Branson & Gore offer $3 billion to Clean Earth’s Air... Waste or investment?
Many of you would have heard the news this week that Virgin Atlantic chair and millionaire Richard Branson (together with Al Gore), offered $3 billion dollars to scientists across the globe, in a bid to “clean up” Earth's atmosphere of pollution.
Immediately, my mind went flying off into space as I started thinking of a giant extractor fan, shoved through the stratosphere. Fitted with a one-way valve, the size of Sweden, this ‘little flue’ is switched on and starts extracting all the CO2 from our atmosphere, out into the empty (doesn't matter) vastness of space.
Ideal, of course - but hey - we can build a space station, can’t we?
What about the oxygen?
Well, if current world leaders get their way, we could have giant nuclear oxygen plants, (instead of trees), chugging away silently creating oxygen for us to fill up the nice new clean atmosphere…?
~oOo~
I think that Richard Branson, Al Gore, and the many others involved in these types of massive corporate investments should be encouraged, not criticized. Quite honestly, Branson needs to provide a good response his detractors because his airline contributes to the problems he is trying to solve, even though he spends nearly half a million each year in fuel effieicent emission control of his fleet. And not forgetting of course, that the public still wants to be able to jet-set about the globe …
It dawned on me that when politicians say, “not sustainable” it means not able to sustain a politician’s wages and the vast public service network, needed in revenue returns? That is perhaps what makes nuclear plants so appealing to politicians. They can keep raping the land, why not? It’s been done for years and guarantees Australia a head place in the Global village, until the uranium runs out. Not my lifetime, not my worry!
~oOo~
The announcement came at a good time, just as the European Union was proposing that its member countries increase fines and 'jail time' for corporate polluters.
For those who have seen Al Gore's detailed documentary, An Inconveinient Truth, it is more a question of creating a liveable, healthy environment without pollution in the air, water, and soil, which at the current levels, I find hard to believe are a part of any natural cycle? From what I have read and learned, this looks impossible yet totally plausible with a few major changes using "political will." But like all addicts, the cure beings in acceptance of the addiction ...
Is there a silver lining to this dark cloud of Greenhouse gases and can Richard Branson and Al Gore find it, whilst the political machinery works itself out on this one?
Has the time come that a mutual enemy, like annihilation of our species, creates a union of government, science and populace, working together as one. Time for an Oligarchical Ostrich Quickstep, in order for us all to survive?
Day After Tomorrow pic. courtesy of www.technofile.com
So there is no money up front.
Smart move Richard. You get the benefit of good publicity and none of the expenses of actually spending the money.
Might be more beneficial if he took one billion and actually financed the research. Risky but better than offering a reward that he may never have to pay.
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
but how many self seeking, self servile scientists are there out there who will say anything for money?
I think the emphasis of having done it this way, is that time is short and results count. I do believe there are incentive payments along the way for REAL scientists/ideas, but will double check and get back to you on it...
Lilla ...
Flashes of memories
Seems everyone is of the opinion that if it doesn`t affect me then why should I bother? Well what about the long term effects that future generations - namely our children and grandchildren - will feel? We are sentencing them to hotter summers, more polluted air, unhealthy food and water.....we are sentencing ourselves to this everyday.
Environmental issues were of high priority at school when I was there. Environmental Studies was a compulsory subject. Every year we would have a week dedicated to cleaning up our town - litter collecting, planting trees, being educated on the latest environmental facts etc. Most houses collected rain water, most houses had a compost heap so nothing was wasted. School camps involved going out into the rural areas and collecting fallen tree branches to lay in dry river beds to assist with soil erosion during the rainy season - simply we were taught that we all have to do our part, prevention is better than cure. Now it seems everyone is just looking the other way.
Spend the money to get things done before it`s too late. We have a beautiful planet we should be nurturing it and not destroying it.
Good post Lilla
PS did you see the news today about Qld`s clean coal plant?
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
That's so interesting, thanks for the link. I've copied the main thrust here...
Ordinary coal is still used but when it is burnt the hazardous gases can be extracted instead of being released with steam vapour.
Small models of the system have worked in laboratories but researchers say it is yet to be proved cost effective.
Power companies from the United States, China and India are already showing interest in the Australian research but Drew Hutton from the Greens is not convinced.
"There is no clean coal technology up and running now," he said.
Interesting because it is time that the Australian government put it's money where it's big mouth is to back Australian Inventors... hear, hear!
I don't like using coal to produce energy at all though and still see this as a bandaid measure, don't you?
Geo-thermal plants in Adelaide was a great idea. The temperatures run hot close to the ground there and pouring sea water in to create steam to turn turbines could power Adeliade and half the state. Free. No cost to the planet.
And again, I hate to harp on about Bob Brown (beucase I don't support the Greens par se), but WHAT ABOUT SOLAR POWER????
Let's face it, pollies don't want to know becuase it won't generate revenue from sales overseas. Sales of coal, sales of uranium.
My feeling are that WE ARE GOING NUCLEAR KIDDIES, (like it or not) ...BUCKLE UP...
~oOo~
I hear you Ash,
most people don't care anymore, either way. Too tired trying to make a buck and live up to the glammy 21 century dream of $17 million penthouse homes, 2.3 SUV's and 2.3 children.
Ash, I'm going to look into this "clean Coal" burning thing more and maybe do a feature on it. Cheers.
Lilla ...
Stress Alive
Man Lessons
Flashes of memories
Passionate Apathy
Even the "clean coal" will emit some CO2; as far as environmentally friendly power plants it looks like nuclear may be our cleanest option so far. Solar and such sounds nice, but there's just so many watts across Earth's cross-section- and many of them are already needed for plant life.
Of course funding research is always good- even if you don;t get what you were expecting, serendipity tends to step in and give you something in return anyway.
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
I usually write my responses in a word document first and then copy/paste them into “comments.” I do this because sometimes they just get lost in the process of creating comments. This is exactly what happened last night when I lost another response to your comment by typing it ‘live…”
*screaming into a pillow*
Now comes the slightly less coherent, more aggressive ‘re-hash’ … sorry, but my original thoughts and good mood (flow), went out the window with my anger …
Either way, I loved your comment, especially about the point of no return. The short answer is no, we have not; but we must act soon. The ‘Inconvenient Truth,’ is just that – a TRUTH. Francis, I would strongly suggest that you watch this documentary if you haven’t already seen it, in order to understand more clearly the situation.
You will soon realise that there is so much untapped, 'trapped' wattage, currently melting the ice caps, which could be well utilised (instead of warming the oceans) – or in drought ridden deserts - we could power entire cities for weeks on end!
Why else do we have such advanced technology, if not to change the outcomes of bad habits?
The problem is a moral one, because we need political will to ‘set up’ the new infrastructure required. That costs lots of ‘gold bars’ … remembering that without a planet, there will be no gold bars anyway.
Al Gore said it loud and clear to me; Governments are a renewable source too and it is why, (although not strictly a labor supporter), I strongly agree with Kevin Rudd for wanting to end our presence in Iraq. It is time. It took (what?) seven years before America lost all support and realised that Vietnam was a no-win situation? I think we all realise it now, in just four years of Iraq, don’t we? At least other nations have had the balls to step back without fearing repercussions...
I think that the problem with men of war, is that peace time confuses them …
I think this Rudd government may well realise that those mis-spent, ‘peace keeping’ dollars are REALLY needed now, here at home – even if the agenda is for nuclear plants - they still have to be built? It seems redundant to stay in Iraq when Peak Oil is dwindling, and the ‘new oil’ is already sighted in Alaska and Africa.
We must take action to ensure that the new infrastructure required to reduce carbon emissions is implemented in Australia, and that things like Kyoto are not ignored. It is imperative in turning global warming around, before it really is too late - so there is a world left for our children’s, children?
The only way a politician will change things is if it is on the electorates lips…
- Al Gore, from An Inconvenient Truth Documentary
That is the job of doubt mongers and they do it so well, they have turned reported fact into a 53% disbelief before - especially during the 1960's campaign against smoking causing lung cancer.
I think everyone owes it to themselves to see an Inconvenient Truth. Then decide for yourself. As for Branson, I think he really wants to help and is not a man to be gainsaid.
Thanks again for your great comment,
Again, sorry my response is so horribly disjointed…
Wendi,
Yes, I love it too. But it is time governments also realised they are a renewable source too and were made to back things up. Which corporation will bother when both your government and mine refuses to accept the truth?
It is a disgrace, really, whichever way you look at it.
Let’s hope The Inconvenient Truth wakes voters up to pushing this along?
Deorre,
I just noticed that I lost my response to you too, sorry.
I thanked you for your compliment and encouragement.
Lilla
Passionate Apathy
Solar collectors in the desert would lose efficiency from blowing sand. Reclamation efforts to prevent them from from growing could produce food in famine areas and help reduce atmospheric CO2.
Heh. Just getting out of bed in the morning is confusing enough for our President. I've noticed the most hawkish (eager for war) elements in the current administration have never actually served in the military.
Politicians and religious zealots both have the same problem with facts and reality. People vote their beliefs, not empirical reality.