Branson
MSNBC prints a puff piece from Forbes on Richard Branson’s approach to charity – he’s been for it since September, apparently. “At Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative in New York, Branson pledged all proceeds from Virgin Group’s transportation divisions be donated to develop alternative fuel sources and alleviate global warming. His pledge amounts to about $3 billion over ten years.”
But get this: “Branson didn’t even believe in global warming until five years ago. Then he read Bjorn Lomborg’s, The Skeptical Environmentalist.”
Just imagine if he had been reading Quiggin’s posts – on his own website back to August, 2001, and here and here and here and here, for example. On the other hand, could it be that Lomborg served as the thin edge of the wedge and that Branson allowed himself to be convinced by the evidence only because the “solution” Lomborg presents is pretty much to wait until technology solves the problem? Regardless, and not to quibble about the definition of “charity” at work in the article, it’s certainly good that Branson is putting money toward developing alternative fuel sources.
the “solution” Lomborg presents is pretty much to wait until technology solves the problem
But isn’t that what Branson intends his money to promote? Technological solutions to the problem?
“Branson didn’t even believe in global warming until five years ago. Then he read Bjorn Lomborg’s, The Skeptical Environmentalist.”
That’s interesting, but didn’t Lomborg’s book pooh-pooh global warming? If so, how did Branson’s reading the book persuade him that global warming was real?
G.A. Cohen’s Karl Marx’s Theoory of HIstory: A Defence persuaded me that KM’s theory of history was false…
No Raj, Lomborg has always conceded that global warming is real, he just doesn’t think we ought to do much about it.
I agree with Tom T above. It is hard to see much of a difference between “putting money toward developing alternative fuel sources” and hoping that “technology solves the problem.” “Technology” is, after all, driven by human decisions, like that of Branson.
Or possibly Lomborg convinced Branson because Branson felt Lomborg was more credible as he showed a lot of skepticism towards other environmental stories.
When a statistician who writes a book as an avowed skeptic states that they think there is something in global warming I find that much more convincing (not being equipped to directly evaluate the evidence myself) than someone who goes on and on about how humans are destroying the earth and we are a cancer on the skin of the planet, and etc.
Actually, when I first saw this title, I thought one of the Crooked Timber folks had gone to Branson, Missouri. I was looking forward to some mordant remarks on Yakov Smirnoff and Bobby Vinton.
Other reports give credit to Al Gore for convincing Branson to actually do something.
Knowing that a predator like Branson found solace in Lomborg allows one not to wastetime in reading Lonborg.
Reading Anarchy, State and Utopia persuaded me that libertarianism is very silly…