Eco balance. Global warming.

[SilverMoonFlare]

Here’s an actual “quality over quantity” idea. Not a civilization but a feature that will affect gameplay. Local eco balance (only your civ is affected) and global eco balance (the whole world with every civ and city state are affected).
Here’s how it will work: each map starts with a large amount of eco points (eco points = eco balance). Cities, citizens, some buildings and some actions (usage of nuclear weapons will take away a huge amount of eco points, chopping down forests) will take eco points away. When your local eco balance is high – your civ will get a small happiness bonus. Negative local eco balance – penalty for happiness and a negative modifier for diplomacy with every civ but only if they have a positive local eco balance. Forests within city range will give a small amount of eco points.
Local eco balance of every civilization will affect global eco balance (a sum of every civs local eco balance). If global eco balance is negative – every civilization and city state will get a large growth penalty and production penalty. Global warming will strike after a set amount of turns with negative global eco balance. Global warming will turn grasslands into plains, plains into deserts, tiles near rivers will turn into swamps. Random ice near polar caps will melt and some coastline tiles will disappear under water. The longer the world stays with negative eco balance the more it’s getting damaged. Positive global eco balance will give a small amount of food for every civ and city state.
Several buildings should be introduced: recycling station, sewage treatment plant, parks, etc...Some of these buildings will give a set amount of eco points, some will give eco points for nearby forests. A new tile improvement can be introduced: environmental monitoring station. A new national wonder can be introduced too (can’t figure out what it will be. Maybe a zoo or a center for disease control). Workers will be able to plant forests if a required technology has been researched. A new unit will be introduced: Terraformer. Very high building cost. Very high maintenance cost. Only a few are allowed per civ. It has the ability to terraform any tile but it will take some time. Turn deserts back to grasslands, turn oceans into islands, etc...Terraformer should be linked to future tech. Future tech should also give a small amount of eco points (future tech is totally useless in its current state. Oh...and don’t forget to remove that stupid George W. Bush quote).
A scenario will be nice too. Back to Eden: restore the world after World War III. The world lies in ruins, nuclear fallout is everywhere and only a few small cities left. Restore the world and clean it from pollution while defending against raiders, mutants and other post-apocalyptic crap and uniting other cities under your control.
What do you think about my idea?

[MadHawk1036]

No thanks.

[Shiav]

Sounds like AC to me. I'd love it. Many people, however, have been led to believe Global Warming is controversial. The more intelligent among them realise that yes, the earth is warming but no, we are not the cause of it. Arguments on both sides. I take the same stance here as I do with religion, better safe than sorry, and that warm fuzzy feeling I get inside when doing good is occasionally nice.

but keep the GB quote, just to remind people every time they get it who they elected.

[stethnorun]

Yeah, no thanks. We get enough "green" religion in our culture as it is. Don't need more propaganda.

[Ahhuatl]

Sounds like a great idea, of course it may be too complicated for some stupid people - just like in real life.

[SilverMoonFlare]

Sounds like AC to me. I'd love it. Many people, however, have been led to believe Global Warming is controversial. The more intelligent among them realise that yes, the earth is warming but no, we are not the cause of it. Arguments on both sides. I take the same stance here as I do with religion, better safe than sorry, and that warm fuzzy feeling I get inside when doing good is occasionally nice.

but keep the GB quote, just to remind people every time they get it who they elected.

It's actually a mix between some previous Civ games and SMAC. Global warming was a part of Civ2 and Civ4. Don't know about Civ3 and Civ1.

[stethnorun]

It's actually a mix between some previous Civ games and SMAC. Global warming was a part of Civ2 and Civ4. Don't know about Civ3 and Civ1.

Pretty sure it wasn't in Civ 4, actually.

EDIT: Oh nevermind, yeah it was.

[stethnorun]

Sounds like a great idea, of course it may be too complicated for some stupid people - just like in real life.

I actually find that ignorance is quite common on the so called "green" side of things. The people that are skeptical are most often the ones looking at the data with a critical eye. People that just "believe" in man-made global warming treat it more like a religion, complete with the same guilt relief of doing things that alleviate their "sins".

[theis81]

Even though I do believe in global warming I don't see a place for it in civ. It's only the last 10 years in has really made an impact on earth and not that much yet. So adding it would simply be a late game feature that is way to complicated and adds nothing of interest to the game.

I rather add health again. It was a severe issue that kept population down throughout ages, keeping forests around, building certain buildings and nuclear ussage could affect health. Kind og like in Civ4, where it worked very well.

[Bomberross]

I love the idea of global warming in the game, although it may be a better idea for a conversion mod. Leave the Bush quote in there...it makes me smile and reminds me how lucky I was not to live in the states during those years.

[SilverMoonFlare]

Even though I do believe in global warming I don't see a place for it in civ. It's only the last 10 years in has really made an impact on earth and not that much yet. So adding it would simply be a late game feature that is way to complicated and adds nothing of interest to the game.

I rather add health again. It was a severe issue that kept population down throughout ages, keeping forests around, building certain buildings and nuclear ussage could affect health. Kind og like in Civ4, where it worked very well.

Health was implemented...sort of. It was streamlined into oblivion. Buildings just give more food. We can theorize that growth buildings (aqueduct, hospital, etc...) are eliminating negative health. It’s just a rather complicated gameplay element and the whole point of Civ5 was accessibility. I would love too see health return but the possibility of this happening is very low
I disagree about my idea being too complicated and not adding anything. It works just like global happiness. The only thing that matters is balance. If the numbers are set correctly any civ will be able to have a negative local eco balance early in the game. And it will still affect diplomacy. Imagine that you are an ambassador in a dirty city which is devastated by a plague, citizens smelling like pigs and no basic sanitation. And every city is like that. Nobody would want to trade with that civilization. Global eco balance is a late game mechanic. Every civilization will suffer if someone (numerous civs) doesn’t want to care about the environment. It’s like health from Civ4. Reworked but the main idea is the same. Maybe a growth penalty for negative local eco balance? Not a huge one like the one with negative global eco balance. But high enough so that the player and AI civs would need to control their local eco balance.

I love the idea of global warming in the game, although it may be a better idea for a conversion mod. Leave the Bush quote in there...it makes me smile and reminds me how lucky I was not to live in the states during those years.

For me it just doesn't fit future tech. It's still funny but something else would be more appropriate. Like this one: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke

[IrishSamurai]

I proposed a Late Game expansion in a different thread, with global warming, bioterrorism, futuristic and near future units, etc. Regardless of the controversial argument, i think it would add to the late game while you're skipping turns waiting for that Science Victory or what have you (Can you finish the rocket before your coastal cities flood, etc). At least a scenario for those of us looking for a more futuristic and perhaps post apocalyptic experience.

[SilverMoonFlare]

I proposed a Late Game expansion in a different thread, with global warming, bioterrorism, futuristic and near future units, etc. Regardless of the controversial argument, i think it would add to the late game while you're skipping turns waiting for that Science Victory or what have you (Can you finish the rocket before your coastal cities flood, etc). At least a scenario for those of us looking for a more futuristic and perhaps post apocalyptic experience.

Modern and Future eras don't feel good enough. There's not a lot going on. About a future era expansion - it's a great idea. But i would prefer an Alpha Centauri-like approach. EA has the rights to SMAC so Firaxis won't be able to create another SMAC. But they could create an expansion that will start when the spaceship gets to Alpha Centauri. Future technology and units, designing new units, new hazards, extraterrestrials, cities on water, new victory conditions...there's a lot of great sci-fi things in SMAC.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Modern and Future eras don't feel good enough. There's not a lot going on. About a future era expansion - it's a great idea. But i would prefer an Alpha Centauri-like approach. EA has the rights to SMAC so Firaxis won't be able to create another SMAC. But they could create an expansion that will start when the spaceship gets fo Alpha Centauri. Future technology and units, designing new units, new hazards, extraterrestrials, cities on water, new victory conditions...there's a lot of great sci-fi things in SMAC.

Maybe we could convince Maxis to create a new AC after they're done with SimCity?

[craig123]

What do you think about my idea?

No thanks. Sounds like a propaganda game from Greenpeace.

[donald23]

Sounds like Anno 2070...

About the idea, I'm not in favor of the implementation you suggest. I don't believe global warming is man made, but rather something that happens every once in a few ages. It's part of nature and our planet.

[Olek]

It's only the last 10 years in has really made an impact on earth and not that much yet.

Global warming has not just happened in the last 10 years, there have been periods in our history where the temperature has been higher then now, I think it was last in the 1400s, anyway, if i remember correctly, they had us freaking out back in the 70s that we were going to have an ice age and the industrial evolution had begun long before that.
I think there are much better idea's out there to implement, and I'm not really into playing Civ while eating lentils

[SilverMoonFlare]

First of all – it’s a gameplay element. Just like happiness and upcoming religion and espionage. But i don't see any one arguing about being atheist and that religion in games is hurting their feelings. Yes, it has propaganda in it. But it’s not telling you that you are right or wrong. Global warming is just a widely used and popular term to describe things and it was in previous Civ games. And sorry for offending anyone with a limited perception of the world – but humanity is causing a huge amount of damage to the environment from the beginning of times. And for doing so we get diseases, extinction of many species, etc...It’s not a good thing. Such things should be reflected in a game like Civ. Just like religion. Civ4 had health in it. Civ5 has nothing. We are not scientists to argue about how it’s affecting global warming speed or what is causing it. Let’s just talk about the gameplay. If you are ignorant enough not to acknowledge the usage of this term is previous Civ games - find a better name for it.

Maybe we could convince Maxis to create a new AC after they're done with SimCity?

Only if SimCity 5 won't be like SC: Societies or won't be dumbed down to appeal to as many "housewives" as possible.

[eastkitton]

I think this scheme is a well-organised way to implement this particular gameplay element.

Although I don't know why you and Civ 2 want to equate hotter with drier.("plains turn into deserts..."). More evaporation from bodies of water leads to more rainfall and an on-balance wetter world.

Re your terraformer, note this recent post:

I think that the game code itself doesn't handle terraforming very well (requires save/reload), which is something modders have complained about.

[stethnorun]

First of all – it’s a gameplay element. Just like happiness and upcoming religion and espionage. But i don't see any one arguing about being atheist and that religion in games is hurting their feelings. Yes, it has propaganda in it. But it’s not telling you that you are right or wrong. Global warming is just a widely used and popular term to describe things and it was in previous Civ games. And sorry for offending anyone with a limited perception of the world – but humanity is causing a huge amount of damage to the environment from the beginning of times. And for doing so we get diseases, extinction of many species, etc...It’s not a good thing. Such things should be reflected in a game like Civ. Just like religion. Civ4 had health in it. Civ5 has nothing. We are not scientists to argue about how it’s affecting global warming speed or what is causing it. Let’s just talk about the gameplay. If you are ignorant enough not to acknowledge the usage of this term is previous Civ games - find a better name for it.

I'm an atheist and I love religion in Civ. There is a HUGE intellectual difference between adding religion, something that DOES exist and DOES have an impact on society and DOES cause wars and DOES cause a huge number of people to do things differently than if there was no religion, and man-made global warming which may NOT exist and even if it does we have no idea WHY it exists or HOW to affect or if we even CAN affect it.

To put it in easier to understand terms, religion, as added in the expansion, will be about affecting society and culture. If we had added religion as similar to global warming, it wouldn't be about belief and psychology, it would be about angering god. Instead of getting bonuses to happiness or production, we would be battling angels and dodging lightning bolts for pissing some god off. See the difference?

[Martinoguy]

I am not in favor of this idea. It doesn’t seem fun or engaging, and seems more like another needless penalty than anything else.

The reason I am not-favor of this idea is not that I don’t agree with the idea scientifically or that I don’t believe it is historically relevant, but that the idea itself will only further make late game: industrial/modern era even more of a convoluted mess than it already is.

Firstly, there is no incentive to maintain a positive “local-eco balance” (PLEB) because focusing on your victory conditions (which generally have diplomatic repercussions anyway) is always smarter, especially if the penalty for not is a simple happiness penalty. The only reason to focus on maintaining a PLEB is for altruistic relationships with other civs, which is fine for diplomatic victories, but falls apart when you consider that computer AIs are not generally altruistic, usually focus on their victory conditions, and receive such large bonuses to happiness that maintaining a PLEB is a non-factor for them. Because of this, the AI will almost never (if it is smart) focus on maintaining a PLEB, causing the “global-eco balance” (GEB) to almost always fall to negative during late game regardless of the player’s actions causing an inevitable and tedious slowing of the game. This does not make for an engaging late-game experience.

Secondly, the same reason “dark ages” were not introduced is the same reason this would not be good either: it penalizes the player for his or her play style in a way that is almost out of their control rather than encouraging or adding depth to another play style (like diplomacy for instance). You are creating a needless penalty to one play-style (less production and growth for an industrial civ that has plenty of production and often regulated growth as it is) that is often out of the hands of the player (all civs contribute to GEB) rather than rewarding a diplomatic victory-focused player with special perks and bonuses towards his/her victory conditions for going out of their way to build buildings that are otherwise irrelevant to cultural or industrial or scientific or military play styles.

Now, the concept of environmentalism is interesting, but instead of punishing players who don't play along you should reward players who do with, perhaps, favor of local or even global City States and increased happiness or scientific output from your empire.

[zephyrtr]

I'm an atheist and I love religion in Civ. There is a HUGE intellectual difference between adding religion ... and man-made global warming.

I hope nobody would have to argue the existence of smog, or water pollution to you, or the affects of deforestation. In Civ4, pollution was a part of Health which could drag your City down if you didn't combat it with things like Public Transportation and Recycling, just as Coal Plant and Industrial Park made things worse.

I think OP's idea is awful from a games perspective, but the idea of expansion and industrialization harming Happiness (or a Health mechanic) is interesting. Factory, Seaport, Forge, Ironworks and Research Lab could produce Unhappiness, and Recycling Centers can remove this, just like Courthouses removes Unrest for annexed Cities.

[stethnorun]

I hope nobody would have to argue the existence of smog, or water pollution to you, or the affects of deforestation. In Civ4, pollution was a part of Health which could drag your City down if you didn't combat it with things like Public Transportation and Recycling, just as Coal Plant and Industrial Park made things worse.

Yeah that's a good distinction. Though I would argue that the benefits of factories and industry far outweigh anyone's desire for clean air (clean water is easy to fix, thus not really an issue). Case in point, the Chinese LOVE their factories and don't really care about the air pollution. I'm sure the same was true in the 1800s in the Western world.

[zephyrtr]

Well, that's not discussing the game anymore -- and I don't really feel the need to argue why not caring about the quality of air you breathe is shortsighted.

I think it would make the game more interesting, certainly, if buildings (particularly production buildings) had adverse affects.

[stethnorun]

Well, that's not discussing the game anymore -- and I don't really feel the need to argue why not caring about the quality of air you breathe is shortsighted.

I think it would make the game more interesting, certainly, if buildings (particularly production buildings) had adverse affects.

They do, it costs money to upkeep.

[Shiav]

They do, it costs money to upkeep.

There is more in this world than money.

Also, for those arguing against it, perhaps you have never heard of the much more famous (and universally better) Sid Meier's game, Alpha Centauri? Eco balance is a term taken straight from the game, change more of your environment and the environment will forcibly change you.

While the OP's implementation might not be perfect, certainly i don't see us terraforming large swathes of land like the hexes in ciV, and i don't think nascent environmentalism should influence happiness alone, it is still a solid basic concept that has both precedent and appeal. AC is thirteen years old and still the single most fun turn based strategy game i have ever played.

[PachaMinnie]

I wouldn't mind seeing it. To be quite honest global warming may not be our fault but we aren't really helping either. However I hated it in Civilization 4. I would greet it with more of a than a but I still wouldn't mind it too much.

[istry555]

I actually wouldn't mind some form of health system being reintroduced into the game. How to accomplish this with the new mechanics, I'm not sure (though I think there are some flaws in the current mechanics but don't see how to get rid of them without drastically overhauling the whole system.

[dukeisaac]

I would rather have random natural disasters and geological transformations over time than 'global warming'. It is too loaded, and in its common meaning it only refers to the last 150 years. On ther other hand, geographical and climatological change are important parts of history, and determining elements of the theory of historical development. Take for example the Fertile Crescent, which is now pretty much a desert; it was supposed to be lush about 5000 years ago. Anyway, this would add interesting gameplay, along with other natural elements: hurricanes which slow/weaken your ships at sea, earthquakes which kill off population in cities, volcanoes which create new islands... I liked how this was rendered in Civ IV, if only a future configuration could have awesome animations...

[FatTony]

And sorry for offending anyone with a limited perception of the world – but humanity is causing a huge amount of damage to the environment from the beginning of times. And for doing so we get diseases, extinction of many species, etc...It’s not a good thing. .

A few specific comments then one general comment:

Humanity may be causing a huge amount of change to the environment but your perception that it is all bad is homo-centric. Are their not species that benefit from a warmer climate? Are there not lifeforms who may benefit from increased Co2 levels? We may be altering the planet in a fashion that is not beneficial to some or all humans, but that does not mean it is bad for all. I would argue that since the rise of humanity not only have certain species declined (extinction losers), but others have thrived way beyond their own means. Ask the dog, cat, cow, horse, rat, pig, etc how they would have fared as a species without mankind's involvement.

It is not a certainty and more importantly it is not a zero sum game (all humanity wins or losses) but rather there will be societies or groups of people who benefit from global warming and others who could benefit from global cooling. Arctic civilizations may reap big rewards from global warming while coastal desert civs may pay a heavy toll.

How arrogant we are as humans to say " THIS is precisely the perfect temperature and weather.... it has never been better or worse than this"..... we have no real idea. We managed to evolve over the last million (more or less) years all the while persisting through CONSTANT ECOLOGICAL SWINGS AND NATURAL DISASTERS.

Any honest and educated scientist/climatologist can tell you the earth has fluctuated between warm spells and cold spells. We ARE in the uptick of a warming cycle (roughly 100,000 year cycles). We are warming up from the last ice age. I believe those are far more undeniable facts than man is destroying the planet (like most bumper stickers, it sounds good in a few words but doesn't even come close to discussing the entire complex idea).

At best we can say man may be contributing to change for better or worse but change will happen whether we all die off tomorrow or not. It always bugged me that if every single human disappeared from the planet forever tomorrow, the planet would still warm until its cycle dictates that it is time to cool again and it will. It is dishonest for those pushing the concept to say "lets end global warming' ... we cant.

So, I think if you want to include man made climate change, wouldn't it make (more) sense to include the natural warming or cooling of the earth over the average 5ooo year civ time span? Many have said the great civilizations got their start in the shadow of an ice age. Temperatures have been warming since then. the Sahara was a jungle, the cycles of natural climate change caused it to go desert, not man.

Wouldn't it be great in a game of civ where the crappy dice roll starts you at the tundra north to have global warming (man made or natural) to warm your area and produce grasslands where once tundra ruled?

We are specs on a planet, blips in time and we assume we know it all and what is best for all species, all of humanity over all of our time.
Human arrogance.

[Shiav]

snip

this would be better than global warming, but global warming is the blanket term for what he wants included, eco balance. And ecosystem in balance will still slowly warm, but if you cut down every single tree (like they did on Easter Island) your civilization will be destroyed.

Also, thank God its warming up. Sending someone to Siberia nowadays isn't half as bad as it was back in my day.

[IrishSamurai]

Maybe instead of calling it Global Warming, they could simply call it Climate Shift or Climate Change. The point of it being added to the game would simply be to provide a new obstacle to overcome. Ocean levels rise from melting ice caps, flooding coastal cities. Cities gradually lose population and production, then are gone completely unless you build levees or the Great Sea Wall wonder. Maybe you adapt by building underwater cities, or planned ahead and stayed a landlocked nation.

How about Nuclear Winter? Montezuma and that little snot Alexander lobbed one too many nukes, creating a new Ice Age. Tundra becomes Ice, Plains become Tundra, etc. Denmark is having a field day with legions of Ski Troopers, and the lucky few nations with fertile land have to drive off the starving wolves they once called allies.

The point is, the late game gets pretty damn boring when you're not at war. The last few Civ installments had the same problem in my opinion. I'd really like to see them add something to the late game (Modern/Future) at some point. Bioweapons, suitcase nukes, cyborg commandos, weaponized trioxin zombies, whatever.

Just sayin'.

[Shiav]

Maybe instead of calling it Global Warming, they could simply call it Climate Shift or Climate Change. The point of it being added to the game would simply be to provide a new obstacle to overcome. Ocean levels rise from melting ice caps, flooding coastal cities. Cities gradually lose population and production, then are gone completely without building levees or the Great Sea Wall wonder. Maybe you adapt by building underwater cities, or planned ahead and stayed a landlocked nation.

How about Nuclear Winter? Montezuma and that little snot Alexander lobbed one too many nukes, creating a new Ice age. Tundra becomes Ice, Plains become Tundra, etc. Denmark is having a field day with legions of Ski Troopers, and the lucky few nations with fertile land have to drive off the starving wolves they once called allies.

The point is, the late game gets pretty damn boring when you're not at war. The last few Civ installments had the same problem in my opinion. I'd really like to see them add something to the late game (Modern/Future) at some point. Bioweapons, suitcase nukes, cyborg commandos, weaponized trioxin zombies, whatever.

Just sayin'.

They really do need to revamp the nuclear system. As it stands there is no MAD, once you launch all of your nukes all of theirs are destroyed and you win.

[zephyrtr]

They got halfway there with Nuclear Submarines. It just should take 1 turn for the missiles to launch, so the other side can have a chance to be like, "AHH! MOTHERLAND!"

[PachaMinnie]

What about wide spread diseases? They occur randomly take out population and are spread from city to city by movement of units and a city's general population running away. A major pain for someone that has the disease and a pain for the person next to them because they can spread their disease to the neighboring civilization so they don't suffer alone, and so on until the world is effected.

I also agree about the Nuclear system, it needs to be better. I nuke people left and right because there's very little negatives other than the other kids getting a little pissed off because I'm beating the crap out of their pal in the sand box. And if they don't like it i nuke them to, who's gonna stop the Polynesian War machine when it has first tasted blood?

[Shiav]

They got halfway there with Nuclear Submarines. It just should take 1 turn for the missiles to launch, so the other side can have a chance to be like, "AHH! MOTHERLAND!"

The dead hand... All you need to ensure continued safety for your home no matter what. Nobody is going to ☺☺☺☺ with the dead hand except a suicidal person, and they'd push the button anyways.

[MARDUK]

AC is thirteen years old and still the single most fun turn based strategy game i have ever played.

I concur.

CiV could get a new dimension (of reality) in inclusion of city health, includes but not limited to things like; over-population, famine, starvation and diseases (they could use animation of black crows circling above diseased/plagued city in good 'ol Populous style) and depending on trade routes/techs/buildings it could spread to neighbouring cities. Flood plains and jungles should increase the chance of contamination (there could also be some world wide scale mass epidemias (fe. Spanish flu) which would occur very rarely, like one in ten games)

Also pollution from factories, railroads, nuclear weapons and such. Which would lead (after appropriate technologies) player must spend gold to environmentalism, cleaning up the environment and such. If you would not do this risks of diseases and loss of ozone layer would occur(?)

Perhaps a new social policy Environmentalism could also be implemented. At least I liked aatami's ideas.

[stethnorun]

Perhaps a new social policy Environmentalism could also be implemented. At least I liked aatami's ideas.

Again, in a time when we don't even understand how the world works or good ways to solve environmental problems, this is a huge mistake.

For instance, I imagine that recycling would be a centerpiece of an Environmentalism tree. Most people would probably think "that makes sense" because they aren't very educated on the topic. Recycling (except in the case of bauxite), is more expensive, burns up more fossil fuels than making things brand new (including gathering the raw materials). It's actually worse in every conceivable way to recycle than not (again, except for bauxite). Most people don't know this, but that's entirely my point.

Unlike physics or biology or mathematics, we (humanity) don't know very much at all about "environmentalism". Games like Anno 2070 and Fate of the World come along and pretend that we have all the answers. We don't, and most of the answers we think we have, we're wrong. I don't want that crap invading my Civ experience, even if it is just a game.

[zephyrtr]

Recycling (except in the case of bauxite), is more expensive, burns up more fossil fuels than making things brand new (including gathering the raw materials). It's actually worse in every conceivable way to recycle than not (again, except for bauxite).

Except for that whole landfill problem, and how plastics take hundreds of years to decompose and how we make many of our plastics from finite oil resources. It doesn't matter how much recycling costs today. We're pretty much forced as a species to figure out how to cheaply reclaim resources from garbage or run out of materials to work with.

And I'm pretty sure even if we "dont know very much about 'environmentalism'" that doesn't mean its invalidated as a concept for a part of a piece of entertainment.

[Shiav]

snip

recycling of aluminum (why not just say metal can) is still more than enough to justify its inclusion as a policy, and even then its only one of the three that come in hand.

So without any objections *cough* a possible format for the Environmentalism Policy Tree:

Reduce: Cities produce XX% less <negative eco points/unhealthiness>
Reuse: + X happiness from Y positive eco points
Recycle (yes, steth, its a big business even if you only believe in aluminum): Recycling Depot gives XX% incresed <production/wealth>
Green Thumb (requires Recycle & Reuse): +1 food per farm/fishery
Focused Conservation (Requires Reduce and Recycle): Wildlife Preserves generate +XX Happiness and +YY gold from tourism.

Completion of Tree: Nature's Champion: +XX happiness per city, +YY positive eco points