Sir Richard Branson - full interview23 August 2007
As the planet continues to work up a sweat Britain's best known entrepreneur is injecting a cool £1.6bn into lowering our dependence on fossil fuels.
Green wash or clean break? Climate correspondent, Phillip Byrne asks the questions.
What scares you most about climate change?
How little we still know about what the real effects of increasing CO2 levels this century will have on the dynamic of a climate that naturally changes.
Over the last 2 years, our team at Virgin have studied virtually every piece of research from NASA's Goddard Institute right across to the Hadley Centre's work. And it's clear that we know we have a problem and nobody can quantify it.
I personally fear most for the massively dense populations of the very low-lying areas of the world.
How can the aviation industry help avert climate change?
Some people would argue, including very credible environmental scientists, that if aeroplanes flew as much as they could during daylight and not at all at night, the global dimming effect of their contrails may actually be positive. That may or may not be the case.
I believe we have to radically change the technology of aviation and eventually get transportation of human beings around the planet outside the atmosphere altogether.
In the medium term, we need to move to all carbon composite aircraft, make the biofuel breakthrough, and begin designing aviation systems that are CO2 neutral or as near-CO2 neutral as possible. Domestic air travel is twice as damaging as international air travel and yet there is a clean alternative. The train. People should think twice before flying domestically.
Can planes run on biofuel? How? When? Is it safe?
Planes cannot run on biofuel at the moment because bioethanol and biodiesel are not suitable for high altitude flying. However, we are working on other fuels in the R&D stage which look very promising.
I would say the breakthrough is a few years away. As for safety, planes would not run on biofuel unless it was safe. That is why organisations like the CAA and FAA exist.
How will you ensure that your biofuel is sustainable - not causing the clearance of rainforests or people?
I would never invest in a biofuel project that has such a result. It is important to retain the rainforest we have around the world, not so much as a source of oxygen as it is an incredibly important repository of biodiversity.
In 2003 you called for new runways to be built at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, is this still your policy?
I do believe it is far better to build any new airport capacity at existing sites rather than develop new ones. I did not call in 2003 for both airports to gain new runways. I said that only one of these sites would be the best place for a new runway.
It's important to remember that the government has laid down strict environmental criteria that have to be met before any new runway can be approved. However I think the Government could go further by capping the CO2 emissions at the airport, forcing the industry to come up with measures to reduce CO2. One such measure interestingly would be a new runway since it would avoid planes circling for ages over airports burning fuel while waiting for runway space.
How do you square the associated increase in flights with your desire to tackle climate change?
I do not believe that people will stop flying internationally since there is no alternative. However, they can stop flying domestically since there are more environmentally friendly modes of transport.
We are very proud of the fact that Virgin Atlantic is already one of the most environmentally efficient long-haul airlines in the world. Even if we did ground our planes tomorrow morning, somebody else would be flying them.
It is vital that we develop biofuels. If we take a responsible attitude to leadership in this industry, we hope to be able to force change which will push aviation towards the carbon neutrality levels of which it could be capable of achieving if there was sufficient investment.
Among the measures we are working on is persuading airport owners to tow aircraft around busy airports so that they don't have to taxi for half an hour, or even an hour, with their engines running. It doesn't make any sense.
We're also pushing for more air traffic controls to let our pilots adopt Continuous Descent Approach so that they don't have to thrust engines, and burn more fuel, before landing.
Why pledge £1.6bn? (Some cynics may accuse you of green wash)
£1.6bn is a lot of money and I would not be investing it for a public relations stunt. It could buy most of the world's media!
The reality is that we believe that the CO2 in the atmosphere must be reduced rapidly and it is up to companies that have a stake in transportation businesses to develop the technology to achieve that.
We are already operating one of the world's most efficient train fleets and 40% of the domestic airline passengers flying between London and Manchester have switched to the train. Trains are becoming more efficient, faster and a real competitive threat to air.
Virgin Trains are the first in world to have regenerative breaking. They use far less energy than a TGV. If we can invest in biofuels and make them popular, and also invest in other renewables which we plan to do, then that lead will send an important psychological message to corporations around the world.
Does announcing a commercial space venture just days after pledging to fight climate change amount to hypocrisy? Please explain.
Quite the opposite. Without space, we would not even know that we had climate change. Without space, we could not feed the world's current population and the efficiency of transport logistics would collapse.
We would also have no mobile phones and therefore have to invest in literally millions of tonnes of infrastructure to create landlines all over the world again.
We need to be in space, although current space launch systems are based on cold-war technology. Every time a shuttle takes off, it is equivalent to the whole of New York's environmental output for nearly a week.
Our spaceship is based on new technology. Each flight into space will be the equivalent of one business class seat to NY. Initially, we will be taking up people to show them the beauty of the planet and the thinness of the atmosphere.
The early flights are also part of the process of proving the safety and viability of the system. Our long-term goal is environmentally benign space launches to put technology and science into space.
We also see it as the first step in investing in a new way forward for long-haul transportation, avoiding use of the atmosphere for flight at all.
If you care about climate change shouldn't Virgin pull out of aviation and space travel?
No, for exactly the reasons outlined above.
Is the amount of CO2 you expect to save going to offset your own expansion plans?
We are not making this investment as a sort of sophisticated offsetting plan. We believe there has to be rapid technological development of renewables. But we will save considerably more.
Air travel is the fastest growing source of the greenhouse gases that lead to climate change. Scientists say we need to take action now - should the Government regulate the number of short-haul flights?
Air travel is not the fastest source. It is not true. In fact, the fastest source of greenhouse gases, especially in transportation, is marine shipping which is also now burning dirtier fuel than it was ten years ago.
It is also the case that the other fastest growing source is power generation from coal in China. Next year it will add more CO2 than the UK produces in a year.
It is clear that short-haul aviation is the fastest growing CO2 source in context of UK transportation and there are real alternatives, such as the train.
Does voluntary action work? If only Virgin planes use biofuel how big can the impact be?
Government alone cannot solve these issues. They have to be tackled by a combination of consensus, regulation and economic effectiveness. It wouldn't be worth our while developing biofuels if we were the only ones to use it.
The exchequer spends £9bn a year on airline tax breaks. Would not the money be better spent on public transport and a North-South-Europe high speed rail line, which is better for the environment and the economy?
If only that were true. There are no airline tax breaks. For example, because aviation fuel can be bought anywhere in the world, it can only be taxed on a worldwide basis.
As for high-speed rail, Virgin is the only company that has ever bid to build a high-speed line from London to Edinburgh. We are still keen to do that and connect it with the new Channel Tunnel Rail Link.
Rail is one of our major investment areas - we operate the most CO2-efficient train fleet in Europe. We are about to convert diesel trains to run on biofuel.
Do you think about saving energy and cutting emissions at home?
I'm a bit of an LED fanatic (Virgin Atlantic is one of the few airlines to use LEDS on board).
At the moment, I'm working on a project to turn the British Virgin Islands (where I'm lucky enough to spend a lot of time) into the first entirely renewable energy powered Caribbean island.
Why are more businesses choosing to go green?
Not very many businesses are green yet. But they will be, because this is about human survival, economic survival and the need to still feed a population going to grow by 2 billion in the next 20 years.
Can a business be both green and profitable?
I believe that the only profitable businesses in 30 years time will be green.
In your biography there is mention of a bike marathon, a stream, the sea, log chopping and grass eating. It seems like nature played a large part in your successful development.
In general, does big business deprive people or encourage them to lose contact with nature? And, what responsibility do the up and coming entrepreneurs, as well as the existing ones, have to protecting the environment?
I've always felt very close to nature. A distant relative, Sir Peter Scott, founded the WWF. A healthy respect for nature is something that I have hopefully passed on to my children as well.
Are the Government doing enough to promote green business?
Our government has been pretty forward-thinking on green issues. But I'm afraid that to be forward thinking over the next 40 years requires embracing every paradox of the situation we find ourselves in.
The core problem we have is a rapidly growing population and the fact is that if we're to prevent catastrophic climate change in the future, the government will have to embrace every form of renewable energy.
Biofuel is not the answer. Wind power is not the answer. Wave power is not the answer. Natural gas is not the answer. Nuclear is not the answer. It will have to be a mix of the best solutions from all these areas that will win the battle to keep CO2 levels below those at which Gaia will strike back at some stage, and kill the problem - in this case us.
