<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Virgin founder’s $3 billion climate pledge heralds new era in philanthropy]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Delay And Deny http://www.grist.org/article/branson/ Thu, 28 Sep 2006 07:39:38 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/branson/1 Goog rapes public


GOOG insiders have been skimming 401k money from billions of investors (via mutual funds) and yet the press portrays these Ponzi Schemers as "good".

How is this good?   How is boosting up a stock to $450, and letting all the insiders sell to an unwitting public who then get stuck with it at $350 "good"?

Even if it goes back up, they still lost value (only 5 percent of your readers will understand it; the rest need not reply).   Branson, Gates, Page are all people who take a fistful and drop a few crumbs.

Why all the hoopla?

]]> Goog rapes public


GOOG insiders have been skimming 401k money from billions of investors (via mutual funds) and yet the press portrays these Ponzi Schemers as "good".

How is this good?   How is boosting up a stock to $450, and letting all the insiders sell to an unwitting public who then get stuck with it at $350 "good"?

Even if it goes back up, they still lost value (only 5 percent of your readers will understand it; the rest need not reply).   Branson, Gates, Page are all people who take a fistful and drop a few crumbs.

Why all the hoopla?

]]> Comment #2 by Brudaimonia http://www.grist.org/article/branson/ Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:32:16 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/branson/2 Again Grist falls for corporate greenwashing

Hmm, how to deal with the recent wave of corporate greenwashing seeping into the environmental discourse?  It sure is tempting to gush over each token commitment by heretofore-notorious climate offenders.  But we must continually ask the question as to whether such commitments are enough, because an "at-least-they're-doing-something" attitude is out of the question this late in the climate change solutions game.

From what I know of Sir Richard Branson, he has failed this test.  Yes, he plans to invest in clean energy over 10 years.  But, as George Monbiot has pointed out on his new website, Turn Up The Heat, The problem is this: that the climate change crisis has to be addressed right now. We can't wait for a new fuel to be developed in the unspecified future. Unless massive steps to curb carbon emissions are taken immediately, it will be too late to prevent some of the worst effects of global warming.In the meantime, Branson's airplanes will only be worsening global warming.  He plans to expand the number of business class seats over the next three years, making his planes less efficient per passenger.

This is really bad news for global warming, since Monbiot calculates that "Virgin Atlantic's planes [already] produce 7.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year," or the equivalent of 6.2 million times the sustainable level of carbon dioxide emissions per person per year.

If he really wanted to do something substantial about climate change, he would begin phasing out airline routes right now.  Flying is one of the worst forms of transportation as far as global warming goes, not only for the carbon dioxide each flight spews out, but also because of the water vapor it leaves in the atmosphere (which almost certainly exacerbates global warming).  But of course, that makes no sense from a profit standpoint.  After all, he admits that his greenwashing is "less a charitable endeavor than a brand-building, revenue-producing tactic."

Furthermore, since when is it responsible environmental journalism to uncritically report on $400 million biofuels investments and "state-of-the-art ethanol plants"?  I know Grist has rightfully shed a critical light on biofuels in the past (for example, just a week ago), so why not here?  Don't want to burst Branson's light green bubble?  The article did not report whether any of the $400 million will be connected to destructive palm oil plantations (PDF) in Indonesia or Malaysia.

The article also failed to critically analyze Vinod Khosla's ethanol plants, despite the fact that at least one reliable blog, The Oil Drum, has thoroughly debunked his ethanol panacea.

Nor are questions raised about whether cellulosic ethanol (which, I agree, is a much better alternative than corn ethanol) can actually be implemented on a broad scale.  As biofuel expert John Bennemann points out to the contrary, these visions of tens of billions of gallons ethanol per year from biomass must, by all reasonable analysis, be considered a distant possibility not an imminent accomplishment...Moreover, if Branson expects the airline industry to smoothly transition to a new fuel that probably can't even come close to satisfying the fuel demand for the world's automobile fleet, his level of optimism should at least be noted with a critical eye.  In this article, it wasn't.  In its place was the cornucopian belief that ethanol can reasonably be made into a "mainstream phenomenon."

Even if airplanes could be powered by ethanol, there are major safety issues to overcome, as Monbiot mentions: A long and detailed report by researchers at Imperial College, London looked into the potential for using ethanol as an aviation fuel. It has a flashpoint of 12°C, which "would present major safety dangers." It also emits acetaldehyde at low power settings, "bringing localised health problems around airports, especially for ground support staff." For these reasons, ethanol is "unsuitable as a jet fuel"(12).

I am a pretty faithful Grist reader, and believe that it is unsurpassed on the internet in terms of the breadth plus depth of its reporting, but the more I read articles like this (of the "at-least-they're-doing-something" variety), the more it acquires the feel of a corporate press room.

I'd suggest everyone read Monbiot's entire article on Sir Richard Branson as a counterpoint to the uncritical, pat-on-the-back journalism displayed here.

]]> Again Grist falls for corporate greenwashing

Hmm, how to deal with the recent wave of corporate greenwashing seeping into the environmental discourse?  It sure is tempting to gush over each token commitment by heretofore-notorious climate offenders.  But we must continually ask the question as to whether such commitments are enough, because an "at-least-they're-doing-something" attitude is out of the question this late in the climate change solutions game.

From what I know of Sir Richard Branson, he has failed this test.  Yes, he plans to invest in clean energy over 10 years.  But, as George Monbiot has pointed out on his new website, Turn Up The Heat, The problem is this: that the climate change crisis has to be addressed right now. We can't wait for a new fuel to be developed in the unspecified future. Unless massive steps to curb carbon emissions are taken immediately, it will be too late to prevent some of the worst effects of global warming.In the meantime, Branson's airplanes will only be worsening global warming.  He plans to expand the number of business class seats over the next three years, making his planes less efficient per passenger.

This is really bad news for global warming, since Monbiot calculates that "Virgin Atlantic's planes [already] produce 7.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year," or the equivalent of 6.2 million times the sustainable level of carbon dioxide emissions per person per year.

If he really wanted to do something substantial about climate change, he would begin phasing out airline routes right now.  Flying is one of the worst forms of transportation as far as global warming goes, not only for the carbon dioxide each flight spews out, but also because of the water vapor it leaves in the atmosphere (which almost certainly exacerbates global warming).  But of course, that makes no sense from a profit standpoint.  After all, he admits that his greenwashing is "less a charitable endeavor than a brand-building, revenue-producing tactic."

Furthermore, since when is it responsible environmental journalism to uncritically report on $400 million biofuels investments and "state-of-the-art ethanol plants"?  I know Grist has rightfully shed a critical light on biofuels in the past (for example, just a week ago), so why not here?  Don't want to burst Branson's light green bubble?  The article did not report whether any of the $400 million will be connected to destructive palm oil plantations (PDF) in Indonesia or Malaysia.

The article also failed to critically analyze Vinod Khosla's ethanol plants, despite the fact that at least one reliable blog, The Oil Drum, has thoroughly debunked his ethanol panacea.

Nor are questions raised about whether cellulosic ethanol (which, I agree, is a much better alternative than corn ethanol) can actually be implemented on a broad scale.  As biofuel expert John Bennemann points out to the contrary, these visions of tens of billions of gallons ethanol per year from biomass must, by all reasonable analysis, be considered a distant possibility not an imminent accomplishment...Moreover, if Branson expects the airline industry to smoothly transition to a new fuel that probably can't even come close to satisfying the fuel demand for the world's automobile fleet, his level of optimism should at least be noted with a critical eye.  In this article, it wasn't.  In its place was the cornucopian belief that ethanol can reasonably be made into a "mainstream phenomenon."

Even if airplanes could be powered by ethanol, there are major safety issues to overcome, as Monbiot mentions: A long and detailed report by researchers at Imperial College, London looked into the potential for using ethanol as an aviation fuel. It has a flashpoint of 12°C, which "would present major safety dangers." It also emits acetaldehyde at low power settings, "bringing localised health problems around airports, especially for ground support staff." For these reasons, ethanol is "unsuitable as a jet fuel"(12).

I am a pretty faithful Grist reader, and believe that it is unsurpassed on the internet in terms of the breadth plus depth of its reporting, but the more I read articles like this (of the "at-least-they're-doing-something" variety), the more it acquires the feel of a corporate press room.

I'd suggest everyone read Monbiot's entire article on Sir Richard Branson as a counterpoint to the uncritical, pat-on-the-back journalism displayed here.

]]> Comment #3 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/branson/ Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:45:53 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/branson/3 Curtail air travel?

"how to deal with the recent wave of corporate greenwashing"

I would suggest there is a better way than a hopeless fight to limit air travel.

Try to steer Branson and others towards fuel cell/ turbine aircraft systems.

I agree that ethanol and biodiesel are not the answer, fuel farming is a huge disaster.  But Gates is backing fuel farming with investments in ethanol plants too.  I hope Branson doesn't make this mistake.

"Cellulosic ethanol is better?"  You seem to be joining the side you are opposing, very strange.  Cellulosic ethanol is just as bad as any other fuel farming nonsaense.

Boeing is already working on a fuel cell/turbine system to generate backup power for airliners.  that plan is woefully inadequate and slow.  Branson needs to fund this development.  It might make Franklin Fuel Cell or some other small company the next google in terms of IPOs.

(bad trade jab, that's a shame, hehey.  Wait until the oil wars are over to trade.  It's bad karma in time of war)

Here is how this system works in fixed power generation now.  A high temperature solid oxide fuel cell, employing CeO2 (a ceramic material used in catalytic convertors) and copper, that runs on any fuel without fouling generates eklectricity as oxygen combines with the fuel in the fuel cell.

Then the hot gases are sent into a turbine to generate more electricity.  The efficiency of this combination alone is 75%.  the addition of infrared photovoltaic cells around the high temp fuel cell might add another 10 to 15% efficiency.

In an aircraft application the hot gases would be sent to a turbine driving the turbofan engine of the airplane, and the electricity from the fuel cell and infrared PV cells would power an electric motor driving the turbofan engine.  maybe 85% efficient power for air travel versus the current 20%?   That's over 75% reduction in greenhouse gases.

And as batteries and ultracapacitors approach the weight/energy ratio of liquid fuel air liners can even go hybrid.  Flying a large portion of their time on renewable electric power stored onboard.

Could air travel use 10% of it's present fuel?  I think so.  Help that along Mr. Branson.

]]> Curtail air travel?

"how to deal with the recent wave of corporate greenwashing"

I would suggest there is a better way than a hopeless fight to limit air travel.

Try to steer Branson and others towards fuel cell/ turbine aircraft systems.

I agree that ethanol and biodiesel are not the answer, fuel farming is a huge disaster.  But Gates is backing fuel farming with investments in ethanol plants too.  I hope Branson doesn't make this mistake.

"Cellulosic ethanol is better?"  You seem to be joining the side you are opposing, very strange.  Cellulosic ethanol is just as bad as any other fuel farming nonsaense.

Boeing is already working on a fuel cell/turbine system to generate backup power for airliners.  that plan is woefully inadequate and slow.  Branson needs to fund this development.  It might make Franklin Fuel Cell or some other small company the next google in terms of IPOs.

(bad trade jab, that's a shame, hehey.  Wait until the oil wars are over to trade.  It's bad karma in time of war)

Here is how this system works in fixed power generation now.  A high temperature solid oxide fuel cell, employing CeO2 (a ceramic material used in catalytic convertors) and copper, that runs on any fuel without fouling generates eklectricity as oxygen combines with the fuel in the fuel cell.

Then the hot gases are sent into a turbine to generate more electricity.  The efficiency of this combination alone is 75%.  the addition of infrared photovoltaic cells around the high temp fuel cell might add another 10 to 15% efficiency.

In an aircraft application the hot gases would be sent to a turbine driving the turbofan engine of the airplane, and the electricity from the fuel cell and infrared PV cells would power an electric motor driving the turbofan engine.  maybe 85% efficient power for air travel versus the current 20%?   That's over 75% reduction in greenhouse gases.

And as batteries and ultracapacitors approach the weight/energy ratio of liquid fuel air liners can even go hybrid.  Flying a large portion of their time on renewable electric power stored onboard.

Could air travel use 10% of it's present fuel?  I think so.  Help that along Mr. Branson.

]]> Comment #4 by Brudaimonia http://www.grist.org/article/branson/ Sat, 30 Sep 2006 04:17:28 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/branson/4 The case for limiting air travel

The fight to limit air travel is not hopeless.  In fact, it might be aided by the fact that the scarcity of oil in the coming years and its effect on jet fuel prices will make air travel prohibitively expensive in the near future.

Despite the interesting alternative you mention, which you admit is "woefully inadequate and slow" in the development, there is simply nothing in the short term to replace petroleum-based jet fuel.

But one would hope that the urgency to combat global warming alone could motivate many people to refrain from air travel as much as possible.

For the record, simply saying one biofuel is better than the other doesn't equate with "joining the side" of it.  If you read my whole comment instead of, apparently, picking and choosing certain statements, you'd know that I questioned the viability of even cellulosic ethanol, which is still very much in its experimental phase.

I hope Branson doesn't make this mistake.

If you read the whole article, you'd realize that he already has made the mistake - unless he reneges on his promises - deciding to invest $400 million in Vinod Khosla's ill-planned ethanol plants.

]]> The case for limiting air travel

The fight to limit air travel is not hopeless.  In fact, it might be aided by the fact that the scarcity of oil in the coming years and its effect on jet fuel prices will make air travel prohibitively expensive in the near future.

Despite the interesting alternative you mention, which you admit is "woefully inadequate and slow" in the development, there is simply nothing in the short term to replace petroleum-based jet fuel.

But one would hope that the urgency to combat global warming alone could motivate many people to refrain from air travel as much as possible.

For the record, simply saying one biofuel is better than the other doesn't equate with "joining the side" of it.  If you read my whole comment instead of, apparently, picking and choosing certain statements, you'd know that I questioned the viability of even cellulosic ethanol, which is still very much in its experimental phase.

I hope Branson doesn't make this mistake.

If you read the whole article, you'd realize that he already has made the mistake - unless he reneges on his promises - deciding to invest $400 million in Vinod Khosla's ill-planned ethanol plants.

]]> Comment #5 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/branson/ Sat, 30 Sep 2006 04:44:55 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/branson/5 Agribizz fuel farming corporations.

Already got 400 mill?  Oh well.  Maybe a few million will get to this fuel cell/turbine aircraft engine design.

I say quit boosting any biofuel farming except from algae in solar collectors.  We have not enough food and water for people, it makes no sense to grow food for cars that can run on renewable electric power instead.

Algae can process waste water and CO 2 and other power plant emissions into clean water, fertlizer, and fuel.  The little liquid fuel needed after fuel use is cut to 10% of present levels with renewable energy might be made in this way.

]]> Agribizz fuel farming corporations.

Already got 400 mill?  Oh well.  Maybe a few million will get to this fuel cell/turbine aircraft engine design.

I say quit boosting any biofuel farming except from algae in solar collectors.  We have not enough food and water for people, it makes no sense to grow food for cars that can run on renewable electric power instead.

Algae can process waste water and CO 2 and other power plant emissions into clean water, fertlizer, and fuel.  The little liquid fuel needed after fuel use is cut to 10% of present levels with renewable energy might be made in this way.

]]>