Global Warming. It would be nice if...

[Catt]

I tried and tried to not join the OT garbarge of this thread, but fell victim to the trolls . . .

Originally posted by Demerzel
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!

An alternate view of how events transpired is that the US was under unbelievable pressure to not march on Baghdad. Having spent so much energy and political capital on building an incredibly broad-based coalition to counter Iraqi aggression, it became unbearable for America to take action against the wishes of so many coalition partners.

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.

Well, you must obviously have a truly exceptional understanding of American politics and governance given your extensive experience.

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.

Actually, there was a fair amount of press attention to the fact that Bush didn't go to NY right away for the right reasons. No, he didn't show up until 9/14, but he also wasn't "cowardly" hiding until that time either. He was in Florida at the time of the attacks - at the urging of the Secret Service and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he boarded Air Force One, and proceeded to 3 different air force bases while in the meantime domestic security services and military forces tried to get a handle on the security situation at home. Later in the afternoon, over-ruling the Secret Service and his advisors, he insisted on returning to Washington that day. He offered any assistance to NY that the Federal Governement could give, and expressed a desire to come to NY - but after consulting with local officials (Giuliani in particular) concluded that a presidential visit would do more harm than good.

The decision to delay visiting NY until 9/14 was made for 2 principal reasons: politics and practicalities. Politically, the administration didn't want to be seen "exploiting" the attacks for domestic political gain. Practically, NY authorities shared the view with the White House that a presidential visit, with all the hoopla, press coverage and security precautions necessary, would greatly impede the continuing rescue operations - this was at a time, remember, when the hope for finding survivors amid the rubble remained vibrant.

To ascribe the motivations of the physical movement of a modern-day American president to personal cowardice (or bravery, for that matter) on the part of the president is to display an alarmingly glaring lack of basic intelligence regarding modern representative, democratic politics and governance.

Demerzel - what metalhead posted may have been offensive and ignorant (it was, and doesn't deserve a response), but it doesn't give you a free pass to also be ignorant and offensive.

One final observation - while Europe has experienced terrorism on its own land (as opposed to remote embassy bombings and the like) for many, many years (unlike the US), the 9/11 attack was a much different animal. The IRA in Ulster, the Basque separatists in Spain, the Red Army Factions in Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy, and numerous other smaller and less-well known organizations striking at European targets primarily in the 70s and 80s have one thing in common that differentiates them completely from the terrorism of 9/11 - the European incarnations of terrorism are / were made up largely of native citizens who object to the status quo in their native countries, whether it be political control or political decision-making, and these native citizens decided to take up violent means in an effort to change said status quo (even if these citizens were cynically financed by others having no interest in the end objective). The 9/11 attacks were carried out by an organization that opposes the US, and the "West" in general, not because its views differ from those in control and its people are subject to the decrees of those in control, but rather because it has determined that those in control are evil, contrary to God, and deserve no say whatsoever in any discussion. It is not completely outside the pale to conclude that the 9/11 attacks were the start of a war that must be won or lost, a war that cannot be mediated nor brought to a truce in the manner that any of the past (and present) European struggles with terrorism you cite may be concluded.

A US attack on Iraq is a slightly different subject than a war on terrorism; both you and metalhead have confused the two subjects, and confused them far more than even the sometimes verbose US politicians have done.

Catt

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Catt
One final observation - while Europe has experienced terrorism on its own land (as opposed to remote embassy bombings and the like) for many, many years (unlike the US), the 9/11 attack was a much different animal. The IRA in Ulster, the Basque separatists in Spain, the Red Army Factions in Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy, and numerous other smaller and less-well known organizations striking at European targets primarily in the 70s and 80s have one thing in common that differentiates them completely from the terrorism of 9/11

Well thought-out post, Catt! I admit I do enjoy friendly political banter, and I also enjoy learning a bit about other cultures' histories. Sad to say I don't know too much about those factions you mentioned in your post. I'm wondering if any of you know of good, objective books to read on the topics? I wasn't a History major in school, but I've always have a strong desire to learn as much as I can.

On Topic: I think we're all in agreement that it is utterly ANNOYING to clean up the AI's messes. It's almost hilarious (but only ALMOST) to watch my brigade of workers clean up the remnants of nukes in the middle of a continental wasteland. Or even better, for the AI to gripe at me for sending my workers in to do the deed! I love this game and can't get enough of it, but God what I'd do for a souped-up, SMACish-style UN. Here's the things I'd like to see the UN do:

-- "Clean up your damn pollution mess" treaty;
-- "Stop attacking X third party" treaty;
-- "No using nukes (and making an even bigger mess)" treaty;
-- An alternative to the "Clean up mess" treaty would be suffering hefty fines for each polluted square per turn. Give the offending parties like 2 years to clean up the spot, then start slapping fines on the offenders. If they don't have the money to do it, then make it work like when you don't have the cash to maintain troops. That'll give 'em incentive;
-- Maybe not doable, but yet another alternative to the "Clean up mess" treaty would be to "lease" another civ's workers;
-- "No city razing" treaty. This of course excludes when you have no choice but to "liberate" a city of size 1.

I know there's a ton of other things I'm just forgetting. Two interesting diplomacy options I'd like to see, but that are way off topic, are:

-- Giving troops to a civ;
-- Stop stationing your damned troops along my borders! I dunno how this would work though. It's more of a cosmetic thing to me; I'm just sick of watching wasted moves.

[YC4B4U]

This has got to be the best thread I have read in ages. I was beginning to think there was no life here!

With respect to Global Warming - The weather is much like the Civ 3 random number generator. It seems to be landing on certain numbers more than others (ie the case were the tank keeps losing to the spearman). Therefore you can read into things if you don't look at the entire picture (ie the average over many games of tanks winning and losing against the spearman).

This is the case with the weather - we don't really know if global warming is occuring because we need to get more data (Australian temperatures have only been recorded daily for the last 140 or so years) and get the view over many games...

In game:-

Increasing size of deserts due to global warming rather than random tiles = excellent idea
Global pollution pacts = excellent idea
Global coalition to attack heavy polluters = excellent idea
Future tech to reduce pollution = good idea
Ocean to sea to coast to desert = isn't this backwards (Forest to Grassland to Plains to desert which if near ocean becomes coast to sea to ocean)

Other Ideas
Trade emabago's based on pollution levels.

Lets keep the discussion going - "United States is the biggest polluter because its citizens give arguements that stink"

Have fun

[Tiberius]

On topic:

Forest to Grassland to Plains to desert, then increasing size of deserts
Global pollution pacts
Global embargo against heavy polluters
Future tech to reduce pollution (not only future techs but also some future wonders or small wonders)
Reforestation pact

...and to keep the off topic discussion flowing

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.

The fact that the USA is producing ~ 25% of the world's pollution is not fair either.

I think that we could agree that pollution should be reduced, Kyoto or not, global warming or not, don't we?

[vondrack]

Catt, that was some very fine post!

Reading through this thread, I felt an urging need to say something wise that would calm down emotions on both sides... until I came to your post. Now, I just state that I agree 100% with what you said (and I am not an American, so there is no patriotism involved on my side... just reason).

If you fall victim to trolls in this way, than feel free to fall any time, PLEASE!

[Kuciwalker]

I've got probably the best example of the U.S. keeping troops in for a long period of time and working to build democracy in a country - GERMANY AND JAPAN.

Hellooooooooo people - we CAN do it.

[metalhead]

Originally posted by YC4B4U
"United States is the biggest polluter because its citizens give arguements that stink"

That's a really funny quote!

What metalhead posted may have been offensive and ignorant (it was, and doesn't deserve a response)

Catt, my posts may have been (were) offensive, but I'm not sure about ignorant. And seeing as they seem to have sparked the current debate, I doubt that they didn't deserve a response, either

The fact that the USA is producing ~ 25% of the world's pollution is not fair either.

I think that we could agree that pollution should be reduced, Kyoto or not, global warming or not, don't we?

First, it is fair. The vast majority of our pollution is only going to impact us. If global warming IS going on, then you would have a point. But wait until there is hard evidence that our pollution has some serious international impact before claiming that it isn't fair.

Second, it is not up to the world to tell us to clean up pollution. Reducing pollution is a great goal to strive for. But, international pressure should not force the US to sign a pollution reduction treaty that virtually every single elected official disagrees with. If a treaty is important to the international community, then draw one up that is more equitable, instead of bashing the US for not signing one that isn't fair. We should pledge to reduce pollution, but not in a way that isn't fair to all parties involved.

[Catt]

Originally posted by metalhead

Catt, my posts may have been (were) offensive, but I'm not sure about ignorant. And seeing as they seem to have sparked the current debate, I doubt that they didn't deserve a response, either

I labeled them ignorant because: (1) you mistated facts more than once in trying to bolster your argument; and (2) you ascribe to all of Europe the views and opinions of some Europeans.

I said that they don't deserve a response because this "discussion" belongs in the Off-Topic Forum, not in a Civ 3 General Discussions thread about the game mechanics of global warming.

You were provoked, I acknowledge, for it seems that Demerzel feels free to label any policy or policy-maker with which he disagrees as "stupid" and "arrogant" (nice irony, huh ). I can certainly chose to agree (or disagree) with America's stance on the Kyoto treaty, and I can certainly chose to agree (or disagree) with America's stance on the ICC - and I expect to be able to argue why my position makes sense without reflexively being labeled as stupid and arrogant by those who hold a different view.

My point is that you all ought to take the debate to the OT Forum. (I admitted in my post that I failed in trying to resist the trolling by posting a substantive argument back to Demerzel's posts).

Catt

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Catt
I labeled them ignorant because: . . . and I expect to be able to argue why my position makes sense without reflexively being labeled as stupid and arrogant by those who hold a different view.
Catt

And that argument belongs of Off Off-Topic Topic discussion forum, probably under the "Reflexive reponses to off-topic trolling behavior" thread.

That's a big

And this post belongs in the "spam" forum or the deleted bin. Sorry.

[planetfall]

I don't know how to eliminate all pollution effects; however, you can eliminate all "global warming" effects. Previous poster was correct a better description of this would be desertification or global polllution rather than global warming. What seems to be have missed {unless on page 1} was you have to go into the editor and change global warming effect to none for the terrain type.. You will still see occasional message "Global warming turned grassland into desert", but glassland will still be grassland.

--PF

[RedBird]

Originally posted by metalhead
Humans have raised the greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere by less than 2%. Nature produces more than 50 times the amount of greenhouse gases than humans.

At least redundancy is alive and well.

[Sleestax]

A lot of good ideas in this thread. Well, a lot from the on-topic replies that is.

I especially liked the idea of pollution treaties and the localized pollution effects.

It would be great if pollution reduced population, productivity, and/or commerce until dealt with. It would be even better if a polluted river tile caused all other tiles "downstream" to also be affected to one extent or another.

The treaty idea is interesting. It would definitely add to the game. It would be cool to use the UN to force a civ to clean up it's act or to face sanctions from all other civs.

Now, the real question is, do we think Firaxis is going to actually listen to or implement any of these ideas if we get one of their game designers to see the suggestions?

[metalhead]

Originally posted by RedBird
At least redundancy is alive and well.

When you're used to dealing with idiots, repeating youself and spelling things out in easy-to-understand terms becomes a reflex. Thanks for adding to the discussion

I think the global warming effect was one of the many hastily-thrown-together features of this game. Too bad it's one of the ones that will probaly not be altered any time soon. The down-the-river pollution idea is an excellent idea, I'd like to see it implemented. Right now, I feel pollution's effects are too limited, to the point that I don't even worry about it. My workers clean it up quickly, and I can handle a few more deserts/plains and fewer grasslands. Maybe if they made pollution stick around for a minimum amount of time no matter how many workers cleaned it, like maybe 5 turns, it would be well worth the time and expense to combat it. Of course, it would be necessary to add an improvement that completely eliminated a city's pollution.

The treaty idea, while interesting, may be beyond the scope of the game. There are many areas of this game that seem to be simplified when taken on their own, notably diplomacy and combat. I for one think that strategic treaties, siege-type battle strategies, "for the good of the world" deals such as pollution control would be great to add into the mix. Unfortunately, the casual gamer will likely be turned off by the massive complexity of all these features, and by adding them, Firaxis will have alienated their target audience.

My point is that you all ought to take the debate to the OT Forum.

I said the same thing several posts ago - I guess I shouldn't have expected anyone to listen, given the proclivity of most to ignore or not read most of what is written

[Objectivist]

Hmm, some interesting ideas in terms of gameplay in this thread. The Treaty ideas seem interesting, but if your strong enough you can easily take the position of "Oh, yea? Try and Make me." in regards to any treaty that the U.N. is trying to cram down your throat.
A security council veto to any treaty (not just the ones that involve you) could also be an interesting option if your one of the three potentail diplomatic victory candidiates. Personally if the U.N. was pissing me off I would withdraw from it, and if that was not an option I would just invade the civ that created it and burn that wonder to ashes, as it so rightly deserves.

In addition the global warming idea is very poorly implimented in Civ3. 60 million years ago, after the dinosaurs had gone extinct, the Earth was a good 20 degrees warmer then it is now. The Earth was covered in rain forest from pole to pole due to increased sea water evaporation rates. By Civ3 logic the entire world should have been a desert. Finally it seems to me that nuclear pollution should help counteract global warming instead of causing it. The Billions of tons of dust from any nuclear impact would block out the sun and lower the global temperature. An easy way to impliment this would be to have an average temp gauge and to have regular pollution increase the temp and to have nuclear impacts lower the temp. (While having more serious side effects from the radiation, such as lowering the productivity of terrain square for 50 turns after an impact or something like that).

Finally, even if global warming is a legitimate problem, which I doubt since every honest inquiry that I've seen so far says that it isnt, the best solutions will arise with time and technological development. The reason fossil fuels are used currently is that they provide the best combination of convinence and cost. Eventually fossil fuels will cease to be the best available fuel option and they will naturally fade out from use. Government intervention is not necessary to solve this "problem" regardless of what any American or European craven, state worshipping, arm-chair dictator might think.

[des-esseintes]

Nukes to combat pollution ...

[Sovereign]

Nukes cooling down the world, eh?

I wonder if when sea levels rise by 2 meters, then the USA or Russia thinks "Oh crap!" and decides to shoot like 10 nukes or more, then in 10 years, the world turns into an Ice Ball, like Pluto or Hoth (From Star Wars).

[vmxa1]

Too bad this thread degenerated into polictics. One might consider that we do not have enough information to make a determination about Warming. Recorded history for weather systems is only a 100-200 years. That is nothing in terms the earth. Many warmings and coolings have occurred before modern men. It may or may not be happening at this time and we may or may not be able to impact it. We seem to jump on many fixes that blow up in are faces. Recall all of the "natural" defense that have been imported here to correct one thing or another and made things worse.

Anyway back to Civ3, I would like to see the AI have some awareness of its pollution or at least make only it suffer. I can see pollution on tiles for years and no attempt to remove them and no reducers are built in the larger cities.