On the state of pollution handling and the perceived short sighted lack of action on the matter

[warm garden]

Dear Members of the Federal Government (MoFG),

I step before you to voice points of concern on the matter of pollution. The topic will be two-fold but ultimately converge into one point of argument. I would like to invite the MoFG to hear my points and discuss possible and immediate solutions to the problem presented. I am specifically addressing the MoFG, since it is my belief that it is their responsibility to address this concern. However, ideas from everyone should be collected and are most certainly a very valuable input on the topic.

I would like to clarify a few points first.

• When I say MoFG, or government, or also the feds, I am imagining a few of those black stylized human mannequins with a white question mark in the position of their face, sitting on thrones looking down on the world. This is to explain: I am neither intentionally and hopefully not unintentionally targeting one single person at any time.

• When I say "we", or "I" (I tend to mix that part up), I mean me as a player on WT. Sometimes this perception of I does cross into RL, but it mostly means me as a player of WT.

• I am writing as a person participating on WT as a carpenter, logger, and oil driller. I am also a member of a company. I do not speak for or represent a group—even though I probably should to reinforce my points, since I am quite certain it's not just my opinion.

• My last but most important note for the preface: In my book, I do not care about profits any more than I must to not get sued. My personal gain from WT is to see a smile on the face of the customer as well as a frown on my competitors' when I tell them: No, there is no error in my low prices; they are perfectly fine where they are. I don't care about "normal" or "usual" prices. I can math, and math is what makes this price. The variable I can and will adjust is profit markup, and that will be as low as possible for me to be able to afford machines for my next profession and run the current professions I hold. Sometimes I charge extra to afford building materials.

Topic Summary

The topic shall be my discontent on how the federal government (FED) is handling pollution and the taxation thereof. In my view, the current FED is not acting in the best interest of the community when it comes to distribution and taxation of emissions currently produced. In my view, with the current non-actions, the FED is hindering progress and is acting short-sightedly instead of encouraging preparations for technological advancements. I would like to ask the MoFG to consider the following points and, if possible, align their agenda accordingly.

Progress in the world is governed through the (intended) research schedule. As such, every player is aware of the progression and can make preparations accordingly. This is used heavily by the player to "plan out their run." However, also FED is able to make preparations accordingly and plan ahead—and is done so generally. But once the topic of pollution rolls around, the only perceived consideration by FED about the topic is: how much money can we extract from the polluting player.

The general player is what drives our progress. The FED may be an instance of control, but should not be an instance of hindrance—instead—they should do everything in their power to encourage progression. The current undiscriminating burden through pollution tax is hindering progress instead of encouraging it. The agenda for this (as a player, I get my information from the newspaper) is unclear.

topic one

Let me elaborate on my claim of short-sightedness. Since research progress is outlined before a cycle, FED and players are aware of the (time-)gaps between mechanics, oil drilling, industry, and electronics releases. FED is (hopefully) also aware of the increased burden to the global pollution budget with the release of named professions—the peak being shortly after electronics release. And this is where my point comes in. With the knowledge of all this, I would expect there is a plan in place to stretch out the globally caused pollution in such a way that it can be utilized optimally over the entire time it is possible to do so. But this is not the case. Instead of encouraging the stockpiling of components needed later for swift technological progress, making them readily available at affordable prices while the global pollution budget is able to regenerate and cope with the amounts of pollution, pollution is taxed at a seemingly unforgiving rate to discourage preparation and stall out the economy until a lot more machines than before are needed simultaneously, causing enough pollution for production to grind to a halt and, as such, hindering its own progress. This is what I would call short-sighted.

Instead, I would expect the MoFG to understand the goal and have a plan in place so that we—as a community facing a common threat—can prepare together for the worst to come in the most effective way. One part of that plan I would like to see is encouragement of stockpiling materials (which can be stockpiled) early, so the global pollution burden can be stretched out, the full potential of the regenerative nature of our planet can be used, and not force the entire industry to choke on its own fumes all at once.

topic two

The second topic I would like to encourage MoFG to discuss is the use of collected pollution-related tax money and their (perceived) stalling out of the stockpiling of necessary materials and, as such, the progress, as well as not making optimal use of tools available. I can only assume FED has a plan on how much money is needed to address everything the pollution tax is intended for. What comes to mind is deployment of power-transmitting infrastructure as well as working towards sufficient global power generation, as well as supporting local authorities so they too can support the deployment of power-transmitting and producing infrastructure, helping FED to achieve this goal faster by sharing the workload.

However, in reality, I barely see any action taken in this regard. I see mayors of towns building up a local power grid, but then word on the street is they pay for fuel and pollution tax with their own personal money? I live in a remote area outside of town influence. If I would ask the lowest authority to be connected to a power grid, I would have to talk to the FED. Now, my question for you, MoFG: do I have to voice my need, or can the lowest governing authority in my area be expected to connect me without me asking for it? It's an honest question. I got a power connection in the town I am drilling in. They willingly let me use half of their available power capacity to run my pump jacks and still pay for the pollution with their personal money. I can only commend them on realizing how important the resources I produce are for the progress of the community as a whole. I do not feel FED shares this sentiment. I feel hindered and targeted (as a profession supplying materials mandatory for technological and industrial progression) by an unreasonably high pollution tax and discouraged by the lack of a (publicly communicated) plan for all the collected pollution-related tax money. I feel the pollution tax is "just collected for the sake of it," and for that, it is unreasonably high.

After elaborating on the two topics individually, it is straightforward to bring them together to a conclusion. In general, I would like to encourage the MoFG to weigh the benefits of encouragement with the negatives of discouragement carefully. Right now, I feel hindered.

I suggest for the FED to pursue a rapid deployment of power-transmitting infrastructure (nobody expects the PM to walk around and place power poles—even though it would not be the first time to witness it—but there are other means, i.e., through contracts or by supporting lower authorities in doing so) as well as a temporary deployment of early global power production. If FED feels the cause of pollution should be limited to particular outputs only (i.e., industrial, lighting, etc.), they have the ability to do so by introducing a law preventing other causes and not generalize the discouragement by introducing unreasonably high penalization (taxes). I would appreciate a public statement with a reasoning for the current delay of deployment of a global power plant, as the funds to do so are clearly there. Furthermore, I would like to encourage a discussion on the lack of encouragement and foresight in planning in terms of technological and industrial progression and the lack of effective use of the naturally regenerating pollution ceiling and encouragement of spacing out production as suggested above.

I would like to thank the Members of the Federal Government for their time hearing me and hope I could give insight, relay concerns, as well as encourage discussion on topics I, as a player holding a critical profession for progression, voiced.

[short warren]

<@&807619796924497940> ^

[lapis comet]

Gecko I would want to start by thanking you for voicing your concerns. I am gonna give you a three layered repose. One as part of the MoFG, One as my actions as MP this cycle, and last what my personal thoughts are which is not a the reflections from the Fed but my own.

MoFG: There has been a critical error in the electrical taxation that was noticed very late yesterday that we tried to work through and resolve. In preparation for the shift of Laws, I noticed that our current Electric bill was coded in the wrong way both in its intention and its worded text. It states that consumers are paying 4.5e per kwh but in effect it is billing you 18e per kwh. This effect means that citizens are paying 100% more in taxation then the law is saying when using electrical power. We have already drafted and passed a change in the electrical bill to address this issue. We where working on compensating everyone for the overcharge but I had to go to bed and I have not talked to the house since then. I can see that they came a long way and I think they have a draft ready to implement the compensation which should automatically give back every citizen the overcharged amount.

MP: I went in with the plan to increase the base pollution tax from 50 -->100 euro per PPM at the same time delay the introduction of EP until we had Oil drilling. I still think that going more aggressive on the Pollution tax is the correct path for a more sustainable planet. One day I wish we could find an economic solution that would use the pressure of the marketforces to maintain our PPM usage instead of this current EP law. I believe there should be a struggle from the government to maintain the pollution values and should be one of the core issues the government has to regulate to achieve its victories. I think the current EP is to strong and removes this interesting issue. I was the one pushing for the increase from 50 euro --> 100 euro per PPM.

Personal: I think the current Electrical bill is flawed and I was pushing for a electrical bill that was rebating the pollution cost at 100% and transferring the cost down to the consumer. So it would be similar to what the intent was with the now corrected electrical bill but also a rebate section that would rebate the pollution cost of running the combustion generator(CG). I thought this would incentivize the behavior I would want, sharing a CG either through Town/State power plants or with your neighbour and it would automate the administration of sharing it because the producer would not have to pay the pollution cost but it would be shared among the consumers.
I tried to push for this in the house but did not get traction. There are some loopholes issues that also needs to get solved with this above mentioned setup that is not always abused but has been in the past.
I am still in favour of high tax to modify the behavior of the citizens on White Tiger to minimize the use of pollution before we reach the better technologies like industrial generators(IG). Now with the error we had with the tax code this pushed the cost to above what was acceptable and that was never our intent. I believe an aggressive stance on high pollution cost will increase the price on things so it will have double effect, lower demand on pollution items and less stockpiling of goods. I know that the game gives us a PPM usage of around 500 per day but I see the governments objective to not only work with the limits the game mechanic gives us, but also to lower the overall PPM usage on a cycle. So the less stockpiling before IG even if we have the available PPM but at a lower efficiency is a good thing in my eye from how I would want the government to operate.

[flat coral]

From my understanding of what the purpose of the law and the idea of taxation over pollutens. I can understand the frustration over the laws.

I feel there as been missing communication of the purpose of the law and it's actions.

As due noted. The government acts with the best interest of each citizen. We all share the burden of the final goal and to keep stuff fair.

The tax as two major goal in mind.

1. Making heavy polluten factories be inefficient compared to it's green counter parts.

2. Using set tax to provide green energy quickly when electronics comes out.

The infrastructure you speak of is base on MoI and the involvement of civil workers.

People in the government are volunteers by default and there is no min requirements of effort. To speed progress it is suggested to also take part of government activities

[flat coral]

@warm garden since the changes to the pollution law as you seen a difference?

[warm garden]

I did not know there where recent changes to the pollution law. Xoy was pretty clear in their statement that the increase from 50 to 100 per ppm was intentional and they did not mention to take back that change. there was nothing in the news about it either and the version number did not change since I wrote this report. So I would assume there are no changes. But maybe I'm just blind and there was - in that case please ignore this msg, I will go have a proper look the next time I am in game.

[flat coral]

There wasn't change I beleive but a reimbursment because prior to what you state there was a fault. I think it was charging 4 times the wording of the law. 2x what we wanted. Now it is correctly at 100

people should have gotten a reimbursement and also I think we had 24 hours without the law also?