The model started quite simple with just one reinforcing feedback loop. Investments make us competitive and for the population with lower income we must cover with higher taxation of the rich or simply the increased tax revenue from the economic growth.
Here you see the rough weightings of the connections as well as the delays that describe that the costs of climate change and depleted resources etc. have a delayed negative effect while the competitive benefits also take effect later.
The insight matrix of this first draft shows that short term taking action has roughly the same negative effect as paying for the consequences - read from the horizontal x-values. The y-value (vertical) indicates that the costs of the consequences will continue to increase while the costs of action could well turn into benefits.
Industry is arguing that as long as customers in the world prefer cheap less sustainable solutions any action with increased costs would be a competitive disadvantage.
That additional argument makes the action short term more expensive than the consequences, however ....
... medium-term the action is increasingly beneficial.
So far I have mostly integrated sceptical arguments against the transition towards more sustainability. An argument from the 'other side' is, that once we have a change of values we could shift from being happy by the quantity of goods and services towards the quality and thus more sufficiency. We have modeled that in a larger project together we renowned scientists as well:
Now the model has 20 feedback loops, most of them balancing.
The insight matrix still shows the same pattern with the costs of action being even a bit higher.