$25 million climate prize offered by Branson

[Fandango 1,440]

I would like to quote one of my favorite dems. One that I am very respectful of and wish there were more like him.

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

Anyone like to argue that?

Wouldn't this be a much stronger country if Corporate Welfare ended today and companies like Exxon/Mobil decided to pay the lawsuit settlement for the Exxon Valdez spill...in the spirit of that quote.

What anti-capitalistic left field did that come from? Your envy of others really shines out Steve. You should worry about yourself and your loved ones a little more and forget about worrying about what others have and do.

couldn't have said it better, Gary..

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I would like to quote one of my favorite dems. One that I am very respectful of and wish there were more like him.

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

Anyone like to argue that?

Wouldn't this be a much stronger country if Corporate Welfare ended today and companies like Exxon/Mobil decided to pay the lawsuit settlement for the Exxon Valdez spill...in the spirit of that quote.

What anti-capitalistic left field did that come from? Your envy of others really shines out Steve. You should worry about yourself and your loved ones a little more and forget about worrying about what others have and do.

Oye, Gary. You're a walking contradiction. Out of one corner of your mouth you complain about people living off your tax dollars, but out of the other corner of your mouth you're saying corporate responsability is nobody else's beezwax.

I thought it was fitting to point out FACTS since you imply that those who complain are simply looking for a handout - how come your view doesn't extend to corporations? Answer the question - if Exxon/Mobil was found guilty in court and ordered to pay, shouldn't they pay the settlement?

Nothing contradictory about my statements. Pay a fine for polluting? Yes. That has nothing to do with "corporate welfare" as the libs are so fond of calling it.

You seem to forget that the tax breaks you want repealed were passed by the democrat controlled congress of the Clinton era. It's not a republican thing at all. They had a long time to take those tax breaks back and they didn't . Now they have that chance again. Have I seen anything other than lip service? Nope.

No, I'm not mixing up the two. On one hand, Congress handed out up to $4 billion in tax breaks to the oil companies (Exxon/Mobil being the largest oil co. in the world and getting the bulk of that money = subsidy = welfare), meanwhile, the fishing community (businessmen, but smaller) of the Alaskan coastline have yet to be paid one penny from the Exxon Valdez lawsuit settlement.

Here's what Exxon/Mobil has done so far...

$287 million for actual damages and $5 billion for punitive damages was awarded by an Anchorage jury in 1994. The punitive damages amount was based on a single year's profit by Exxon at that time.

Exxon appealed the ruling and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the original judge Russel Holland to reduce the amount. On December 6, 2002, the judge announced that he had reduced the damages to $4 billion, which he concluded was justified by the facts of the case and not grossly excessive.

Exxon appealed again, sending the case back to court to be considered in regard to a recent Supreme Court ruling in a similar case, which caused Judge Holland to actually increase the punitive damages to $4.5 billion, plus interest.

After more appeals, and oral arguments heard by the 9th Circuit Appellate Court on January 27, 2006, the damages award was cut to $2.5 billion on December 22, 2006. [10] The court cited recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings relative to limits on punitive damages.

Exxon's official position states that punitive damages greater than $25 million are not justified because the spill resulted from an accident, and because Exxon spent an estimated $2 billion cleaning up the spill, and a further $1 billion to settle civil and criminal charges related to the case. However, in court it was argued that allowing a "known drunk" to captain the ship was reprehensible.

Some factors that may be considered in the current ongoing legal battles are:

* Exxon subsequently recovered a significant portion of cleanup and legal expenses through insurance claims, tax writeoffs, and by an increase in the price of their products. ExxonMobil's position remains that since they voluntarily paid out a large amount of money up-front, additional punitive measures are not justified.

* Exxon immediately set aside the amount of $5.4 billion, and has been collecting interest on that amount since 1994. By now, the amount of interest earned on that amount may be larger than the original punitive damages were in the first place. [11] ("rule of 72")

* Exxon made an agreement with the Seattle Seven, which will result in their recovering around $750 million of any punitive damages they eventually have to pay.

* Exxon corporation's reported disaster response did not effectively remove much of the lost oil that washed onto the shores of coastal Alaska, yet some argue that human efforts to clean the oil spill damage were actually counterproductive.

The Exxon Valdez damages assessment is notably important in the environmental resource in question, an assessment reached with the use of contingent valuation techniques.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill

So the next time you go on a rant about individual responsability in this country, think of the big picture and how that should apply to everyone.

Edited February 9, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[GaryC 7]

So the next time you go on a rant about individual responsability in this country, think of the big picture and how that should apply to everyone.

Yes we all know you hate big oil Steve. It seems you hate big anything. You act as though we would be better off if we turned this country into some sort of a hippy commune.

This country has laws. It has rules. Exxon has the right to appeal any ruling whether you like it or not. When the legal process is over then they should pay the fine. What, you want them to give up their rights? How fair is that?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So the next time you go on a rant about individual responsability in this country, think of the big picture and how that should apply to everyone.

Yes we all know you hate big oil Steve. It seems you hate big anything. You act as though we would be better off if we turned this country into some sort of a hippy commune.

This country has laws. It has rules. Exxon has the right to appeal any ruling whether you like it or not. When the legal process is over then they should pay the fine. What, you want them to give up their rights? How fair is that?

Let's try to stay focused on the argument without it getting personal. I give you facts, not anecdotal stories or emotional transgressions, I'd ask that you show me the same courtesy.

[GaryC 7]

So the next time you go on a rant about individual responsability in this country, think of the big picture and how that should apply to everyone.

This country has laws. It has rules. Exxon has the right to appeal any ruling whether you like it or not. When the legal process is over then they should pay the fine. What, you want them to give up their rights? How fair is that?

Let's try to stay focused on the argument without it getting personal. I give you facts, not anecdotal stories or emotional transgressions, I'd ask that you show me the same courtesy.

Ok, I modified my reply. Does that answer your question?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Infidel, Branson is your rich liberal...so now what?

Branson pledges $3bn transport profits to fight global warming

Billionaire to plough cash into new branch of conglomerate producing controversial biofuels

Dan Milmo and David Adam

Sir Richard Branson joined the growing ranks of global warming activists yesterday by committing $3bn (£1.6bn) to tackle climate change. The billionaire pledged all profits from his Virgin air and rail interests over the next 10 years to combating rising global temperatures. However, the estimated $3bn will not go to charities and will be invested in a new branch of Sir Richard's ever-expanding Virgin conglomerate, Virgin Fuels. Much of the investment will focus on biofuels, an alternative to oil-based fuels made from plants.

The government has ordered petrol stations in the UK to source 5% of their fuel from renewable energy by 2010, one of several lucrative opportunities for biofuel producers such as Virgin.

A Downing Street spokesman said: "This is an extremely generous offer. The prime minister met Richard Branson and other business leaders in California in the summer and came back very impressed with the positive steps all the companies were taking to reduce their impact on global warming. The UK is already leading the way in Europe in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. We will continue to press for an international agreement to control global emissions in the long run."

The Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, Chris Huhne, called it an "extraordinarily generous and imaginative gesture on Sir Richard's part".

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatec...1878492,00.html

[Robor007 0]

Another is that governments rarely have the concept of funding something useful like cancer research--as shown by the number of "culture/heritage" grants from Canadian government.

In December 2005, the President signed the final appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006, which provided $31 million less for cancer research than the year before.

This was the first hard cut since the passage of the National Cancer Act in 1971. More recently, the President announced his proposed budget for fiscal year 2007 - it slashes an additional $40 million from the already reduced 2006 funding level.

As a result, the cancer research community is bracing for a major shift in the number of scientists in the field and, consequently, the speed of advances needed to prevent and cure this disease.

For example, federal funding cuts likely will deter young investigators, meaning fewer drugs for development and application in the future. Meanwhile, other nations are increasing research funding, with the likelihood that some of the top investigators in the U.S. will be drawn overseas, eroding this nation's competitive advantage in this field.

The cuts come at a time when deaths from cancer are falling for the first time in 70 years, according to recent reports from the National Center for Health Statistics. Declining death rates clearly stem from research advances in the early diagnosis and treatment of a variety of tumors. Overall, cancer survivorship has increased from 30 percent in the early 1970s to 64 percent today. The statistics are even better for those diagnosed before the age of 65, with roughly seven out of every 10 surviving their disease in this age group. But funding cuts will put a brake on future progress, resulting in fewer lives saved through research.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=40540

That is pretty freaking sad to hear. Maybe he read a similar report and saw the bolded word above and thought it meant 'stem cell research'.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Another is that governments rarely have the concept of funding something useful like cancer research--as shown by the number of "culture/heritage" grants from Canadian government.

In December 2005, the President signed the final appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006, which provided $31 million less for cancer research than the year before.

This was the first hard cut since the passage of the National Cancer Act in 1971. More recently, the President announced his proposed budget for fiscal year 2007 - it slashes an additional $40 million from the already reduced 2006 funding level.

As a result, the cancer research community is bracing for a major shift in the number of scientists in the field and, consequently, the speed of advances needed to prevent and cure this disease.

For example, federal funding cuts likely will deter young investigators, meaning fewer drugs for development and application in the future. Meanwhile, other nations are increasing research funding, with the likelihood that some of the top investigators in the U.S. will be drawn overseas, eroding this nation's competitive advantage in this field.

The cuts come at a time when deaths from cancer are falling for the first time in 70 years, according to recent reports from the National Center for Health Statistics. Declining death rates clearly stem from research advances in the early diagnosis and treatment of a variety of tumors. Overall, cancer survivorship has increased from 30 percent in the early 1970s to 64 percent today. The statistics are even better for those diagnosed before the age of 65, with roughly seven out of every 10 surviving their disease in this age group. But funding cuts will put a brake on future progress, resulting in fewer lives saved through research.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=40540

That is pretty freaking sad to hear. Maybe he read a similar report and saw the bolded word above and thought it meant 'stem cell research'.

Cancer research...who needs it?

[GaryC 7]

Infidel, Branson is your rich liberal...so now what?

Branson pledges $3bn transport profits to fight global warming

Billionaire to plough cash into new branch of conglomerate producing controversial biofuels

Dan Milmo and David Adam

Sir Richard Branson joined the growing ranks of global warming activists yesterday by committing $3bn (£1.6bn) to tackle climate change. The billionaire pledged all profits from his Virgin air and rail interests over the next 10 years to combating rising global temperatures. However, the estimated $3bn will not go to charities and will be invested in a new branch of Sir Richard's ever-expanding Virgin conglomerate, Virgin Fuels. Much of the investment will focus on biofuels, an alternative to oil-based fuels made from plants.

The government has ordered petrol stations in the UK to source 5% of their fuel from renewable energy by 2010, one of several lucrative opportunities for biofuel producers such as Virgin.

A Downing Street spokesman said: "This is an extremely generous offer. The prime minister met Richard Branson and other business leaders in California in the summer and came back very impressed with the positive steps all the companies were taking to reduce their impact on global warming. The UK is already leading the way in Europe in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. We will continue to press for an international agreement to control global emissions in the long run."

The Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, Chris Huhne, called it an "extraordinarily generous and imaginative gesture on Sir Richard's part".

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatec...1878492,00.html

I applaud him! I always did like Branson. He may be a lefty but he is honest and puts his money where his mouth is. This is the way it should be done. It's the free market in action!!

[Lurker 0]

$25 million climate prize offered by Branson

LONDON - British tycoon Sir Richard Branson on Friday announced a $25 million prize for a way to extract a billion tons or more of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year.

It actually sounds like a really good idea. Why do none of the governments out there offer similar incentives..

Imagine a similar incentive to cure cancer. Like a $500 Million dollar reward..

Good point. But what if say all R&D was devoted at one given time to say cancer or the cure to HIV...would they find the cure any soon than what we are doing now by dividing the R & D?

[GaryC 7]

$25 million climate prize offered by Branson

LONDON - British tycoon Sir Richard Branson on Friday announced a $25 million prize for a way to extract a billion tons or more of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year.

It actually sounds like a really good idea. Why do none of the governments out there offer similar incentives..

Imagine a similar incentive to cure cancer. Like a $500 Million dollar reward..

I hate to sound like a broken record but that is exactly what we need. If you make it profitable then someone will find a way to do it. The free market will always find the best way to do it. A government grant only gives those getting it an incentive to do what they have to do to keep getting it. Not finding the answer. But if private industry does it they will find a way to profit from it and get it to everyone much faster. The company that finds a cure for cancer or AIDS will make a fortune. That is the incentive.

Edited February 9, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Alex+R 0]

$25 million climate prize offered by Branson

LONDON - British tycoon Sir Richard Branson on Friday announced a $25 million prize for a way to extract a billion tons or more of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year.

It actually sounds like a really good idea. Why do none of the governments out there offer similar incentives..

Imagine a similar incentive to cure cancer. Like a $500 Million dollar reward..

I hate to sound like a broken record but that is exactly what we need. If you make it profitable then someone will find a way to do it. The free market will always find the best way to do it. A government grant only gives those getting it an incentive to do what they have to do to keep getting it. Not finding the answer. But if private industry does it they will find a way to profit from it and get it to everyone much faster. The company that finds a cure for cancer or AIDS will make a fortune. That is the incentive.

Despite the fact that I think this discussion has turned completely idiotic (as usual?) I'd like to add that I doubt most people who devote their lives to finding a cure for HIV or a vaccine are not unmotivated by their not-high-enough salaries or something. I don't think people are doing it for the money. I could be wrong though. Maybe everyone is a self-centered a-hole.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

$25 million climate prize offered by Branson

LONDON - British tycoon Sir Richard Branson on Friday announced a $25 million prize for a way to extract a billion tons or more of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year.

It actually sounds like a really good idea. Why do none of the governments out there offer similar incentives..

Imagine a similar incentive to cure cancer. Like a $500 Million dollar reward..

I hate to sound like a broken record but that is exactly what we need. If you make it profitable then someone will find a way to do it. The free market will always find the best way to do it. A government grant only gives those getting it an incentive to do what they have to do to keep getting it. Not finding the answer. But if private industry does it they will find a way to profit from it and get it to everyone much faster. The company that finds a cure for cancer or AIDS will make a fortune. That is the incentive.

Despite the fact that I think this discussion has turned completely idiotic (as usual?) I'd like to add that I doubt most people who devote their lives to finding a cure for HIV or a vaccine are not unmotivated by their not-high-enough salaries or something. I don't think people are doing it for the money. I could be wrong though. Maybe everyone is a self-centered a-hole.

The cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. ~ Oscar Wilde

[GaryC 7]

$25 million climate prize offered by Branson

LONDON - British tycoon Sir Richard Branson on Friday announced a $25 million prize for a way to extract a billion tons or more of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year.

It actually sounds like a really good idea. Why do none of the governments out there offer similar incentives..

Imagine a similar incentive to cure cancer. Like a $500 Million dollar reward..

I hate to sound like a broken record but that is exactly what we need. If you make it profitable then someone will find a way to do it. The free market will always find the best way to do it. A government grant only gives those getting it an incentive to do what they have to do to keep getting it. Not finding the answer. But if private industry does it they will find a way to profit from it and get it to everyone much faster. The company that finds a cure for cancer or AIDS will make a fortune. That is the incentive.

Despite the fact that I think this discussion has turned completely idiotic (as usual?) I'd like to add that I doubt most people who devote their lives to finding a cure for HIV or a vaccine are not unmotivated by their not-high-enough salaries or something. I don't think people are doing it for the money. I could be wrong though. Maybe everyone is a self-centered a-hole.

The cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. ~ Oscar Wilde

It's a fact of life. Money makes the world go 'round. If you have the choice of waiting for the government to ramrod change and hope it works or waiting for business to find profit in something I think you will always wait less on business. Look at our history. It took the government years and billions of dollars to put men into space. Offer a $5mill prize and it happened really quick and a small fraction of the cost. Lindberg didn't cross the Atlantic on a government grant. He did it to claim a prize. It's the same over and over. Make it profitable and it will get done.

[Heracles 417]

Infidel, Branson is your rich liberal...so now what?

He ain't American.

I think you would find no other country has the equivalent of your loud mouth liberal American. The typical American liberal is the kind of guy everyone overseas wants to punch out because he talks so much and forgets the first amendment only applies in America. If you don't believe me why not travel to Europe or a few other nations and ask them what they think about American liberals..