The idea behind cellulosic ethanol assumes that modern agiculture produces waste cellulose. But it doesn't. That cellulose is normally plowed back into the soil to provide organic nutrients. Without it, crop yields are much lower. If we start burning that cellulose in SUVs and feeling happy because we've saved the world, we've ended up in a deeper hole than before. The only solution to greenhouse warming is living with less energy, in ways that make our neighbors look askance. Get used to it; the future is full of unmowed lawns and people riding to work on mopeds.

Question: Can big philanthropy combat climate change? Short answer: No! A "flat" economy might though.

No doubt Branson is just a wonderful, sweeter than candy kind of guy, but all I really see here is another bull shit filled publicity stunt - a sort of Paris Hilton with a conscience. The average person is going to think: isn't this guy great! I guess it's okay to be filthy rich and live a life of over the top conspicuous consumption.

Well, it's NOT! Branson, and the other super rich, is an integral part of the problem. to have and to live the way he does while most of the world lives in abject poverty is not only grotesque, it's completely immoral.

The only way we are ever going to get a handle on our many daunting global problems is by carving up the economic pie more equitably, and giving everyone something more than subsistance to live for.

Branson is just another vain megalomaniacal publicity seeking rich person. At least Mick Jagger is more talented and honest about it, and shakes is little ass more interestingly. But the rich and famous are beginning to stink more and more with each passing heat wave. And it's time to get rid of them!

The major problem with "changing" America really boils down to money.

Example: If the Big 3 auto makers basically refuse to build alt-fuel cars (and no hybirds and E85 cars don't count!) then surely 7 billion could go into small start up auto makers marketing dozens of alt-fuel design cars.

Instead of one car company being relied on to build what we need, Like Ford, we'll have dozens and dozens of smaller start ups building all electric or all hydrogen or all bio-diesel or all air-powered (yes, kids, there really really is a car that is powered by AIR. Never heard of it? Not surprising considering no one ackowledges life outside our shores. But to learn more about the air-powered car that GM and Ford themselves will never build just Google "air car")

The real problem is that we've adopted a modified Soviet-style system to our auto production with the three big auto makers representing the pseudo-state controlled manufacturers. If the state controlled auto makers (here represented as Ford and GM) refuse to make a car that DOESN'T pump out 80 billion tons of cancer causing emissions a year --- then you're out of luck, ain't ya?

What Branson's donation will do is allow dozens of start up alt-fuel car makers to put their products on the market which in and of itself won't change the world but it will SCARE Ford and GM into action and they will (kicking and screaming, of course) start making REAL alt-fuel cars just so they don't lose the market to the start-ups!

No, Ford and GM will never ever willingly (keyword) make a true alt-fuel car like all-electric or all bio-diesel unless we put the free-market gun to their heads. And since these companies currently have a pseudo-monoploy they really don't feel any pressure to do anything. Even if Japan keeps kicking their butt, they still have so much market share and profit that they really don't feel the need to do anything.

Hopefully these new start-ups will finally, finally scare them into getting off their butts and doing the right thing!

Q: Can big-name philanthropy combat climate change?

A: NO

It's impossible for private philanthropy to do the work of big governments. Their function is to shame the United States and other super powers that MUST get on board, and soon. It's probably too late now but we still have to try.

On September 9, 2006, 112 of the world's most compelling thinkers, artists, writers, scientists, social entrepreneurs, philosophers and humanitarians from around the world came together in Berlin, Germany, as guests of dropping knowledge.

Seated around the worlds largest table in historic Bebelplatz square, these inspiring individuals, renowned for their lasting creative or social contribution, answered 100 questions out of the thousands donated to dropping knowledge by the international public over the last 3 years.

Using dropping knowledge's question-rating system, the public identified 500 questions as those most likely to initate open dialog on a social topic of most relevance to them. This group of questions yielded the final 100 Questions - representing a truly global sampling of cultures, themes and ideas - that were asked at the Table of Free Voices and, now, beyond.

The dark side of Philanthropy is it's lack of knowledge and understanding of the "other" issues in the world today that are equally, if not more important, than climate change. This self induced apathy results in what I call "the cult of philanthropy," which is the true essence of the dark side.

The cult of philanthropy is a dangerous game to be playing, especially when an informed public, who may or may not hold shares in companies, like Richard Branson's companies, or in other companies, like Google and General Electric-who all are, in my opinion, cashing in on the demand side of philanthropic issues-will find them out eventually. "What the public doesn't know is better they seem to be telling us by [their] actions." Philanthropic investments are made, in many cases, by "companies" trying to anticipate public opinion for demand for [these] companies products in the future, based on what "well paid for knowledge" they have aquired about what the public thinks are "hot" topics.

The cult of philanthropy plays right into this misleading hand and soon,they, and other companies entering the philanthropic ring, will find out that their calculations were incorrect and their shareholders are not happy campers anymore.

I think that "dropping knowledge's initiative", which by the way has been largely, if in fact not at all, passed over as a day in history where The Table of Free Voices event in Berlin on September 9th, went "unreported." However, those who were paying attention--the general public--are the benfactors and ongoing contributors to the growing dialogue that has ensued following the Table of Free Voices event.

If big-name philanthropy wants to combat climate change for purely ethical reasons, which I thnk is not the case, then they, and that part of the uninformed public, better take a look at the real issues that need to be addressed by visiting: http://www.droppingknowledge.org/bin/home/home.page and "watch" what happened on September 9th and read about what is happening there now--this is the tuly informed knowledge base that we should all look to because it is indeed "free voices."

I am in favour of supporting companies that can testify to the fact that they fully understand the issues really facing humanity and our planet here.