Richard Branson's Environment Pledge

[StuartDH]

Originally Posted by Airehead

Monoculture here we come?

Surely that deserves more of an explanation

[speckled wood]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

Surely that deserves more of an explanation

I think the "mono-culture" is the issue of the "farming" for fuel, fields filled with single fuel "crops".

[StuartDH]

Ah, of course. Because I'd started out talking about the culture of environmentalists whinging that it's never enough, I was thinking about monoculture in it's sociological context, and totally forgot about the agricultural one

Stu

[Alan]

As far as mono-culture goes, it's interesting to note that just before the turn of the century 30% of all crops where aimed at providing fuel for transport. That transport being Horses!

It maybe a different time and the population vastly increased, but it seems maybe what comes around, goes around. The farmers are willing, and many parts of Europe and the world are gearing up for this, but as usual in this country our government is dragging its heals. No change there!

If individuals like Branson have to bring these things into the public eye so be it. We just have to make sure they're kept to their word.

[digi]

Based on past experience, what Richard Branson does he does for the good of Virgin, lets hope others will benefit and hope its not just another promotional exercise.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by airehead

monoculture here we come

Originally Posted by StuartDH

Surely that deserves more of an explanation

I think airehead is refering to one of the biggest issues with green fuels - the ammount of space they take to grow, to grow enough to replace air and train travel requirements in addition to growing our food would pretty much require our entire land area , so it would mean goodbye countryside. well that seems perfectly evironmentally freindly to me

In fact a better solution is not to fly unles you have to, and most of the time it is want not need, and electrify all the train tracks enabling them to be powered by nuclear or alternative sources. but that wouldnt do mr b's profits much good

[matt_xyz]

We do have to keep this in perspective. I don't currently have access to the figures but air transport is currently a very small contributor to greenhouse emissions. For the UK, transport as a whole is responsible (from the top of my head) for around 20% of our emissions but air transport is only a small proportion of that. Its significance is that it is the fastest growing source of CO2 emissions because we're slowly starting to control our other emissions sources.

An example of the wildly inaccurate statements made by environmental protestors can be found in today's BBC news. There are environmental protestors currently at East Mids Airport. Their spokesman claimed; "Aviation is the greatest contributor to climate change". This is absolutely untrue.

see the article below;

BBC NEWS | England | Nottinghamshire | Green protesters in airport demo

[edit: I've just found some firmer stats. In the EU, aviation is currently responsible for 4% of total CO2 emissions]


Matt

[Alan]

With regard to bio-fuels - I suppose it depends on what crops are used. On an agricultural radio programme this morning, one of the farming representatives mentioned that two of the current crops: sugar beet and wheat, could be used to make the bio-fuels. Whether this would change in the future I don’t know, but as they’re already grown on a large scale, the using up of the countryside may not apply. Most of our ‘countryside’ is after all predominantly agricultural anyway. It might certainly do away with ‘grain mountains’ and such like.

As the market dictates it, you may find that most of these fuels may be produced abroad as it would be economically cheaper for them. That of course brings up more issues such as using the crops for fuel instead of consumption – especially with famines and climate change etc.

[Owl-Light]

The question is how do you affect REAL change?

Branson could shut down his Air and Train business and just give 3 billion quid to an environmental project and that would make a big differece for sure. But someone would just step in to fill the gap.

Real change has to come in peoples thinking first. Wherever theres a business opportunity people will expolit it. People want to travel so business will continue to expand on ways to make that happen - bigger, quicker, cheaper. If nothing changes in the way things are done pollution will continue to increase.

If I've got tis right, Bransons aim is to keep his travel industry going but invest ALL profits in finding more environmentally friendly fuels. So what could that lead to? Well, if you must travel what Airline would you use? One that absorbs all the profits back into big business or one that aims to develop cleaner fuels with every penny of profit it makes?

If you're another big business what will you make of it? You're competitive right? You're cynical but the eco angle is a damn good selling point. So what are you going to do about it?

I think he's though it out rather well myself and all credit to him.

[eeyore]

[quote=Sheryl LaBouchardiere]

If I've got tis right, Bransons aim is to keep his travel industry going but invest ALL profits in finding more environmentally friendly fuels. QUOTE]

technically wasnt it all profits for a given period of time , not like for ever . and it depends on how you interpret "profits" if it is a real deal then all credit to him , but it would be awfully easy for him to weasel out once the gesture has dropped below the publicity horizon.