Big business begins to 'get it' 22 September 06

Branson isn’t giving away 3 billion to fight climate change, he’s investing most of it in biofuel companies. While that is obviously better than investing it in, say, his own oil company, he presumably still expects his investment to make a profit. The problems of biofuels are well known, and the jury is still out on whether they can be a genuine long term alternative to oil.

Meanwhile, Monbiot’s criticisms of him still stand. Virgin Atlantic planes still produce even more Carbon Dioxide that those of other other companies. It may be that Branson could fight global warming more by shrinking his empire than expanding it.

Mark,

I’m interested in the report of Richard Branson’s largesse. It describes him as ‘spending profits to combat global warming’. However, I think investing is the right word – when interviewed on Newsnight yesterday, he made it clear the money would not be a charitable donation, but an investment. Is an investment better? It means that Branson, a shrewd businessman, sees a market for renewables (hooray). Will his action be positive and encourage others to invest, whereas if he just made a charitable donation it is more likely to be ignored?

One of the things that Richard Branson mentioned in the interview was research to find a ‘green fuel’ to power his planes. On the same day I read an extract from Geroge Monbiot’s new book (I think it was an extract in the Guardian) which stated there was ‘no technofix for aircraft’. If I remember correctly, although planes could be powered by biofuel, George has argued that biofuel cannot solve our energy needs. Is that correct?

On Newsnight, Richard Branson was also asked why he was still planning to offer trips in to space if he was serious about tackling global warming. He appeared to sidestep the question and compared his rockets with NASA’s, saying his were more efficient, and they ran on ‘candle wax’.

if he is investing in manufacturing plant that would make synthetic kerosene from biomass so that his planes can be running on “biofuel”, that is actually investment in reducing the emissions saving that can be achieved from such biomass, since considerably greater emissions savings are achieved by using milled biomass to substitute for coal, so long as there is centralised brown-coal firing. Coal and peat, being mostly carbon, produce much more CO2 per unit of energy generated than most other fuels.

I am inclined to believe that we should take Branson at face value. I think we are going to see an increasing number of powerful people who “get it” with regard to global warming. They open their eyes and realise that we are all in this together and there is no long term future without action. As Al Gore indicates, ultimately, acting on climate change is a moral decision. At this stage, it looks as though Branson is trying to crack the problem of saving the world without giving up his airline. Will he do it? I really don’t know!

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1877388,00.html

Big business seems to be getting behind biofuel. While I very much doubt biofuels can fully replace fossil fuels. It seems likely they can replace a few percent (probably 5-20%) of current coal, oil and gas. While this is not enough to solve the problems with global warming or peak oil, it still is an enormous business opportunity.

In 20 years time I would not be surprised to see most of the worlds biofuels controlled by only a few large corporations, about the size of the oil majors, so its a very smart move to invest so many resources now.

I think the discussion around biofuels and Richard Branson’s announcement shows how urgently terms like ‘renewable’ or ‘clean’ or ‘low carbon energy’ need to be refined, and how easily they can be abused.

When it comes to hydrodams, decades of protests against mega-dams have convinced several institutions that flooding millions of people and vast ecosystems should not automatically count as a ‘renewable energy’ project (although, of course, they still get built) – whereas small hydro schemes, tidal and wave power are.

There are no such restrictions on the use and definition of biofuels (except for domestic environmental legislation in individual countries). Right now, burning just about any part of the biosphere (vegetation in most cases) can be classed as ‘renewable’ and promotede as being ‘climate friendly’. In Alaska, biodiesel is even made from industrial fishing (not left-overs, they just burn the fish in their refineries, I understand). In Tasmania, campaigners have been fighting against ancient temperate rainforest being made into woodchips, burnt in power plants and counted towards that state’s renewable energy obligation (I don’t know the outcome of this dispute). In the Netherlands, companies are fulfilling part of the renewables obligation by burning palm oil/kernels from Indonesia in coal plants. Similar plans are being considered by Npower in the UK. It would probably be kinder on the planet to chop rainforests down and burn them directly in our power plants (rather than setting fire to millions of hectares of land in order to grow the palms for cleared land). Of course, as with massive hydro dams which displace rainforests and release lots of methane over decades, none of this is in the slightest climate-friendly.

This lack of any definition of restrictions then allows billion dollar investments into some very destructive technologies to be classed as helping the fight against global warming.

Peter writes above that we should give Branson the benefit of the doubt. I’d say we should look where he is putting his money. He’s put some into corn-based ethanol refineries in the US. Given the recent shift from gas to coal in US ethanol refineries, there are no benefits over using petrol with regard to carbon emissions. But there are very good reasons why the aviation industry would invest in bioethanol: They are extremely vulnerable to peak oil, whether it happens next week or in 20 years. Without massive state subsidies, they would already have been hit by high oil prices. It’s absolutely vital for them to find alternative fuels. Ethanol doesn’t yet work in aircraft engines – I dread to think what we would be facing if they were to make it work!

Monbiot omits to mention that kerosene can be synthesised by the Fischer-Tropsch process; as noted in the recent Efracom report on bioenergy, they are already doing this in S.Africa from coal for 50% blending with conventional kerosene, and it could also be made from biomass, but see my other post in this topic.

Section 4 of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution aviation report is a good source on the problems of hydrogen and ethanol as aircraft fuels.

Monbiot also doesn’t mention that aviation could also be tackled by increasing air passenger duty, also recommended by a Parliamentary select committee, and I’m not aware of any treaty barring the UK from steep increases in this.

I wonder also if there is anything to prohibit a tax on aviation climate impacts, which would weigh more heavily against night flights and in favour of less damaging trajectories according to the weather conditions, rather than aviation fuel.

A member of our Biofuelwatch yahoo group informed us what is behind Branson’s investment.

Richard Branson is a member of the Steering Committee of the Energy Futures Coalition. That coalition is primarily funded by the United Nations Foundation and their sister organisation, the , set up following Ted Turner’s $1 billion gift in 1998. Their website is here: http://www.energyfuturecoalition.org/

Ted Turner wants biofuel promotion to become the main tool for breaking the WTO deadlock. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5377652.stm

Forget waste vegetable oil and farmers turning their surpluses into biodiesel for local use: He is thinking big!

Almuth Ernsting

Branson is repositioning his business in the light of the new AGW/CC reality we all face. There is something positive in this. It prompts debate and can result in raised carbon consciousness.

But big-bio, like big dams and big barrages (eg the Severn) have huge costs and are nowhere near as CO2 positive as their proponents suggest. Brutalist mega-measures should be treated with suspicion.

It is clear that individual companies and corporations are increasingly “getting it” on AGW/CC. But they still need to accumulate profit. They still need us to buy their goods and services. Big corporation led consumer capitalism is still on the more … more … more trajectory.

We should all buy less … less … less and where we need to make essential purchases we should seek out those with the least embodied CO2. Now!

Douglas Coker

I think to key to the global warming response is ethier hair shirt or have your cake and eat it. Example an airport – is this a source of global warming (only when linked to jet fuel) what if planes used hydrogen instead?

There are always two soultions two an CO2 generating thing 1 stop it 2 Replace it

I am firmly in camp 2

If planes used hydrogen, they would be emitting water vapour into the satrosphere, thus increasing global warming even faster, according to RCEP.

Unfortunatley, sometimes times ‘solution 2’ doesn’t exist.

When you burn a fossil fuel like kerosene, the end products are carbon dioxide and water vapour, along with (comparatively) small amounts of chemicals produced through inefficient combustion, such as nitrous oxides and carbon monoxides.

So when a turbo-jet runs normally, it is producing almost as much water vapour as a hydrogen powered engine would.

Hydrogen itself really is almost a panacea. The problem is producing it cleanly and getting it up there in the first place.