Richard Branson to donate £3bn to fight climate change

Makavelli said:
Well obviously voting has to do with something - do you vote for the sake of it or do you believe in a candidate and his policies? eg If Al Gore had won the presidential election instead of George Bush one could argue that America would be signed up to Koyoto - and perhaps the Gulf War II might not have happened, hypothetical i know but those are the possibilites that democracy offers. I'm sorry mate but you say realist and i say defeatist so far all you have given are excuses for why we should not bother to tackle global warming. I agree with you about bio fuels but i said that in my earlier post, why do you assume that it has to be all or nothing? We could cut CO2 emissions by 100% but do we need to? and all at once? The same goes for bio-fuel why do you assume that we need to be totally dependent on them for change to happen. Also i didn't quote the 10 year time frame you did, you may be right about China but if we don't at least try and set an example how can we expect others to follow.

I'm not defeatist, but at the moment. The best we can do is build nuclear power plants and try to cut are energy demands. This we can do and I support that. However green peace in all there wisdom are trying to debunk the plans.

As for 100% I dont mean a 100% but you do need to make it a decent percentage. Otherwise the infrastructure is going to cost more than what you pay for the fuel. Or make the fuel so expensive no one buys it.

Unfortunately, if the predictions are correct (which I doubt it) then yes we do need to cut emissions by a large percentage.

As for china, It's not just there co2 emissions and global warming. I'm looking at a bigger picture. There workforce is cheap. There power is cheap. The more restrictions we put on companies and power production/usage. The more companies are simply going to move abroad.


I'm trying to get across how complicated this matter is, a lot of people just don't comprehend how everything ties together. I'm also playing a bit of devils advicate with some points.


Sorry way of with china.. its 850 over 3 countries.

The official treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions hasn't gone into effect yet and already three countries are planning to build nearly 850 new coal-fired plants, which would pump up to five times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html
 
Last edited:
Time for a rant in A minor...

Mr Mag00 said:
Its called a way over due tax bill!!!!!!!!!! and should be annual!

dont be daft, Virgin is a legitimate company that pays its taxes on time each year.


afraser2k said:
Must be the new "in" thing to do for billionaires these days?

people complain when billionairs sit on their money and their companys coffers are full, yet when they try to put serious ammounts of it towards something useful for the world, people like yourself ridicule them. They obviously just cant do anything right in your eyes.

badgermonkey said:
Either way it doesnt really matter. We can't stop global warming, it's been happening since the Ice Age! (How else do you think the ice age ended)

true its not preventable, but warming that should have occurred over the next 1000 years occurred in the last 50, and we are mostly to blame. also temperatures would not increase indefinatly if humans were not here, the planet goes through little cycles over several millenia with temperatures bobing around along a median line with the odd sharp drop or rise. so far the last 50 years is the only time we have been able to find such a remarkable leap in global temperature.

1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures for the last 1000 years according to various older articles (bluish lines), newer articles (reddish lines), and instrumental record (black line).







full details and sources here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

what needs to be done is a stabilisation of Co2, its possible to remove Co2 from our economys but that will take at least 100 years to accomplish globally and thats an optimistic estimate so we need to use the technology at our disposal, this means more wind, more nuclear, more water, and we need to get cracking on geothermal technology which is still in its infancy despite there being a massive source of energy under our feet.

we can also use carbon fibre to build cars and aircraft now, halving there weight thus lowering fuel consumption and giving them 12 times the impact capacity of steel. I have seen carbon fibre cars and combined with a hybrid engine they get 60 / 100 miles per gallon and look just like an ordinary car and at not that much more expense than regular production methods its a simple way to reduce some of our Co2 output. theres also research going on into making carbon into glass which could prove an interesting cheap useful and clean method of carbon storage.

we have so much technology, yet we barely use it because governments and people in general do not like change and risk. its going to be far worse if we do nothing.


AcidHell2 said:
I'm realistic. If the 10 year prediction is right, then the only way to "save" us is by bankrupting ever nation dependent of fuel. I'm sorry I would rather cope with the effects like us humans are renowned for doing. Than bankrupt are society and end are way of life.

Also we can't do it as a nation. Its goto include every country to put an effort in. Places like china are building huge coal power stations. These will be chucking out vast amounts of co2.

basically there is little we can do, the sooner people relies that the better. Where humans, where great at inventing and surviving. We will adapt.

bankrupting every nation??? a little over dramatic. see above your quote for just some of the things we can do. i would also like to point out that sweden is aiming for an oil free economy by 2020 and they are on track for that as well. its a model we can look at and use to adapt our countrys.

and i have to say even if the choice was between a dead world in 1000 years and going without now, i would be prapaired to lose a few things from my life.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4694152.stm <-- full story on sweden.

you say humans will survive... some will, but not everyone, and our way of life is going to be disrupted beyond anything we have seen before. As the great man David Attenborough said recently, "our choices now are between severe climate change and catastrophic climate change". anything we can do to minimise the impact is worth doing, this is what Mr branson has set out to do.
 
Last edited:
Acidhell2 said:
Co2 isn't a very bad green house gas

That statement alone quite honestly shows that you really dont understand what global warming actually is, and how it's caused.

You are right, methan is by comparison a far more potent agent in causing the green house effect, yet there is exponentially less of it actually contributing. Good argument there.

Also such an attitude as to say
Acidhell2 said:
the earth will warm up what ever we do. We coming out of an ice age. Yes where speeding it up. But ultimately we can't stop it.
is a little uninspiring to say the least.

Acidhell2 said:
However water is 100X more effective as a green house gas than co2 is

Clouds are a b**** arn't they. lets stop them as well. All one has to do to stop water vapour from a hydrogen based energy source is simply place something cold in the way of the exhaust. Problem solved.

Forgive me if i sound a little deffensive, but i am so thats the way it comes across :)
 
woodsy2k said:
Clouds are a b**** arn't they. lets stop them as well. All one has to do to stop water vapour from a hydrogen based energy source is simply place something cold in the way of the exhaust. Problem solved.

Forgive me if i sound a little deffensive, but i am so thats the way it comes across :)

just like co2 is a **** lets just stop volcanoes and empty the sea, shall we.

I'm not saying hydrogen is a problem, but how many hydrogen powered vehicles collect the water vapour? NONE, because its done for money not to help the environment.
 
Time for a rant in A minor...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Mag00
Its called a way over due tax bill!!!!!!!!!! and should be annual!


dont be daft, Virgin is a legitimate company that pays its taxes on time each year.
D'oh *slaps forehead*
Thanks for the business and economics lesson, i didnt realise, how did i ever get to this grand old age and start 3 businesses :rolleyes:
I was being sarcastic with reference to his polluting transport atlantic flights and refernce to no tax paid on air fuel.
 
Acidhell2, mate, Im not having a go, Im simply trying to say that the earth can sustain itself perfectly naturally. Its because we are pumping more than a natural amount into the atmosphere that global warming is ever increasing. If we stop, so will the effects. Your right, money is the underlying problem for what ever reason or another, and hence the discussion about the massive investment. :)
 
AcidHell2 said:
just like co2 is a **** lets just stop volcanoes and empty the sea, shall we.

I'm not saying hydrogen is a problem, but how many hydrogen powered vehicles collect the water vapour? NONE, because its done for money not to help the environment.

no hydrogen powerd vehicle is currently commercially available. hydrogen car has nothinf to do with making money as the current prototype will set you back $5 million.
 
woodsy2k said:
Acidhell2, mate, Im not having a go, Im simply trying to say that the earth can sustain itself perfectly naturally. Its because we are pumping more than a natural amount into the atmosphere that global warming is ever increasing. If we stop, so will the effects. Your right, money is the underlying problem for what ever reason or another, and hence the discussion about the massive investment. :)

No prob, it's just a lot of people think, stooping co2 emissions will stop the problem. It wont. there's a lot of other gasses. Such as methane and water vapour which all add to it. Unless you invent a power source with no emissions or limited. Then you will just be changing from co2 to a different problem. Then there's also the financial problem, of converting and infrastructure.
 
locutus12 said:
no hydrogen powerd vehicle is currently commercially available. hydrogen car has nothinf to do with making money as the current prototype will set you back $5 million.
That's not strictly true. Mercedes released an A-class which was powered by Hydrogen. It cost around £115,000 though. Not sure if it's still available though.
 
Just seen quite a good quote from Foxnews.com

"Richard's commitment is groundbreaking not only because of the price tag — which is phenomenal — but also because of the statement that he is making: clean energy is good for the world and it's good for business," Clinton said.
 
ive read through the wikipedia page of 'effects of global warming' and i dont see anything there which is 'likely to happen' that is so serious that we should cut our C02 output and damage our standard of living

i really am scratching my head at what the hell is all the fuss about..
 
Rosbif said:
i really am scratching my head at what the hell is all the fuss about..

media scaremongering from the absolutely worst case scenario.

They neglect to say that sea levels have fallen by an average of 3mm in deep say and only risen 1mm at coast lines.
 
Back
Top Bottom