This is the scene. You are sitting in your living room, perhaps watching the Simpsons, and there’s a knock on the door. Who can this be, you ask? Imagine your surprise#33; Why, it’s the former Vice president of the United States, Al Gore. “Richard” he says “You’re in a position to make a difference, and if you can make a giant step forward, other people will follow.” And with that house call, Sir Richard’s epiphany began.
It’s easy to be cynical about Sir Richard Branson’s gesture announced yesterday to donate $3billion to fighting climate change. But for once cynicism is good.
Not many of the leading national newspapers dared spoil the party, but a few hinted at another side. The FT drew a comparison with Sir Richard’s plan, and the charitable donation of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. The world’s number one and two richest men are giving their money away - Sir Richard hopes to make a profit, so this is not all about altruism, goes the inference.
The MSBN web site said: “Left unsaid was the possibility that some renewable energy investments could pay off handsomely for Branson and his company should they become accepted by industry and consumers. ”
But in this respect the cynics are wrong. Making a profit is the point. If Sir Richard can make money from his investments, he will give the business world the most important message imaginable; that funding renewable alternatives to coal, gas and oil can be profitable.”
Bill Clinton put it nicely. He said of the Branson offer that the commitment was “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”.
Other cynics questioned whether the donation really would amount to $3 billion. Sir Richard has said he will donate the profits from his rail and airline businesses, and yet last year, as the Independent pointed out, these companies made just £90 million in profits, ergo, this does not compute. £90 million times ten does not equal £3 billion.
But there’s an answer to that too. Sir Richard said the money from future dividends and proceeds from the sale of assets, including shares from Virgin’s airline and train operations, would be invested in renewable energy initiatives. In fact it was rather implied he would find the money. It’s just that the profits from rail and the airline were the starting point.
Sir Richard said of his plan: “We must not be the generation responsible for irreversibly damaging the environment. We must hand it over to our children in as near pristine condition as we were lent it from our parents….hopefully this contribution will help our children experience our beautiful world and encourage others to also do what they can.”
Other cynics pointed out that it’s the airlines which are the greatest polluters, and that if Sir Richard really wants to make a gesture, he should stop flying people across the Atlantic. But actually, the Virgin boss had already answered that question. In an interview on US TV station CBS he said: “The only way people can get to London, for instance, is to go on Virgin Atlantic or another airline. You’re not going to stop that happening. So what we’ve got to do is come up with fuels that Virgin Atlantic can burn that are clean fuels, and that’s where our money is going to go, in trying to develop new fuels that can fuel cars and planes and make sure that the world is a safer place.”
Greenpeace sort of welcomed the announcement, and in doing so emphasised the other side of the message, the message that some business leaders only look at. That to fight climate change profits must fall.
John Sauven, campaign director of Greenpeace, said: “Three billion dollars is a lot of money in anyone’s books, and this gesture has to be welcomed as a valuable addition in the fight against climate change.”
“To combat the massive threats of global warming, the world must ditch dependence on fossil fuels. So investing money in biofuels as Richard Branson has pledged is a step in the right direction, but it is really only a very small part of what must be done.”
“Other steps must be taken too - such as increasing transport fuel efficiency and providing more efficient forms of transport. We’d certainly hope that Richard Branson’s commitment to a more environmentally friendly future will also see him supporting moves to drastically reduce the amount of air travel.”
If Sir Richard is right, and air travel in an environmentally responsible world is possible, business will find the carrot of greater profits ample reason to embrace the challenge of global warming. If Greenpeace is right, then business will need a heavy stick, and governments will have to take action via taxation.
In all the fanfare over Sir Richard’s offer, we only came across one story which took the alternative view. On the Web site NewBusters, which has the slogan “exposing and combating liberal media bias” it was said: “Doubts about global warming being driven by fossil fuels, naturally, were ignored.”
Maybe, web sites like this should be met with news groups with the slogan “combating putting your head in the sand.”
For further information
Branson to pledge billions at Clinton Global Initiative Clinton Global Initiate
Networks, Especially CBS, Champion Branson’s Donation to Fight Global Warming NewsBusters
Investment and Business News is a succinct, erudite and informative roundup of today’s top news stories on business and the economy, with analysis thrown in. It’s free, and to subscribe: visit this link
Comments
Trackbacks