Branson and global warming

[Lairiodd]

Videos on both of these.

http://tinyurl.com/qg2jo

and

http://tinyurl.com/k9goz

and

http://tinyurl.com/zljm7

Especially in the second one, I get the impression Branson really wants to say "ofc I am doing it for profit, how else do you think I became a billionaire"

[Xest]

I find it ironic that he uses funds from his airline business - the most polluting of all his business to fund the fight against global warming

[Quinlan]

Read Micheal Crichton - State of Fear for an interesting fiction/non-fiction view of global warming

[Gandelf]

I have nothing but praise and admiration for Richard Branson. We need more people like him. I think his pledge to donate 100% of the profits from his transport businesses over the next decade is a very brave decision. As someone rightly pointed out in one of the clips, there is a chance that Richard will not profit financially from his exemplary decision. If he does profit, then he deserves it and I'm sure that he'll re-invest those profits to further champion the cause of weening the world off it's dependency on fossil fuels.

Having said that, whilst I acknowledge that global warming is happening, I don't think that it is (in the main) a result of the burning of fossil fuels. The Earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling and we, as a race, have not being scientifically inclined for anywhere near long enough to measure the impact of the burning of fossils fuels to say conclusively that we are at fault. It is a bit like saying that one can conclusively prove out of a range of 1,000,000 tests, that after one has completed only the first ten tests that there is enough evidence to substantiate a claim. In other words, the only TRUE test of whether man is causing global warming is to wait and see what happens over the next 10,000 years or so! It's still early days yet!

However, before anyone starts shouting, I would also like to say that I think we SHOULD do something now, just in case we are having an impact and that it's not just the natural cycle of the Earth's changes in temperature and climate. We need to find more environmentally friendly alternatives to coal and oil. Ultimately, oil and coal will run out and it's foolish to wait until that happens before we find alternatives, otherwise a big crunch is coming one day when we run out of fossil fuels and we haven't invested in the alternatives.

/salute to Richard Branson... a modern day super hero!

Edit: Just another thought:- If man is causing global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels, then surely when those fuels run out, won't that be a good thing? If there are only about 50 years' worth of those fuels left, then we're eventually going to forced into reducing Carbon emissions, aren't we?

[<ankh>]

Edit: Just another thought:- If man is causing global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels, then surely when those fuels run out, won't that be a good thing? If there are only about 50 years' worth of those fuels left, then we're eventually going to forced into reducing Carbon emissions, aren't we?

Good for the enviroment aye, but 50 years is quite alot of time still - and it will proberbly affect everything once we loose the fossil fuels. Who knows how expensive everything will become..

/Ankh

[Gandelf]

Good for the enviroment aye, but 50 years is quite alot of time still - and it will proberbly affect everything once we loose the fossil fuels. Who knows how expensive everything will become..

/Ankh

So really, the oil companies need to be confronted now. They already have a stranglehold because they can more or less fix fuel prices to whatever they want. As the oil runs out, then the stranglehold will tighten even more!

[Lairiodd]

So really, the oil companies need to be confronted now. They already have a stranglehold because they can more or less fix fuel prices to whatever they want. As the oil runs out, then the stranglehold will tighten even more!

If they set the price to high, then other sources of energy will be researched. The trick is to get the price so that other sources won't be researched, while still keeping it as high as possible. Now, if there is an actual shortage, then they can't keep it low, so the reseach will be funded.

However, the direction of the research is not certain. There are things like fusion power and solar powered satellites that could be a solution. However, there are also solutions like converting tar sands into oil that wouldn't reduce CO2 burning. Branson was suggesting developing an enzyme that will break down grasses into oil products like ethanol.

Apparently, liquid CO2 is really valuable. If you could figure out a way to extract it out of the air cheaply (you don't even have to convert to oxygen and carbon), you could make a profit. The ironic thing is that one of the main uses of liquid CO2 is to pump it into oil wells. liquid CO2 makes oil less viscous (runs easier) so that it can be pumped. However, it uses more CO2 than would be released from burning the extra oil. In effect, they become "green" oil wells as they extract more CO2 from the air than they cause.

Having said all that, the case for global warming is still unproven.

[<ankh>]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/

check this one out... (quite good movie)

/Ankh

[Gandelf]

I sometimes wonder if all this fuss about global warming is a bandwagon for politicians to jump on, so that they can introduce congestion charges, increase road tax, make MOT tests more difficult to get through (and more expensive) and maybe even one day force us all to use public transport. Generally adding to the "motorist misery".

My idea to solve the congestion issue would be to make it so that there would be no new driving licences issued. If someone wanted a licence, then they would have to wait for one to become available through older drivers having to give up driving, etc. Naturally, there would need to be scope for driving licences to be awarded to those who need them most, i.e. people with disabilities, or doctors, Police, etc. Such a scheme may also have the desirable impact of ensuring that young drivers would probably have to wait a year or two, giving them time to mature.

Then of course, the "bandwagon" could also be a weapon branded MPs to introduce other drastic measures and higher charges in relation to corporate and domestic power consumption, forcing people to pay more for refuse collection etc. etc.

[Lairiodd]

I sometimes wonder if all this fuss about global warming is a bandwagon for politicians to jump on, so that they can introduce congestion charges, increase road tax, make MOT tests more difficult to get through (and more expensive) and maybe even one day force us all to use public transport. Generally adding to the "motorist misery".

My idea to solve the congestion issue would be to make it so that there would be no new driving licences issued. If someone wanted a licence, then they would have to wait for one to become available through older drivers having to give up driving, etc. Naturally, there would need to be scope for driving licences to be awarded to those who need them most, i.e. people with disabilities, or doctors, Police, etc. Such a scheme may also have the desirable impact of ensuring that young drivers would probably have to wait a year or two, giving them time to mature.

That isn't fair at all.

Another option would be to have driving licences last only 5 years and increase the price (alot)

However, if they did that, then they would have to promise that 100% of the extra funds would be put into building and maintaining the road network. However, the odds of that promise being kept (or even made) is pretty small.

Also, they should probably have the price be different based on where you live (or at least where you normally keep your car). If you live in Scotland, there is little point in charging you alot in order to reduce congestion in London.

Another option is to require people to get stamps on their licence to drive in different parts of the country. You would need a London stamp to drive in London.

In effect, this is what the London congestion charges do, you have to pay depending on where and how much you drive. OTOH, how much of the congestion charges are used to fund the Mayor of London's office and how much are used to fund public transport and road maintainance?

The ideal is something like having a different price depending on time of day and being charged per mile. However, the disadvantages and costs of this outweigh the benefits. If something like that came in, people should be given the option to pay by anonymous charge cards or something.

However, what I don't like about all this is the demonisation of drivers. People should be allowed choose the method of transport that they prefer and the government shouldn't be subsidising other forms.