or early the next day. What he was really doing was flying a zig-zag route and landing periodically in remote locations in order to shake any terrorists aiming for AF1. On 9/12, he was standing at ground zero with his arm around a soot-covered construction worker and a bullhorn in his hand. Not exactly a "bunker". More of a smoking grave for 3,000 Americans.

And no, frankly, it is not gung-ho enough for me. There is no negotiating with these people. They are irrational and bent one one thing only - the destruction of America. You don't try peaceful resolution with people whose goal it is to destroy you. The chance of a peaceful resolution is zero. Saddam has kicked out UN weapons inspectors too many times to count - and it's not like those inspectors were given real access anyway. Peace, given the current situation is a pipe-dream. Live in the real world and realize that a time comes when peace is no longer viable.

And no, the US has not made a habit of destroying a regime and leaving. Just look at Afghanistan. The US is currently very active in region-stabilization and clearing the way for a less oppressive government. There is no reason to believe the US will just destroy Saddam and leave the region a mess. If you listened to American leaders, you would know that they are commited to the region for the long haul. And seriously, not thinking of the consequences? This plan has been brewing, probably before Bush even took office. The threat of Saddam is not a new one, and I think after 2 years the consequences of such an action have been contemplated.

OK, I'm sure the feelings were genuine. Yes, other nations have dealt with terrorism in the past (although not on nearly as grand of a scale.) But you have to see that when the US resolves to actually do something about it, the support sublimes into nothingness. All of the tough talk we heard out of the EU nations after 9/11 gave me the impression that they would back swift military action against A) the terrorists, and B) those who harbor them, as laid out in the Bush doctrine.

Thanks for the welcome to the fight on terror. Please don't stand in the way of us actually wanting to do something about it. Don't forget that some of your fellow countrymen were likely lost as well.

[Switch]

Warning: RANT

Originally posted by metalhead
First of all, Bush was not "hiding away in some bunker." He returned to Washington, I believe either late that night or early the next day. What he was really doing was flying a zig-zag route and landing periodically in remote locations in order to shake any terrorists aiming for AF1. On 9/12, he was standing at ground zero with his arm around a soot-covered construction worker and a bullhorn in his hand. Not exactly a "bunker". More of a smoking grave for 3,000 Americans.

True

And no, frankly, it is not gung-ho enough for me. There is no negotiating with these people. They are irrational and bent one one thing only - the destruction of America.

Just America? So terrorists aren't concerned about other parts of the world, like Beijing, Irish Catholics/Protestants, or other major areas and/or situations?

And no, the US has not made a habit of destroying a regime and leaving. Just look at Afghanistan. The US is currently very active in region-stabilization and clearing the way for a less oppressive government. There is no reason to believe the US will just destroy Saddam and leave the region a mess.

True.

Yes, other nations have dealt with terrorism in the past (although not on nearly as grand of a scale.)

Anyone who doesn't consider WWII terrorism (citizens and soldiers alike were scared) has something wrong in their head. Hitler and his Nazis killed, oh, how many people? ~6 million? No wait, that was just the Jews. 3 million? Or was that for the other kinds of people that Hitler had a distaste for?

Not that I'm making light of 9/11, but you have to realize that there have been terrorist disasters and massacres before, and 9/11 wasn't the biggest one.

Whether you consider Hitler's acts terrorism or not, that doesn't change the fact that Europe has suffered far worse.

Sorry, if my rant was offensive, or just offensively long, please do not take any offense, as none was meant.
I'm only trying to disprove a point not backed up before hand with facts.


And BTW, Traelin, I also meant no offensive with the "stupid hypocracy" comment. I was just annoyed, as it were.

[Demerzel]

Yes british lives were lost in the 9/11 tragedy as were many other nationalities, we all participated in the terror and the sorrow in the aftermath. surely that means you shouldnt look down upon us?

They are irrational and bent one one thing only - the destruction of America.

you've proved my point in one single sentence. just how egotistical are you? iraq & other nations are all out to get you is that it? don't make me laugh. they are in it for their own interests, not to destroy the "might good ol' USA".

re. 9/11 - you must be joking right? we've not lost life on the same scale? so you've suffered more? is not one life lost an absolute tragedy? we should feel humble that we've been lucky and only lost maybe hundreds or a mere thousand lives? the f*cking arrogance of your statement is scary. the 9/11 tragedy was horrible for the terrible loss of life that occured on just the one day ( imagine a country that has to lose life constantly over years and surpass the loss over that time ). Imagine Israeli citizens that lose their friend & relatives daily. 9/11 was for other countries 20 years of terrorism compiled into 1 day - that was why it has stood up in the public's imagination as it has. It doesn't mean we have suffered less than you. We have endured emotional trauma for years and years, your lack of sympathy for us is quite telling.

What he was really doing was flying a zig-zag route and landing periodically in remote locations in order to shake any terrorists aiming for AF1

just how likely is it that terrorists could track AF1 in airplanes or in the ground? did mayor guillani dodge from place to place? no, he was there on the scene, the terrorists hit with one medium of attack - the airliner. once the airports were locked down within an hour of the strike, their method of destruction was taken away from them. why bush had to go on hiding then is beyond me...

If you're committed to working long-term, exactly what percentage of the peacekeeping troops in Bosnia are American? A fair few are French & English IIRC. How many British troops were ( before Turkey took over )/are peacekeeping in Afghanistan? Ever since Vietnam, the American government has gone out of its way to avoid deploying ground troops in another country for any period of time. Other nations have to take up the slack, normally EU troops. We don't mind providing support in the ways we can except when you scorn our contribution.

The EU backed action against Afghanistan but, for some unbelievable reason, want to see proof of terrorist action elsewhere before they deploy troops to fight it. Unbelievable isn't it? We rational people don't feel the need to obliterate every other people at the slightest provocation.

You're welcome to go after terrorists as you wish but remember how you criticised us in the past for doing the same as you're doing now. You can't have it both ways, you can't claim to be the world's policeman but then shirk the responsibility when it gets nasty. You can't go after nations with no real proof when you've stood aloof in the past and criticised.

Oh yes re. Saddam, you could have removed him in 1990 if you wished but you chose not to because the coalition would have fallen apart as it will now if you try something. Remember America that your will is not dominant, you have to keep your allies and generally allies support their friends unless they have a good not to. If you're wrong, we won't support you regardless how much we're "cowards" suddenly

We all have to deal with terrorism, we just don't want to be talked down to by Americans who haven't experienced half the sh*t we have.

[N. Machiavelli]

We're getting *slightly* off-topic here....

Can both 'sides' of the OT ranting grind their axe an another forum?


*EDIT: Spelling

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by metalhead
On 9/12, he was standing at ground zero with his arm around a soot-covered construction worker and a bullhorn in his hand. Not exactly a "bunker". More of a smoking grave for 3,000 Americans.

Incorrect. That event was on 9/14.
Off-topic discussion of Bush and Iraq here:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...ight=terrorism

[Zachriel]

"In honour I gained them, and in honour I will die with them."
- Horatio Nelson, when asked to cover the stars on his uniform. He refused to hide knowing his true value was in the display of physical courage in the face of danger, the same danger his sailors had to meet. Shortly later he was mortally wounded by an enemy sharpshooter, the day of his greatest naval victory at Trafalgar.

[Demerzel]

3 days to get to NY? Did Bush hitchhike or something? Anyone else want to deny he was cowardly hiding away?

[Switch]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
We're getting *slightly* off-topic here....

Can both 'sides' of the OT ranting grind their axe an another forum?


*EDIT: Spelling

Slightly?

But you're right. This is neither the time nor place for such arguments.

Remember, this is a discussion about the realism of Civ3's Global Warming effect.

As I've stated, no, it isn't really realistic. And the fact that a game made for realism is using a theory as a part in its mechanics is kinda funny. Might as well use evolution (please, may an argument not come from this ) or the theory of everything (which are more suitable to a sci-fi game like SMAC, which actually did have Global Warming and the theory of everything ).

[N. Machiavelli]

Is there any way to completely eliminate pollution from the game. I'm working on a scenario and pollution as it's represented really doesn't have a place in it.
What I did was:
-Remove all pollution additions from city improvements.
-Give every city a Mass Transportation (name escapes me at the moment) system, which is supposed to eliminate pollution caused from population, isn't it?

Unfortunatly, the cities still crank out 1 pollution point after reaching a certain size and still pollute tiles every so often. Is there a way to remove this totally? Am I just missing something?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by SwitchMoO Remember, this is a discussion about the realism of Civ3's Global Warming effect.

As I've stated, no, it isn't really realistic.

Global warming is represented in the game by desertification, which is a real and scientifically undisputed modern phenomena. Just don't call it global warming. It's just pollution and overpopulation slowly making the planet uninhabitable.

[sabrewolf]

off-topic (sorry):

metalhead & Traelin: why do so many of your people believe the propaganda (yes, propaganda) spread by the current government and media?

is it because dubya speaks so slow and sais no facts in his speaches (typical sales&marketing-style)? so even the stupidest redneck can understand him?
is it, because no other western nation has developed so much nationalism some european countries in the 1930s?

if you'd have access to world news and would watch it (which probably noone would care about anyway), maybe you'd see other opinions. and maybe even consider them too...?!?

what i want to say: don't believe everything someone on TV sais, no matter if he's a president, secretary of whatever or just a journalist...


a bit on-topic:

yes, there is no statistical or mathematical proof, that the current global warming is caused by man. but somethings can't be proven until it's too late... and believe me - i don't want to live in a destroyed world, just because some frickin' short term thinking governements (not just the US... iirc australia, canada & others don't agree either) are worried about the consequences.


on-topic:
civ3-polition-effects should be changed.
ideas could be:
- flooding of coastal or river-cities.
- growth (not only random appearing) of tundra and deserts
- poluted water and rivers (-1 commerce) for e.g. 20 turns.
- poluted squares not cleaned in the first 5 turns cannot be cleaned for the next 20 turns (you can remove the oil carpet.. but if it soaks in the soil, the land is unusable

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Sleestax
If Firaxis is going to put in the scientifically questionable concept of human induced global warming, then they should also allow for off-setting it with the increasing of CO2 consuming forests.

I agree that forests would be a very nice balancing factor to global warming. Forests within city limits could help with local pollution too.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by SwitchMoO
Might as well use evolution (please, may an argument not come from this )

Civ is very much a game of evolution, the evolution of human civilization from simpler forms to more complex structures over long periods of time. For thousands of years the idea that society could evolve was considered heresy.

[Wormwood]

Originally posted by Traelin


So tell me, Tiberius..do you think ALL the Senators support the oil industry? Do you think our politicians enjoy importing oil from the wackos in the MidEast? Hrm, again do your research on how PACs work in this country, which ones funnel their coffers to which candidates, and how those candidates actually vote. Do you think Al Gore and Gray Davis, two very liberal environmentalists, support the oil industry?

In May 2001 the Bush Administration was giving money to the Taliban government. It wanted to insure that there was a stable governement in the area before american oil interests began laying down pipelines. What I get from this is that the Bush administration was fine with the brutal, oppressive Taliban, so long as it didn't interfere with oil. There goes the moral high ground. I think politicians don't mind dealing with wackos and despots, so long as they are stable wackos and don't interefere with business as usual. Sorry for keeping this thread off-topic.

[Traelin]

This is the last OT post I'll make on this subject (unless you all rile me up again! )

Whoa whoa, I am well aware of the hypocrasy of politicians in general (i.e., regardless of what country they represent). I am also well aware of our support to "questionable" regimes in the past. The best example is the financial/military aid we gave to Iraq so they could match the U.S.S.R.'s support of Iran. It sucks, but it's life that politicians are bottom-dwellers.

My point was that it is virtually unprecedented to see the ENTIRE Senate vote one way. Such a vote generally supercedes the affects of PACs, money, etc. in the political process for that particular vote. It speaks to the fact that Kyoto is NOT good (nor fair) to the U.S.

I also want to make it clear that I actually ally myself with the Independents, in that I agree with views from both parties. I don't ally myself with Bush, but there's no way in hell I'd ally myself with Clinton either. I generally vote for the lesser of two evils, but oh well. Either way, it is absolutely inane for anyone to assert that Bush was hiding on 9/11. Good God, we need to have our leaders safe at that time! I have an idea for those dissenting from my view...why don't you tell your leaders to be the men/women on the front lines during a time of crisis? Hrm better yet, why didn't we tell Roosevelt, Churchill, etc. to have a wrestling match with Hitler to determine the fate of WW2? Sheesh, freaking silliest thing I've ever heard to think Bush was hiding. Duh, we need our leaders ALIVE, not KIA.

OK just one more OT point. I agree that terrorism in any form and in ANY country is God-awful. God forbid anything like the IRA, 9/11, Israeli/Palestinian conflict continues unabated. But PLEASE PLEASE can we stop the country-bashing on ALL sides? I mean we all love our countries and nationalism in its current U.S. form is a good thing. Let's just agree to disagree which country is best! And if you don't like the U.S. at all, don't buy our damn games! Just kidding just kidding!



WRT Global Warming and C3, what's the chances they will amend the current functionality of the U.N.? I'd really like to see a Global "Clean Up Pollution" treaty, a "Stop Your War Against X Third Party" treaty, etc. I mean it's usually never my fault that an entire continent is desertified, it's the AI using nukes and building crappy power plants.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Zachriel
I agree that forests would be a very nice balancing factor to global warming. Forests within city limits could help with local pollution too.

Forests do help prevent global warming in a round-about way. If global warming happens to a forest square, the forest dies rather than demoting the unerlying terrain. So grassland stays grassland, rather than becoming plains.

[Demerzel]

I love the way that the US ( amongst others, us probably included too sadly ) sold weapons to the Iraqi's for years and years but only decided that Saddam was evil and should be removed once the threat of losing their oil supplies reared its ugly head.

if the USA had been really serious about removing Saddam they wouldn't have lead on the Kurds with promises of support after the Gulf War had ended. Sadly when the Kurds rose up in rebellion and were controlling nearly two-thirds of the country, the US failed to give the support they promised and Saddam crushed the rebellion.

that was real nice work there Mr Bush Snr!

sadly most politicans can easily turn a blind eye when they choose - consider the Kuwaitis & Saudi Arabians. Both are run by a small ruling family with hardly any rights for women & no real chance of democracy, torture apparently was plentiful in Kuwait after the end of the Gulf War. Yet due to the fact they can export oil to the "developed" world, they are welcomed into polite society.

Speaking of fundraising coffers, I watch the West Wing often and it often makes me laugh just how much "corruption" is inbuilt into the system. Senators seem to be so "bought" by the people that paid for them to get in, that companies ( whether oil, tobacco or media ) can seemingly buy themselves a senator in order to get the laws they want and the "democracy" they choose.

"Remember senator about that money we donated? Well there is a bill out there that will hurt us a lot whilst doing the public a little good. You'll kill that bill for us won't you Senator? Ah good man! Here's some more money to keep you going..."

Isn't that what they call a prostitute? Or am I thinking politician? I always get them confused


by the way there is a difference between keeping your leader safe and keeping him hidden from all view. I seem to recall the US President getting a fair deal of flack from the media for his non-appearance for several days after the attack. Why not appear in NY later that day? Why not the next morning? Why did it take several days for him to appear?

As I said, there is a fine line between being sensible and using caution and running away from the situation. The latter seems to be the side of the line bush sought.

oh by the way using absurd arguments to try to ridicule what i have to say is proving how weak your case is. A leader can often lead from the front but in recent times he has to be seen and hiding away isn't going to help morale is it after such a terrible tragedy?

and back on topic, i'd like to be able to tell the ai's to fecking clean up pollution. i'm sick of having to "invade" their territory with my workers to clean up their mess.

[metalhead]

Originally posted by Demerzel
by the way there is a difference between keeping your leader safe and keeping him hidden from all view. I seem to recall the US President getting a fair deal of flack from the media for his non-appearance for several days after the attack. Why not appear in NY later that day? Why not the next morning? Why did it take several days for him to appear?

This is all I will reply to in deference to those who have asked to stay on topic. Sorry for the rants people!

There were few in the liberal US media who tried to make this same argument - that Bush was being a coward by not immediately flying to Washington, and rather "zig-zagging" to be SAFE! At the time 9/11 went down, nobody knew anything. For all we knew, there were al-Qaeda on the ground in Georgia with SAM's waiting to shoot down AF1! Everyone in the US knew that the libs were WAY off base trying to label Bush as a coward for not flying directly to Washington after the attack. We all saw through it - now could you please do the same and not post about it anymore? I will gladly continue the rest of this discussion elsewhere if you wish, preferably in a more civil manner. Not that I don't like a good tussle, but.... enough is enough when you are OT.

Back on topic: Given that global warming will be a part of Civ games, I think it should be handled better. I liked how in Civ2 you could completely eliminate pollution in your cities by building the proper improvements - in Civ3, no matter what you build, to maximize productivity, you must put up with 2 triangles of pollution in each of your cities. This is a part of the game that screams to be enabled in the editor. I think they should include 5-10 future era techs - things such as gene therapy, hydrogen propulsion, etc. could be added after the modern age, instead of the thoroughly useless Future Tech.

For example - a small wonder Hydrogen Fuel (stupid name for a wonder, I know, but the concept is good!) eliminates all pollution in your cities. Tack it on to the end of the Modern Era, or into a Future Era would be cool and help eliminate some of the annoyance of pollution. After all, Algore claims the internal combustion engine to be the bane of the environment, give us a way to eliminate it and shut him up