Richard Branson's Environment Pledge

[StuartDH]

Richard Branson has just pledged $3 billion to develop green fuels and other environmental projects. He's barely got his words out and already some have jumped on him by saying that he's not doing enough. What does this mean for the environment and environmentalists? Yesterday, I had a conversation with a few people who felt that it was showing the environmentalists in a poor light:

"Richard Branson gives $3m and he's told he's not doing enough, what does that say about us?"
"Will the ecomentalists ever be happy?"
"Why not wait a year and then pan him if he doesn't keep his promise?"
"What does this do to the next billionaire who thinks about giving his money to environment projects?"

I've never been one for the doom and gloom, "welcome to dystopia", views on bird flu, the environment, terrorism etc. This seems to be another example of "whatever you do, it's never enough", and I sometimes wish that there would be a more positive message forom the environmentalists to provide support for new initiatives.

Yes, he will probably make money out of it. Yes, it'll be good PR for Virgin. But, it might just do something to improve the environment at the same time.

Stu

[eeyore]

I think the biggest problem is that he has pledged 3 billion to green fuel research - of which he will be a direct benificiary as it will help fuel his fleet of planes and trains, Whether it was the intention or not that comes over to a lot of people like a self interested publicity stunt.

Like someone said on another thread if he really wanted to make a philanthropic gesture towards combatting cluimate change he could have donated 3 billion or whatever to an organisation which is already working in the field, especially as green fuel has some ...erm interesting... environmental issues attached.

I was far more impresed with his proposal for the lottery , that virgin group would run it for free giving all the money (except for the prize fund) to HLF , BIG etc , but in their infinite wisdom the govt chose to give the contract to profit making camelot instead - doh

[StuartDH]

I hope he does make a ton of money out of it and in doing so he might solve what will be become an otherwise massive problem in the next few decades. I can't quite see how he'll be able to make green fuels for planes, but that's the beauty of scientific discovery and it's ability to sometimes surpass even our wildest imaginations.

What really concerns me is the typical environmentalist response that he's wasting his time/doing it all wrong/in it for the wrong reasons etc. I think it sends the wrong message to the public, who'd also like to do their bit, but might feel that whatever they do it's never enough.

If Richard Branson makes greener flight and makes a ton of money, maybe it will inspire Ford to make greener cars and make a ton of money, and Taylor Woodrow to make greener buildings and...

[Wild-Woman]

Well I think he should be congratulated on making a stand and doing something. His high profile at least gets recognition here and in America where the biggest persuasions need to happen. Good on him and if it does make a difference, I hope all the doubting Thomas's eat their words.

ww

[mickoking]

I hope what Richard Branson is doing will encourage others in industry to follow suit. Contrast his gesture to a scummy company like Exxon.

[speckled wood]

Perhaps more important is to change the attitude of the media, give the environment the the same prominence and dynamism as is give to promoting cars, and should the BBC be running programmes and be involved in publishing magazines like "Top Gear"? It is in the media where attitudes are formed and of course can be changed.

[ogwen]

Some people might argue that he is a hypocrite. He makes money from his airlines etc and polutes the atmosphere and now he's joined the environmental bandwagon.

If it does encourage more businesses to think more about helping environment I suppose it can't be a bad thing. But could it just be a publicity stunt? Or does he actually care?

[speckled wood]

Originally Posted by ogwen

But could it just be a publicity stunt? Or does he actually care?

I would think that it is a combination of these things, his airlines started well into the era when the pontenial environmental problems of air travel were very well known and he must have known about them, and he does love positive publicity. His newish Voyager Trains are overpowered compared with the intercity 125s that they replaced and now that the latter are having new engines his voyagers are much more fuel hungry andless envorinmentally friendy. It does though fit in with his whizz, bang! image. Of course his Pendalino trains are also very glitzy but not really all that much faster station to station than the older trains (that used less power) that they replaced.

As to whether he cares does it really matter? But if there is something postive from this and Ford, GM and the rest are pressured into producing and selling more environmentally friendy and fuel efficient vehicles then it can be for the good.

[matt_xyz]

I'm sure there is a degree of self publicity associated with Branson's actions (he's not the sort to make an anonymous donation is he? ) but why should we care what his motives were? The struggle to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels needs all the help it can get and technological solutions seem to show more promise than attempts to change behaviour. As such, he should be applauded in the hope that this will encourage others billionaires to act in a similar manner.

Matt

[Airehead]

Monoculture here we come?

[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.

[Owl-Light]

[quote=eeyore]

Originally Posted by 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.

Ang on, just checking the beeb...

Ah here it is "The Virgin boss said he would commit all profits from his travel firms, such as airline Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Trains, over the next 10 years... The funds will be invested in schemes to develop new renewable energy technologies, through an investment unit called Virgin Fuels." Source

Thats a hefty investment. If nothing else consider the chain reaction, whatever the motivation. I think we spend too much time worrying about absolutes. Absolutes are rarely possible. Every something adds up. Every time environmental issues are brought into the public spotlight it effects someones thinking and perhaps their future actions just a little. The cumulative effect might just be what makes the difference.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Sheryl LaBouchardiere

Ah here it is "The Virgin boss said he would commit all profits from his travel firms, such as airline Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Trains, over the next 10 years... The funds will be invested in schemes to develop new renewable energy technologies, through an investment unit called Virgin Fuels."

so he's not actually donating any money to chairties , hes actually using the profits from one part of virgin group to set up another part of virgin group. Which will presumbably have the patent on whatever biofuel it develops , thus increasing his profit even further. hmmm more spin than substance ....

[speckled wood]

[quote=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!
QUOTE]

The section of the Montgomery Canal between Newtown and Welshpool was built in isolation and part of the reason for it being built was to reduce the number of horses needed to transport goods and thereby transfer the crops needed to feeding cattle, it actually probably applied in the case of other isolated canals where 100 + packhorses could be replaced by just one hauling a canal barge carrying 25 tons.