TinkerBelle
Topic Author
Posts: 1436
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

Branson Pledges $3B To Fight Global Warming

Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:22 am

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.
If you are going through hell, keep going.
 
deltagator
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:56 am

RE: Branson Pledges $3B To Fight Global Warming

Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:36 am

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."
 
gmcc
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:54 am

RE: Branson Pledges $3B To Fight Global Warming

Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:44 am

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 
 
orlando666
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 3:38 pm

RE: Branson Pledges $3B To Fight Global Warming

Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:05 am

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?
 
b777a340fan
Posts: 652
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:42 am

RE: Branson Pledges $3B To Fight Global Warming

Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:37 am

Well glad to see someone who doesn't brush off global warming as a scientific hoax and/or pure fiction. Kudos to Branson.
 
vsflyer747400
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:34 pm

RE: Branson Pledges $3B To Fight Global Warming

Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:47 am

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
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: Branson Pledges $3B To Fight Global Warming

Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:52 am

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.
 
carduelis
Posts: 1388
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 8:24 pm

RE: Branson Pledges $3B To Fight Global Warming

Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:53 am

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!
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Branson Pledges $3B To Fight Global Warming

Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:03 am

Is he still going to buy that oil refinery?
Your bone's got a little machine
 
carduelis
Posts: 1388
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 8:24 pm

RE: Branson Pledges $3B To Fight Global Warming

Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:11 am

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!
 
georgiaame
Posts: 951
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:55 am

RE: Branson Pledges $3B To Fight Global Warming

Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:23 am

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
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: Branson Pledges $3B To Fight Global Warming

Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:40 am

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.
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: Branson Pledges $3B To Fight Global Warming

Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:57 pm

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
 
robsawatsky
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:07 am

RE: Branson Pledges $3B To Fight Global Warming

Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:31 am

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.
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: Branson Pledges $3B To Fight Global Warming

Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:39 pm

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.

Who is online