English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

19 answers

I know what you mean, but remember this is the same guy who is promoting space tourism and will be charging £100k to send people into space.

Compared to one of those trips his fleet of airplanes look positively tree hugging!

2006-09-22 01:51:41 · answer #1 · answered by 'Dr Greene' 7 · 1 0

purchasers ought to decide on themselves even if it changed into well worth it to purchase such an severe priced aspect that damaged the ecosystem a lot, while we are form of interior the darkish in the hot day. And if for a standard celebration, some thing is on the marketplace in a ton of packaging, if it truly is taxed i'm confident it will be about a nanosecond before businesses arise with a miles more advantageous acceptable way of doing it so their product is more advantageous value-aggressive. Or if a particular style of foodstuff expenditures a fortune because the pollutants excited by transporting it thus far is taxed then we will all eat some thing else! it truly is inevitable that the abuse of our ecosystems by making use of capitalists to make money for his or her personal wallet at the same time as all and various bears the environmental consequences of their moves turns into unlawful - why won't be able to we do it now at the same time as we nonetheless have slightly time?driving alongside M4 from city to the western suburbs, ninety 5% of autos that slowly strikes with the move of the site visitors are drivers in reality. If community (the bigger portion of it or community community) encourages vehicle-pulling, we may all be shocked to discover that there are more advantageous than 3 human beings interior an analogous position that extremely head in direction of one direction. this also will inspire community mateship and per chance make our section a a lot safer position to stay in. enable's hit 2 birds with one stone!

2016-11-23 14:55:47 · answer #2 · answered by marinaccio 4 · 0 0

No, because the money he has pledged is to be spent on sourcing alternative enviornmentally sound ways of fuelling his planes and trains. He is trying to bring virgin upto a current level playing field against the other large multinational corporations who are becoming more acute in their commerical social awareness.

2006-09-22 01:52:56 · answer #3 · answered by wehatetottenham 2 · 0 0

Good thinking but that would put a lot of people out of work & wouldn't solve the problem, other airlines would say "thanks a lot" & take up the slack.
So I think he deserves some credit for a bit of initiative & maybe we should think he is genuinely concerned about climate change & the rest of it.
Having said that, I've never flown Virgin or ridden on his trains.

2006-09-22 01:51:39 · answer #4 · answered by frankobserver 3 · 0 0

If he did, he wouldn't make as much money and therefore wouldn't be able to put any money into researching green or renewable energy sources. If we didn't have the money to research this due to stopping using fossil fuels so much, we'd still have the energy crisis, just a few years later. He may be thinking about it that way, and also, he probably likes the money/status it brings.

2006-09-22 01:41:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If every airline on earth stopped flying, it would not reduce pollution at all.
Jets get about 50mpg per passenger, so when they carry 300 people 1000 miles, they are saving tens of thousands of gallons.

Over 80% of pollution is from manufacturing. Every time you buy a car, more pollution was released making that car that it will produce in its entire life. By trading in your car for a hybrid, you are putting approx. 40 tons of pollution in the air, or the equivalent of 80 years of average operation of a pickup truck.
If every person kept their cars one extra year, we would reduce pollution by 12 million tons. or about 3 times what ever car on earth releases each year combined. Or, about what all of china combined releases each year.

2006-09-22 01:57:51 · answer #6 · answered by Doggzilla 6 · 0 0

No I for one enjoy world travel and as far as I'm concerened the cheaper the better.

What we do to the enviroment is minimal compared to what would happen to the people that rely on tourism to survive i.e. the carrabean would have to go back to producing sugar and rum. That would really help there economies don't you think?

2006-09-22 01:45:20 · answer #7 · answered by coulditbemanilow 3 · 0 0

yep,

Its typical of people like him. He's made his millions out of offering atmoshere-poluting services and now says he's doing "his bit"

Its just a publicity stunt.

He should yank up the price of tickets to put people off flying, that'll help more than his gimmick.

Oh, and he should cancel his space travel firm, how does that help in protecting the planet ?

2006-09-22 01:50:18 · answer #8 · answered by Michael H 7 · 0 0

Genius! I would love to see you in charge of all climate change issues. we could go back to living off the land in mud huts and end pollution altogether.

Or maybe you should stop talking out of your ****, that would also aid in reducing pollution

2006-09-22 01:51:37 · answer #9 · answered by barry r25 2 · 0 0

branson is hoping the bio diesel he's invested in will be used for planes in the future, therefore he's investing in his companys future. if we were that bothered we'd all stop flying on hols and stuff, but we dont...

2006-09-22 02:39:33 · answer #10 · answered by officegirluk 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers