Eric Worrall writes: Flamboyant British Billionaire Richard Branson, the man behind Virgin Galactic, the commercial space tourism venture, has been accused by greens of not fulfilling $3 billion of his green funding pledges.
According to The Guardian, a prominent Green UK daily newspaper;
“Richard Branson has failed to deliver on his much-vaunted pledge to spend $3bn (£1.8bn) over a decade to develop a low carbon fuel.
Seven years into the pledge, Branson has paid out only a small fraction of the promised money – well under $300m – according to a new book by the writer and activist, Naomi Klein.”
Branson responded that he has lost a lot of money on green investments;
“There is no question that Virgin is involved in a number of businesses that emit a lot of carbon, and that is one of the reasons why I have to work particularly hard … but, more importantly, to try to help other people balance their books as well. We have invested hundreds of millions in clean technology projects. We haven’t made hundreds of millions profit,”
I guess even green billionaires have to make a choice, eventually, between pursuing green investments, and being a billionaire. To be fair to Branson, he tried – the £300 million he spent and presumably lost is a significant sum.
Branson’s experience demonstrates that at the end of the day, only governments have the luxury of being able to sink vast sums into green money pits, without any serious possibility of a return on investment.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Two of the most hypocritical egos on earth come into such close proximity and still no all consuming sucking singularity forms in the space between them? Is that weird or what?
In the UK, Dulux has heard that green billionaires like to “p1ss money up against the wall”, so they’ve introduced an exclusive new color: it costs £1,000,000 a tin and it’s called “Pee Green”.
/joke
Branson may have billions in assets but are they totally unencumbered? If he has lost $300 million then that could prove problematic, it’s just enough to trip up any company that may be overextended here or there.
I can’t make up who I despise more. Branson or the Greens.
Either way I am laughing.
Branson’s experience demonstrates that at the end of the day, only governments have the luxury of being able to sink vast sums into green money pits, without any serious possibility of a return on investment.
WHAT!!!!
Governments have no money, they spend our money sometimes very badly on schemes that have no base in reality, like CAGW.
Get Real Anthony.
I think Anthony understood that. I liked his slam on government waste.
If governments have so much of your money to afford mad cap schemes then you are being overtaxed.
Richar Branson is not stupid. Virgin Records, Coke, Atlantic and Galactic. If he’s not putting his money into the green machine then it’s clear he sees he cannot make money out of the “industry”. The gig is certainly up for the CAGW crowd.
Is it “not stupid” to tell his workforce that those who are sceptical should find jobs elsewhere?
I bet the day after the number of fault reports sky-rocketed and the clear up rate plummeted as all his engineers updated their CV.
Remember he is on the “EMPLOYER” side of the employer/employee equasion.
@Evan Jones September 14, 2014 at 11:39 pm
“Mmm. If it is money lost by investment, then it is deductible (and should be).”
Surely he could only claim back what he ‘PAIDED’ in taxes from a business.
If the business went bust before making a return, then no tax, therefore all the money is LOST.
Yes, the money is lost. Therefore he can (and should be able to) deduct those losses, as applicable.
If you had to pay tax on investment money that yields no return (that is, in fact, lost entirely), there would be a lot less investment.
Branson in a pickle ????
Possibly – hell hath no fury like a green fanatic scorned 🙂
Eric Worrall
For the benefit of you and others who may not know, saveenergy was making a joke (and revealing he is British).
A British sandwich delicacy is Branston Pickle.
Partial puns with more than one meaning are very British humour as displayed, for example, in Carry On films.
Richard
Infamy!
I don’t understand why Naomi Klein is a star. I’ve read some of her writing, it lacks depth and shows her inexperience. She writes like a high school kid. Why do so many people insist on referencing and quoting this person?
She’s kind of the gift which keeps on giving, IMO…
Because they think (and I use the term loosely) like high school kids?
I’m sad to say I once liked RIchard Branson. However, whether I have grown older or wiser or he has grown older and more pathetic, he now looks like some pensioner trying to be “in” with the kids a fraction of his age.
The final straw was when he more or less said he didn’t want anyone working for him who had looked at the scientific evidence and agreed it hadn’t warmed in the last 17 years.
Which, as most engineers are sceptical at least to a degree, is more or less saying “my engineers can go f** themselves”.
I saw an interview of Branson on TV yesterday, not sure when it was taken. He said that all of the profits of his airline are being spent to develop an alternative to jet fuel and he expected to switch over his fleet within 5 years. For someone so obviously capable as a businessman, it’s an incredibly stupid commitment to make.
I’ve lost a fortune in the last week. I asked me how much for a green thing and I told me a green thing would cost me a fortune. So I paid me a fortune. Luckily, the expense is tax-deductible – because the thing I bought from me is green.
I’m so happy to do have done business with me.
Naomi Klein, cannot answer any questions right now has they are busy on a around the world book flogging tour , to tell people how they are evil if they fly. Expect if you of the left and the have books to flog that is.
But its to her credit that rather than go to live a ‘socialists paradise ‘, such has Cube, she has the courage to remain in the land of the ‘evil capitalists’ . Living the type of privileged life not only those that get to experience first-hand a ‘socialists paradise ‘would kill for and but plenty of others actual living in the same ‘evil capitalists’ land can only dream about.
Even Branson knows its a scam. Gives the greens just enough money so he can go to the parties and be socially acceptable.
Jack September 15, 2014 at 12:11 am
Yep, Branson is a koch. He is to Green business what ‘dad-dancing’ is to disco.
We have invested hundreds of millions in clean technology projects. We haven’t made hundreds of millions profit,”
==============
Branson doesn’t say he lost money, only that he didn’t double his money. However, there certainly is an implication he doesn’t see a future in increased investment.
The downside of corporate taxes for the public is that when companies make money, the public makes money through increased tax revenues. However, when companies lose money, they are able to use this loss to avoid paying taxes on money they did make.
As a taxpayer, we should be very concerned when misguided activists such as Naomi Klein suggest that increased taxes and income redistribution will solve the worlds problems. The only solution that has actually been shown to work over the centuries is the economic model where people are allowed by governments to keep the fruits of their labors.
Most of the worlds problems can be traced directly to the other economic model, where the powerful of the earth take the fruits of the labors of the rest of us, typically under force of law set by the same powerful.
The peasant tax revolt in England came about because the government of the day decided it would take 1 in 7 of everything the peasants produced. Most of us today would be very happy with an income tax rate of 1 in 7. Instead our tax rates are much, much higher.
There is plenty to go around on this earth, if people were allowed to keep what they earn, to spend as they see fit. Without the powerful trying to dictate how the money we earn would be better spent, if only they were allowed to spend it. Thus, they should have the right to take from the poor, to give to the rich.
“The peasant tax revolt in England came about because the government of the day decided it would take 1 in 7 of everything the peasants produced. Most of us today would be very happy with an income tax rate of 1 in 7. Instead our tax rates are much, much higher.”
That 1 in 7 was probably not on profits or surplus; but on the entire harvest – of which the peasant had to put back half or so as seed for the next season. So it was likely existentially threatening; and in reality more like 1 in 3 of the surplus.
At least that is approximately what the system was in Germany ca. 1000 years ago.
Where the Naomi Klein’s of the world go wrong is in the assumption that governments are somehow able to take money from the rich and redistribute this to help the poor. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Governments are powerless to take money from the rich. The rich use their money to protect themselves from governments. Entire industries exist solely for the purpose of helping rich people avoid taxes. Entire countries exist just for this purpose.
Governments that do try and take this money find that it quickly leaves the country for safe havens, and the local economy collapses, often bringing down the government in it wake.
It is the poor that pay the taxes that support governments, because it is the poor that lack the resources to avoid taxes. Redistribution schemes at best take money from the poor to give to the poor, allowing the rich to skim the cream off the top.
Thus, when the rich get into trouble, there are wall street and bank bailouts, all paid for by the poor. When the poor get into trouble, they truly are in trouble. No one comes to their aid, except the likewise poor.
Government has a very hard time taking money from Sir Richard. That’s why he can’t spend longer than 90 days a year in Old Blighty.
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm…this Necker Island.
gee, who do the poor work for then ?
I used to work for one of his premier companies. Absolutely shocking once you draw back the curtain. How he and his companies get away with the favourable press they get in the UK I just don’t understand. Its all rubbish. As for the Green stuff…trust me, they believe it & it comes from the top. Or at least RB makes his people repeat the mantra. As an insider I can tell you the money they waste on this is shocking…I guess mouthing platitudes to greens is what its about perhaps.
This is the Emperor’s New Clothes played out with an emperor who was bright enough to detect the scam, but is too compromised to do much about it.
In the picture I see Gore. He too has dumped green investments.
Branson should realise that it’s all for the sake of the planet and the grandchildren. Surely balancing the books and saving the Earth should not be compared.
Follow the money.
He didn’t say he lost 300 million, only that he didn’t make as much in profit. It could be that he profited 100 million out of hi 300 million.
Hard to tell. There are plenty of green businesses which have gone completely bust in the recent past, such as Solyndra. And Branson has form (at least he claims form) for reimbursing investors out of his own pocket when possible, when investments go bad – at least, that is what he claimed in his book “Losing my Virginity”.
Eric, he may have reimbursed the “correct” people (joe average no name guy surely ate his own losses), but the act was entirely strategic to either protect himself from being an clique outcast or to use as leverage in promotion of his brand (or book). It was not an act of humility or kindness – neither trait exists in him.
His every act is to curate brand branson
“It could be that he profited 100 million out of his 300 million” can be interpreted many ways:
That would mean that he got back his 300 million investment plus 100 million.
Or that he continues to leave the original 300 million in the business and gets a return of 100 million annually. If that were the case, he’d stay in.
And, oh yes, is the 100 million pre or after tax? Was the investment his or shareholders’ money?
One can communicate business issues very clearly – but only by using precise language consistent with ‘generally accepted accounting principles.’ Perhaps the most misunderstood concept in these blogs is ‘write offs’ followed by confusing revenue with profit.
Sounds like extortion. or bulling. Give me your lunch money or I will talk trash about you.
“We have invested hundreds of millions in green technology…”
I will simply note the “We” could mean anyone. “We” does not mean “I”.
Notwithstanding that equivocation, his statement is still useful as an accurate comment on the results of investing in “green” technologies.
As a recovering consultant, I can attest that word-smithing is an art form with these folks. The definition of green technology is anything that causes even a slight reduction in “harmful” acts or products. For example, using an new app that incidentally and indirectly helps them layoff people is an example of using green technology to reduce company related carbon usage (e.g., commuting).
It’s not a war, it’s an expanded terrorism prevention operation outsourced to the military who already happened to be in or near the the required country of interest.
Let’s hear how much the Guardian has spent (wasted) on green efforts.
No fulfilling his pledges? Does that mean he won’t get his “Simon and Garfunkel: The Concert in Central Park” CD and Greenpeace umbrella?