This week, as reported by Andy Revkin, entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson said something heroically, world-historically stupid: "If we could come up with a geoengineering answer to this problem, then Copenhagen wouldn't be necessary. We could carry on flying our planes and driving our cars." Sir Richard was talking about removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. He's not alone. The authors of the upcoming book SuperFreakonomics also think that geoengineering is a cheap, easy way to avoid the work of fashioning a more sustainable society. (See Joe Romm for much, much more on the errors in that book.)

I've been writing too many wordy posts lately, so instead, here are some pictures. These first two come from the preface of Gus Speth's book The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability. Pardon the somewhat crude scans.

Notice a theme?

This one is from our story on a recent paper in Nature: “Planetary Boundaries: A Safe Operating Space for Humanity.”

© 2009 Grist Terms of Use.

If you cannot see this graphic, please see this one.

Lesson: the problems humanity faces are systemic and interrelated. The idea that sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere will save us is akin to the hope that a math equation can be solved by erasing one of the numbers.

Related Links:

SuperFreak Dubner embraces ClimateGate conspiracy theories

Best. Review. Ever.

Superfreakonomics coauthor replies to “scathing review”

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving

Climate Citizen: Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care

Like a virgin, the world's first biofuel-powered plane flew for the very first time from London to Amsterdam on Sunday. (Well, it was a little bit biofueled: One of the plane's four main tanks was filled 20 percent with coconut and babassu palm nut oil.) Virgin mogul Richard Branson celebrated his conquest, and deflected concerns about biofuels' bad rep by pointing out that the nuts were sustainably harvested. However, he admitted that the experiment was unrepeatable on a large scale. Environmental activists were left unsatisfied, dismissing the flight as a publicity stunt.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Related Links:

Climate Citizen: Mary Stuart Masterson

Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp

Fixing the bioenergy accounting loophole

Prince Charles warned in a speech on Thursday that if a "courageous and revolutionary" approach to tackling climate change is not undertaken, "the result will be catastrophe for all of us but with the poorest in our world hit hardest of all. In this sense it is surely comparable to war." Also this week, Virgin Group big gun Richard Branson suggested at a United Nations conference that an "environmental war room" be set up to combine "entrepreneurial muscle, the best possible data, and the power to mobilize resources and influence policy." OK, so we're at war with the climate; the question is, who's winning?

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Corporations have been blamed for all manner of environmental evils -- and, in many cases, for good reason. But a growing number of powerful CEOs are seeing the green light. The corporate leaders highlighted here don't run wholly sustainable companies, by any means (many, like Wal-Mart and Pepsi, still have big problems to tackle), but they're making serious attempts to green their products and operations, and the effects of their efforts are rippling throughout the corporate world. Read through the list, then tell us what you think in the comments section at the bottom of this page.

Courtesy of Dell Inc. Michael Dell, Dell Inc.
Computer company Dell Inc. has been a leader in greener business practices for years, from early participation in the U.S. EPA's Energy Star program, to initiating a comprehensive e-waste recycling program, to inviting customers to suggest ways to green Dell products. The company has also started a Plant a Tree for Me program, to let consumers offset the emissions related to their electronic gadgets. Founder and CEO Michael Dell has pledged to personally match any consumer donations to the program for the next three months, so now's the time to chip in and help shake him down for cash.

Michael L. Eskew, UPS
As one of the world's biggest commercial consumers of fossil fuels, UPS has good reason to want to be more fuel efficient. CEO and Chair Mike Eskew has been a clear leader in this area, overseeing the introduction of high-tech software that designs optimal delivery routes, which are expected to reduce by millions the total number of miles traveled by the company's big brown trucks each year. Under Eskew's leadership, UPS has also cut paper use, invested in renewable energy, and added a number of low-emission, alternative-fuel, and hybrid vehicles to its fleet.

Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs
While it was his predecessor, Hank Paulson, who put groundbreaking environmental policy into motion at Goldman Sachs in 2005, current CEO and Director Lloyd Blankfein has continued to take greening into the black. Under Blankfein's leadership, the company has kept on its green course, reflected in its commitment to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 7 percent by 2012, invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency, and curb investment in sketchy logging projects or destructive industrial operations in environmentally sensitive areas.

Do you think these business bigwigs deserve cheers or jeers? Are others more worthy? Tell us below in comments.

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Green-biz pioneer Ray Anderson says sustainability literally pays for itself

Why Branson and SuperFreakonomics are wrong, in pictures

Related Links:

Why Branson and SuperFreakonomics are wrong, in pictures

Alcohol refinery may enhance tourist industry

Virgin Airlines flies first biofuel-powered plane, enviros unimpressed

Virgin founder Branson offers $25 million atmosphere-scrubbing prize

Virgin mogul Sir Richard Branson is dangling $25 million for anyone who can figure out how to scrub vast amounts of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. The Virgin Earth Challenge -- which Branson announced today with the ubiquitous Al Gore by his side and which we're pretty sure was also a Star Trek episode -- will be judged by a panel that includes, besides Branson and Gore, NASA scientist James Hansen, Gaia theorist James Lovelock, Aussie scientist Tim Flannery, and U.K. eco-hero Sir Crispin Tickell. "The Earth cannot wait 60 years," Branson said. "If I write this check ... it will be the best check I've ever written." Despite grumbling from some who pointed out that Branson's endeavors, including plans for commercial space travel, don't exactly help the climate cause, others offered praise. "Richard Branson is ahead of the pack in getting to grips with CO2," said University of Edinburgh geology professor Stuart Haszeldine. "I hope all other businesses, large and small, follow his lead."

Related Links:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Related Links:

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations

The night I slept with Jim Hansen

Related Links:

Why Branson and SuperFreakonomics are wrong, in pictures

Alcohol refinery may enhance tourist industry

Virgin Airlines flies first biofuel-powered plane, enviros unimpressed

Does a music mogul who signed the Rolling Stones and Janet Jackson have what it takes to make a pop star out of biofuels?

Sir Richard.

Earlier this fall, publicity-chasing British entrepreneur Richard Branson made a $3 billion bet that he could do just that -- and help solve the climate crisis to boot -- via Virgin Fuels, a new company in his wide-ranging Virgin Group.

An ear for music doesn't necessarily indicate an eye for energy technology, of course. Branson has proved himself remarkably versatile over the last few decades, expanding his Virgin brand beyond the record label into successful airline, locomotive, cable, and mobile-phone companies. But there have been flops along the way -- Virgin Jeans and Virgin Cola, to name just a couple. Virgin Fuels could be an even riskier venture given that it's plunging headlong into unproven markets, but Branson insists that biofuels are a critical near-term solution to climate change and could fully supplant conventional fuels within 30 years.

Branson is aiming to green his business empire in other ways as well. This week, as part of an effort to curb greenhouse-gas emissions at his Virgin Atlantic airline, he announced a trial plan to tow planes from airport gates to runways so they won't have to burn fuel while they wait to take off.

Branson spoke with me from his private island in the Caribbean. No, he didn't extend an invitation to visit.

The world is grappling with so many grand-scale problems today -- poverty, disease, terrorism. Why did you decide to focus your efforts on global warming?

What sets climate change apart from these other crises is that most people can't see the problem -- CO2 gases are invisible. If you could see them and they were colored red, 50 years ago it would have looked like a small brush fire smoldering around the world, and today it would look like a wildfire raging across the globe. We desperately need leaders who can help bring visibility and forge solutions to this imperceptible menace before it's too late.

Do you think fuel prices will -- and should -- stay high, whether because of government taxes or market forces?

I pray that fuel prices stay high. For an airline owner, it's a disastrous statement to make, of course -- high fuel prices have cost the Virgin Group about a billion dollars a year in increased costs because of our trains and planes. But without high fuel prices, I don't believe people will be stirred into action to address the climate and energy crises.

Should there be government action to accelerate the development of biofuels, which is where the majority of your pledged $3 billion for climate solutions is going?

Governments absolutely must play a lead in bringing this new industry forward. They should be making sure that by 2020, for instance, every single car is a "tribrid" -- a hybrid-electric, flex-fuel car that can run on a combination of electricity, ethanol, and gasoline. They should mandate that all fueling stations have ethanol well before then. And if governments do what they should, I think biofuels could replace conventional fuels within 20 to 30 years.

All the investments you've made so far center on corn-derived ethanol, but many experts have criticized this form of biofuel because of the fossil-fuel inputs required to produce the corn.

Yes, corn ethanol is better for the environment than conventional fuels, but certainly not 100 percent friendly. I see it as a transition technology -- we're starting off with corn, but we plan to move the plants over to cellulosic ethanol, which can be derived from fibrous, fast-growing crops and agricultural waste. It is 100 percent climate-friendly. We're investing heavily in developing enzymes that can transform these readily available fuel sources -- whether it's prairie grass or corn stalks or willow trees or rubbish you chuck out from your home -- into fuel.

Will there be agricultural tradeoffs in the new biofuel economy? Are you concerned that an increase in biofuel products might overtake farmland and undermine food production?

No, I'm not concerned. It's true that there's only room for about 10 percent of the fuel supply in the U.S. to be derived from ethanol before it starts eating into the food supply. After that you've got to go to cellulose, and I believe by the time it gets to 10 percent we will have developed a way of making cellulosic possible. Cellulose won't eat into the food supply at all.

e you see cellulosic ethanol as the be-all-and-end-all solution.

Not be-all and end-all, because it will most certainly be followed by other long-term clean-fuel solutions that will eventually take its place. But I do see it as a crucial near-term transition technology. It makes sense in so many different ways. It's brilliant for farmers, and it means the governments don't have to subsidize agriculture anymore. It's brilliant for a country like America, or any country that's reliant on the Middle East for its oil. They can become self-sufficient in fuel, and they won't have billions and billions of dollars going outside the economy. And it saves the world from almost certain environmental destruction.

You've said your $3 billion investment in biofuels will come from the projected dividends from your transportation divisions over the next 10 years. Critics doubt, however, that you'll earn that much. Are you committed to that number even if your profits fall short?

Yes, we will invest $3 billion in climate solutions in the next 10 years -- and hopefully sooner. If we don't get that from our transportation division profits, we'll find it from other companies. So, if necessary, we'll invest it from the mobile-phone businesses, or cable businesses, or other things.

Ted Turner told The New York Times that you would probably make more money from renewable fuels than from your airlines. Do you think that was accurate, and is profit your guiding motive?

Hopefully Ted is right. If we can start getting everybody switching to alternative fuels, and if as a result the conventional-fuel price doesn't collapse and drown out the alternative-fuels markets, then hopefully profits will be substantial. And if that is the case, then we can keep investing, keep investing.

Profit is my guiding motive only in that it's the only way we can compete against fossil fuels. Remember that $3 billion is negligible compared with what the oil, coal, and gas companies have. They're pouring literally hundreds of billions every year into dirty fuels. The ideal thing with this $3 billion is that we turn it into $10 billion, and other people come and invest with us. So in time we are an economic force for fossil fuels to reckon with.

Tell us about your new plan to reduce airline emissions.

We think the airline industry can reduce its CO2 emissions by about 25 percent over the next two years, and we've started to trial simple, low-tech solutions at London's Heathrow and Gatwick airports that eventually all the airlines can adopt. For example, instead of turning engines on when you're at the gate and using two tons of fuel to get to the end of the runway, we're towing planes to the runway with an electric tug. There you have a parking bay where the planes can wait and then take off. There's a whole list of fuel-saving ideas along these lines that I'm encouraging the entire aviation industry to embrace, and everybody stands to gain: It will save airlines a lot of money while it cuts carbon dioxide emissions.

I understand you're also trying to bring this electric-tug plan to Chicago's O'Hare Airport, and critics are arguing that it would slow down already-congested runway traffic.

The parking bays will actually reduce congestion, as planes that have landed won't have to wait around with their engines running to get to their stand.

These concerns are missing the point. Right now, it's important for everyone in the industry to work together to come up with viable solutions that don't punish the environment.

Airlines in Europe are coming under increasing pressure to curb their greenhouse gases. Do you support some type of a carbon tax for airlines?

Yeah. Anything like that that cuts down greenhouse gases I support.

For instance, do we really need airplanes on short-haul routes where people could be traveling by train? Personally, I think the answer is no. If we've got an adequate train service, people should be going by train, which produces about eight times less CO2 than planes.

Should that be a government mandate too -- that no flights could take place under a certain distance?

If there's an adequate train service, yes -- I think it should be government mandated.

You've admitted that not too long ago you were a climate skeptic -- that you read Bjorn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist and believed it -- before folks like Al Gore and Ted Turner convinced you otherwise. Have you become a born-again environmentalist? If so, how has your climate activism changed your own personal lifestyle?

Well, I think I've always been an environmentalist. I've been fortunate enough to have an island in the Caribbean; when I was 26 years old, I managed to buy it for $100,000. It's a beautiful little jewel. And so every day that I live there or I'm on holiday there, looking out, it's just something that's perfect. It connects me to the awe and beauty of the natural world, and reminds me that we must be a generation devoted to preserving this beauty, not destroying it.

And I'm devoted to getting my own house in order. So we've got long-range light bulbs, we're collecting the rainwater, we're building windmills, we're building little hydrogen areas to store energy.

We're also trying to rig up a gym where when somebody's working out on a treadmill or stationary bicycle or something, they generate power. Virgin owns the third-biggest chain of health clubs in the world, and I thought if we could pull off our own little experiment, then we can introduce it to all of our health clubs.

What kind of car do you drive?

It's the new Saab, which is E85-friendly.

Are you reducing the number of miles you travel by airplane?

My God! Well, I can't say that. But I hope that working to reduce the amount of airplane emissions counts.

Do you get involved in politics?

To some extent. I've just been writing to Arnold Schwarzenegger about flex-fuel cars, and encouraging him to introduce an act to make sure that all the new cars coming to California by 2020 are fully flex-fuel.

I'm also proposing some ideas to Gordon Brown, chancellor of England.

Who do you think would do a better job of tackling climate change, Gordon Brown, the likely Labor Party leader, or David Cameron, the new Tory leader?

I don't know that one would be better than the other -- they're both very committed to it.

But is Gordon Brown the candidate you're supporting?

I don't support political candidates. I avoid that part of politics. I just lobby on certain issues I care about and leave it at that.

Alright, I've got to close on one question totally unrelated to the environment. Since decades ago you had the foresight to sign the Sex Pistols to your young record label, I can't resist asking: What's your favorite band now?

I'd have to say U2. Does that show my age?

Related Links:

Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp

Fixing the bioenergy accounting loophole

Green-biz pioneer Ray Anderson says sustainability literally pays for itself

Richard Branson, founder and chair of the British conglomerate Virgin Group, has racked up more than his share of high-profile high jinks over the years. Among them, signing the notorious Sex Pistols to his young record label, dangling nearly nude over Times Square, and botching numerous transoceanic hot-air balloon expeditions, necessitating rescue by helicopter. But the most audacious move of all may have been his declaration last week that he'll dedicate $3 billion to helping solve the climate crisis.

The largest-ever private sum directed to the cause, Branson's pledge accounted for more than a third of the total $7.3 billion in commitments reaped at the Clinton Global Initiative gathering in New York. That's where Bill Clinton convened movers, shakers, and big spenders to tackle what he calls the four most pressing global challenges of our time: poverty, health care, religious and ethnic conflict, and global warming.

Climate change drew in more dollars and cents than the other issues, and that's surely attributable at least in part to the fact that climate solutions -- be they energy-saving technologies or fossil-fuel alternatives -- have enormous profit-making potential. Companies like General Electric, which is pushing its climate-friendly innovations, know this full well. GE's "Green is green" motto says it all: Good environmental strategies fatten the bottom line.

Branson, for his part, has made no bones about the fact that his global-warming commitment is less a charitable endeavor than a brand-building, revenue-producing tactic. He plans to plow 100 percent of the proceeds from Virgin's airline and locomotive divisions -- an estimated $3 billion over 10 years -- into investments in clean technologies, such as wind turbines and cleaner-burning aviation fuel, with a heavy emphasis on developing "cellulosic" ethanol. Derived from agricultural waste and fast-growing crops like switchgrass, this biofuel produces virtually no greenhouse-gas emissions and is much-celebrated in environmental circles, although it has yet to be proved in the marketplace.

"I believe [cellulosic ethanol] is the future of fuel," Branson stated at the CGI, predicting, "Over the next 20 or 30 years, I think it actually will replace the conventional fuel that you get out of the ground."

Earlier this month, Branson established Virgin Fuels, which will channel $400 million into biofuels investments over the next three years. He has already sunk nearly a fifth of that into the California-based company Cilion, which is developing state-of-the-art ethanol plants and is bankrolled by dot-com-billionaire-turned-biofuels-evangelist Vinod Khosla.

Branson seems to be trying to do for biofuels what his company helped do for cell phones -- make a fringe technology into a mainstream phenomenon. Said Ashok Gupta, air and energy program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, "A single investment like this can't solve global warming by itself, but it can help create trends that in turn move markets that produce solutions. From environmental, national security, and investment perspectives, Branson deserves big applause."

Media magnate Ted Turner agrees. He told The New York Times that Branson's commitment was a "brilliant move," adding, "He'll probably make more money off of this than he would off the airlines themselves."

Indeed, Branson has plenty of good business reasons to pursue this strategy -- not the least of which is a federal mandate in the U.K. requiring all fueling stations to get 5 percent of their fuel from renewable sources by 2010. There are also heaps of incentives in the pipeline for biofuel stations and production in the U.S. and elsewhere. But the biggest driver, says Branson, is the soaring cost of oil: "I've seen the price of my [aviation] fuel going up by nearly a billion over the last three years. It's painful for us as a business, it's painful for our travelers, but thank God it's happened ... [H]igh oil prices are what's been needed to actually wake up the world to deal with this [climate] problem."

It's a surprising perspective from a man who admits to having been dubious of global warming: "Four or five years ago, I read a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist and I believed what I read," he confessed when announcing his commitment, referring to Bjorn Lomborg's polemic that called into question the seriousness of global warming, among numerous other environmental problems. Branson began to reconsider his position when Turner and Al Gore independently appealed to him to face facts.

Having since read "many, many books on global warming, and met many, many scientists," Branson said he has come to realize that "the world is facing a catastrophe." As he told the CGI audience, with uncharacteristic earnestness, "Our generation has inherited an incredibly beautiful world from our parents and they from their parents. It is in our hands whether our children and their children inherit the same world. We must not be the generation responsible for irreversibly damaging the environment."

The twin forces of do-goodism and profit motive have similarly given rise to Google.org, the internet empire's recently announced philanthropic arm, which aims to alleviate global warming, poverty, and disease -- and make money in so doing.

According to philanthropy consultant Susan Raymond of Changing Our World, Inc., Google.org is one of the first major philanthropic organizations to shun nonprofit status -- a move that will not only require it to pay taxes on any profits, but also enable it to fund start-up companies to devise planet-saving technologies, partner with venture capitalists to help finance the innovations, and lobby Congress for policies that will help build emerging markets.

Google.org's spokesperson Jon Murchinson declined to discuss details of the organization's strategy. "We're still in the process of staffing up," he told Muckraker. "[CEO] Larry [Brilliant] just came on in May. We don't have any specifics at this point." But The New York Times recently reported that one of the company's flagship projects is rumored to be a flex-fuel, plug-in hybrid that could be powered by electricity, gasoline, or biofuels. It's just the sort of next-gen automotive technology that giants like Toyota and General Motors are also pursuing.

Raymond recently published an essay in the publication On Philanthropy arguing that for-profit enterprises represent a new paradigm in philanthropy. "The emergence of Google.org ... may be bringing us to The End of Definitions in the philanthropic and nonprofit worlds," she writes. "How is Google.org a philanthropy? How is General Motors not a philanthropy? Making matters worse, GM is NOT making money and Google.org will (or it assumes it will). So, is GM a 'nonprofit' and Google.org not?"

She's just one in a growing cadre of experts who think for-profit ventures could radically change the face of philanthropy. Earlier this month, Anup Malani and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School published "The Case for For-Profit Charities," a paper arguing that for-profit charities should be rewarded with the same tax breaks as nonprofits. "For-profit philanthropy could be a defining, and I think a very beneficial, trend going forward," Malani told Muckraker. Paul Ray, author of the influential book The Cultural Creatives, also recently made a similar point in Grist, arguing that "the line between for-profit and not-for-profit [will] be blurred and eventually erased."

For now, the main difference between for-profit companies and Google.org's for-profit philanthropy is the fact that the former must divide their profits among shareholders, while the latter plans to steer its revenue into further social investments. "Any profits that come from Google.org go back to Google.org," said Murchinson. The more money the organization makes from its clean-car technology, for instance, the more it will have for further research and investment, and the faster it will drive sustainable innovation.

For-profit philanthropy has its limits, of course. How would it solve problems like illiteracy, homelessness, or religious conflict, which have little or no profit potential? Raymond and Malini think traditional nonprofits will persist and continue to address those challenges. "I don't foresee the for-profit model subsuming the nonprofit model -- each is effective in its own way and in different circumstances," said Raymond. "What we're looking at is another very promising tool in the philanthropic toolbox."

While Branson has not proposed making Virgin Fuels or any other endeavor a philanthropic organization, his mission and Google.org's are both based on a common premise: The best way to accelerate the development of planet-saving technologies is to let the marketplace compete to optimize them.

"I have about 10 different reasons for doing this," Branson told the British newspaper The Independent in an exclusive interview last weekend. "One is to tackle climate change. Another is to develop a clean fuel industry. But I would also love to have Virgin recognized as the most respected brand in the world. If it can be a leader in tackling global warming, and that enhances the brand, that's fine. It will enable us to tackle the problem all the sooner." (No doubt Google.com will also enjoy the benefits of brand enhancement if Google.org proves successful.)

Clinton took Branson's point a step further, arguing not only that the movement to fight climate change will benefit from profit-driven solutions, but that it can't succeed without them. "The thing that's important about Richard's commitment is that this is about investment," Clinton said moments after Branson announced his commitment at CGI. "We will never get the world to deal with a problem that is over the horizon, even if it's just a few years over the horizon, unless we can prove we can do it with productive investments ... And we can never prove that unless we have a certain aggregate amount of capital to apply to the task."

Only time will tell how successful corporate ventures and for-profit philanthropies are in addressing climate change, but considering the monstrous scope of the problem, all new hands on deck are welcome.

Related Links:

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

‘Heretic’ battles straw man

Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix

Related Links:

Why Branson and SuperFreakonomics are wrong, in pictures

Alcohol refinery may enhance tourist industry

Virgin Airlines flies first biofuel-powered plane, enviros unimpressed

Related Links:

Why Branson and SuperFreakonomics are wrong, in pictures

Ask Umbra on buying carbon offsets

If REDD can’t save this….

Related Links:

Why Branson and SuperFreakonomics are wrong, in pictures

Alcohol refinery may enhance tourist industry

Virgin Airlines flies first biofuel-powered plane, enviros unimpressed