Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Branson Pledges $3B To Fight Global Warming  
User currently offlineTinkerBelle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2296 times:

Billionaire business mogul says 100% of future proceeds from certain divisions of Virgin Group will go towards tackling problem.
September 21 2006: 10:47 AM EDT


NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Billionaire British businessman Richard Branson Thursday committed $3 billion over the next 10 years to combating global warming.

"We are very pleased today to be making a commitment to invest 100 percent of all future proceeds to the Virgin Group from our transportation interest, both our trains and airline businesses, into tackling global warming," Branson told a news conference at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/21/news...ers/branson.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

Interesting to say the least.

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2278 times:

Interesting indeed. While a good gesture I'm sure that he will structure it so his out of pocket expense is much less than the stated number just as Ted Turner did with his $1billion to the UN.

I wonder if SRB will consider getting rid of some of those four-holers in lieu of less polluting twin engine planes as part of this deal.



"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
User currently offlineGmcc From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 190 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2262 times:

If he really wanted to help he could not start Virgin America  stirthepot . Just think of all the greenhouse gases that would not be released if we did not have another airline polluting the sky.  mischievous 

User currently offlineOrlando666 From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 168 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2208 times:

wonderful sentiment and pledge.

philosophy aside, as a business when will VS listen to the customer and improve economy, get real about premium eco fares, and also pay more for better professional staff? the very high turnover of VS Gold card holders (i.e. regular travellers who are fleeing the poor service) should be a hint?


User currently offlineB777A340Fan From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 775 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2169 times:

Well glad to see someone who doesn't brush off global warming as a scientific hoax and/or pure fiction. Kudos to Branson.

User currently offlineVSFLYER747400 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 134 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2146 times:

Quoting Orlando666 (Reply 3):
wonderful sentiment and pledge.

philosophy aside, as a business when will VS listen to the customer and improve economy, get real about premium eco fares, and also pay more for better professional staff? the very high turnover of VS Gold card holders (i.e. regular travellers who are fleeing the poor service) should be a hint?

Couldnt agree with you more - also how about getting a consistent product - especially in the IFE department, time to get V-Port across the entire fleet would be a good start but with VS its all about the  dollarsign 



Being on: (in no order) VS BA AA EK CX MH DL EI BD KL HV NW RC LH AF DA TG QF US FR LX AC SK AZ PG SQ UA PA
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2127 times:

Does this mean he's going to have to repaint all his 747s and 340s to read: "4 engines 4 more greenhouse gasses" to avoid being labeled a hypocrite?  laughing 


There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineCarduelis From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2001, 1586 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2127 times:

From my understanding of the deal, Branson's profits for the next ten years from his travel companies will be ploughed into schemes to develop new renewable energy technologies, through an another Branson company investment unit called Virgin Fuels.

Perhaps it will be similar to the initial Aids scare in the early 80s when he started a comdom company called Mates, saying that all the profits would go towards Aids. The PM at the time, Maggie Thatcher, gave him £9m of taxpayers' money towards the company. Soon after he sold the company, and therefore his commitment to Aids.

He was also refused permission to run the GB National lottery - for very good reasons!

Life goes on!



Per Ardua ad Astra! ........ Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense!
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2102 times:

Is he still going to buy that oil refinery?

User currently offlineCarduelis From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2001, 1586 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2085 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 8):
Is he still going to buy that oil refinery?

Buy it? He wanted government sponsorship!

Right on cue for the anniversary of a year ago on 17 September 2005, when the Branson BS machine made another topical 'PR' statement:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4255156.stm

[Edited 2006-09-21 19:28:31]


Per Ardua ad Astra! ........ Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense!
User currently offlineGeorgiaAME From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1001 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2059 times:

I for one hope it comes from Virgin Galactic, because it is the sun that is causing the global warming hysteria. Branson needs to sponsor the creation of a huge, orbiting global umbrella that will shield us from space radiation.

The non science types out there don't have a shred of evidence to substantiate a modicum of their "sky is falling" hysteria about human causes of "global warming" (which amounts to less than 1 degree C in the past century, not evenly distributed). We science types, who deal with facts and reproducible conclusions, can show that the sun's atmosphere has been progressively expanding and heating since 1994. Not only is it getting minimally warmer here on earth, the same is happening on Mars. I guess that is Bush's fault also...

Oh, all those Hurricanes last year, which the warming hysterics claimed were the direct result of man's foolish actions on his environment? Remember how this year was supposed to be just as bad, if not worse? Hate to disappoint you, but we must have undergone massive global cooling in the past 8 months to account for the below average number of storms, and those that did form were so much weaker than the ones last year. Go Branson, Go Virgin Galactic and the new Starship Enterprise! (Uhm, what ever happened to Virgin America? Was it something I might have said?)



"Trust, but verify!" An old Russian proverb, quoted often by a modern American hero
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2031 times:

Quoting GeorgiaAME (Reply 10):
The non science types out there don't have a shred of evidence to substantiate a modicum of their "sky is falling" hysteria about human causes of "global warming" (which amounts to less than 1 degree C in the past century, not evenly distributed). We science types, who deal with facts and reproducible conclusions, can show that the sun's atmosphere has been progressively expanding and heating since 1994. Not only is it getting minimally warmer here on earth, the same is happening on Mars. I guess that is Bush's fault also...

There's plenty of evidence...in both directions. It's just a matter of which bits of evidence you choose to "believe" in. Branson chooses to believe the set of evidence that shows our effects on the atmosphere have in fact altered the global climate, and might continue to do so to the detriment of our future here. You obviously choose to believe that set of evidence is not conclusive enough to even warrant a small change. Fine.

(No one who studies this stuff disagrees on one principle by the way...people have changed the composition atmosphere over the last 100 years in measurable ways. The argument is whether that has any effect on global climate.)

I personally am on the fence, but I will tell you who I have no room for...people who are certain. The fact that you are that certain there is no evidence makes me question how hard you really looked. I am a conservative person by nature. Note that doesn't mean I want to do things my way, all the time, as it has come to mean in the US the last 10 years or so...it just means I won't take unncessary risks. The average "conservative" viewpoint on the changing environment in the US has nothing to do with evaluating possible future risks to succeeding generations...it has EVERYTHING to do with making as much money right now as you can manage, by avoiding taking on extra costs. That's not conservative, it's just greed. Greed is greed, you can dress it up in whatever party colors you want.



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1902 times:

This is the first (IIRC) time I've heard of concrete plans to do something about greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft, and it doesn't sound like a half-measure or window dressing either, but a concrete step toward mitigating catastrophic climate change, which is the greatest (and most underaddressed) threat facing us today.

This also makes brilliant business sense, since the markets for biofuels will be guaranteed, and having such substantial green credentials will make many people choose Virgin when flying (myself included, in the unlikely case Virgin will be an option when I travel in the future).

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/cl...atechange/story/0,,1878492,00.html

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 11):
There's plenty of evidence...in both directions. It's just a matter of which bits of evidence you choose to "believe" in.

This is conclusively not the case. You can of course say that there's evidence to both directions: against relativity and for relativity. The corpus of evidence for relativity is fundamentally more compelling, and it's not "just" a matter of choosing what you like to believe in. In fact there's no substantial disagreement among the people who know anything about climate change (the climatologists), there are just greedy people trying to muddy the picture through investments in disinformation, so that normal people won't demand concrete action to alleviate climate change. The previous IPCC report was already very clearly worded (although OPEC did manage to water down the "Summary for executives" part, the scientific part is much more certain about climate change) and the next one will unequivocally state that human-driven factors are the only plausible explanation behind recent warming.

I recall that when I had the temerity to suggest here, in prior discussions, that the oil industry might be behind efforts to portray the science behind climate change as suspect, the idea was considered a conspiracy theory. Here is a very recent statement from Britains' Royal Society on the matter, to which I include a link, with personal pleasure.

Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial

Quote:
Britain's leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/cl...atechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html


User currently offlineRobsawatsky From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 597 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1786 times:

Quoting Joni (Reply 12):
... In fact there's no substantial disagreement among the people who know anything about climate change (the climatologists), ... and the next one will unequivocally state that human-driven factors are the only plausible explanation behind recent warming.

...

Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial

Here's the problem, its politics mixed with science. The words "climate change" and "denial" are placed in such a way that any dissent to any part of the climate change populist mantra is equated to be a position that denies climate change in its entirety. While there may be some on the extreme edge of denial, there are serious scientific studies, published by credible journals and universities, on the causes, mechanisms and responses to climate change that cast significant doubt on the predictions that the general public is exposed to.

While all credible studies still point to human causes, they raise valid points about the accuracy of the climate models when it comes to the impact of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, in the atmosphere and the global carbon cycle. There are unexplained non-linearities in the change in atmospheric CO2 and human generated CO2 particularly in the last 30 years. We are producing more CO2 but the planet also seems to be re-absorbing more CO2, so what are the other significant geologic processes at play? Is the increase in water vapour (a huge contributor to greenhouse effects) completely linked to the warming caused by other greenhouse gases?

There are many, many questions about the complex geological chemistry behind the carbon cycle and more importantly where they lead us to respond. If it is truly necessary that there is no net CO2 addition to the atmosphere and in fact we should actually reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, then current protocols will fall completely short. I believe it is essential that contrary opinions be funded for research even while we should proceed with a reduction in petroleum based energy consumption for the general environmental good.


User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1707 times:

Quoting Robsawatsky (Reply 13):
there are serious scientific studies, published by credible journals and universities, on the causes, mechanisms and responses to climate change that cast significant doubt on the predictions that the general public is exposed to.

This is nominally true, but I don't think it's of much significance to the general public if the models predict that the climate will warm by 7 or 10 degrees centigrade over the next hundred years, since the end conclusion (That change will be catastrophic unless drastic actions are undertaken) doesn't change.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Branson To Fight For Concorde! posted Thu Apr 17 2003 15:20:11 by Monarch
Rumor DC10 To Fight SoCal Fire Today! posted Sun Jul 16 2006 18:40:43 by Pbottenb
B6 And NW To Fight Wright Compromise posted Wed Jun 28 2006 05:30:30 by DeltaFFinDFW
Mesaba Unions Team Up To Fight Cuts posted Mon Jun 26 2006 20:50:41 by KarlB737
Night Flights Are Worse For Global Warming posted Thu Jun 15 2006 17:18:56 by CaptainJon
Branson Gets Closer To Starting U.S. Airline posted Sat Dec 10 2005 07:52:41 by Dallasnewark
Airplanes And Global Warming posted Tue Nov 1 2005 21:50:03 by David31998
Chirac Seeks Levy On Air Tickets To Fight Aids posted Mon Jun 20 2005 22:18:23 by MaverickM11
LH To Fight Discounters Head On posted Thu May 12 2005 17:56:17 by PanAm330
WN Voes To Fight Wright Amendment posted Tue Dec 7 2004 00:49:01 by CoTXDFW777AA