The Green Billionaires Won’t Save Us Chapter Analysis
In Chapter Seven, Naomi Klein asserts that even though billionaires have made pledges to control climate change and bring an end to carbon emission, it is more of a public relations strategy rather than a deep commitment to address climate change. To many of the billionaires, making a green initiative pledge improves their firms’ profitability, therefore, raking in more millions for the billionaires’ business empires. Klein uses the case studies of Richard Branson, Warren Buffet, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates and Pickens to illustrate how billionaires have paid lip service to green initiatives. Despite that Naomi Klein generalizes her argument from the analysis of Richard Branson alone and an incomplete examination of other billionaires, she clearly and convincingly communicates why billionaires will not help in the fight against climate change through skillful logical appeal using case studies.
Firstly, Naomi Klein takes the case of Virgin Airlines founder, Richard Branson, who in 2006 pledged to spend $ 3 Billion in the next decade to invent a low carbon fuel that would be used to fuel the airplanes of Virgin Airlines (Klein 279). Klein’s choice of this illustration is very successful since it appeals to the reader’s logic and leaves the reader wanting to know whether Branson honored his pledge or not. Branson said that if the profits were not sufficient enough, he would use funds from other existing businesses to get the $ 3 Billion. Furthermore, Klein notes that in the same year, Branson introduced the Virgin Earth Challenge, a 25$ Million award that would go to the inventor of a device to sequester one Billion of carbon annually without far-reaching environmental consequences (Klein 280). Klein’s choice of this example is very effective as it appeals to the readers logic by illustrating the grand green initiative commitments that billionaires make even though they are not keen on keeping them despite Branson’s ambitious and potentially game-changing green initiatives. Klein illustrates that the business mogul has done nothing or little to honor his commitments. For instance, Klein notes that while Branson had pledged that the $ 3 Billion would be used in investing low carbon fuels, the first 130$ Million was used in starting a new Virgin Business dubbed the Virgin Green Fund which is an agrofuel business and although Virgin has attached its name to the enterprise, Klein notes that Virgin only offers PR support and a promise that it will buy purchase fuel if it becomes viable. Klein choice of words such as “PR support” and “Virgin has attached its name to the enterprise” is very effective in expressing the limited amount of support that Virgin gives clean fuel initiatives.
In addition, Klein observes that Branson failed to keep his commitment of investing 100% of the future proceeds from the transportation business towards tackling global warming for an approximate value of $ 3 Billion for the 10-year period between 2006 and 2016. Klein notes that while asked why the Virgin failed to keep its 3-million-commitment, Branson cites poor business environment. However, she critically analyzes the expansion strategy of Virgin in the years between 2006 and 2012 and through a chronological analysis, she proves to the reader that the business environment was in the favor of Virgin only that Branson was not committed on keeping his word. The launching of Virgin America, Virgin Australia and Little Red are some Klein’s examples which are very effective in showing that in the succeeding years after making the $ 3 Billion commitment, the Virgin empire experienced tremendous economic prosperity (Klein 292). Furthermore, one cannot stop to marvel at the way Klein chooses her words when discussing the $ 3 Billion commitment case study. For instance, by stating that Branson refers to his earlier commitment as a ‘gesture’ rather than a pledge, Klein shows the insincerity surrounding many of the green initiative pledges made by billionaires.
The second case study selected by Klein is that of Hathaway Berkshire Billionaire Warren Buffet who despite stating that global warming is a menace that requires humanity to build the ark before the rains come, Berkshire Hathaway’s activities have only accelerated global warming (Klein 282). For example, Warren Buffet holds large stakes in Exxon Mobil and tar manufacturer Suncor. In this case study, the way Klein structures the prose is both appealing and very effective in showing the irony between Buffet’s commitment and his actions. Klein first states Buffets commitment to environmental sustainability, she succinctly illustrates the incongruence between the billionaire’s words and actions. Moreover, she shows how Buffet might benefit from global warming through his reinsurance business. The logical flow that Klein achieves through the structure of this case study helps the readers to see the insincerity in the billionaire’s commitment to green initiatives. This makes the readers to naturally agree with her on the point that billionaires will not help in addressing global warming and climate change. Through her skillful wording, Klein shows the irony between Buffet’s opinion on global warming and his contrasting actions that accelerate carbon emissions.
The third case study utilized by Klein is Michael Bloomberg whose company introduced Bloomberg Carbon Risk Evaluation tool to give insights on how a range of climate actions would impact fossil fuel stocks. The structure of this case study is very effective in convincing the reader as Klein first explores Bloomberg’s green initiatives and then goes on to illustrate the contrasting actions that Bloomberg or his affiliates have taken to the harm of the environment. For instance, the example of Willet Advisors which was set up by Bloomberg and which deals in oil and gas assets is an excellent illustration that logically convinces the readers that billionaires mean no good for the environment. Furthermore, Klein uses a rhetorical question in this case study where she asks, “Was funding the war on coal at least partially about boosting the share price of gas?” (Klein285). This rhetorical question makes the readers to start thinking about the primary intentions of billionaires while pledging support for green initiatives and given that their actions do not align with their words, Klein leads the readers to reach a conclusion that billionaires are not the best bet when it comes to tackling global warming and climate change.
Another case study used by Klein is that of tech Billionaire Bill Gates. Klein uses her experience as a journalist to present a logical structure of the writing to show irony between Gate’s concerns regarding climate change and the fact that the Gates Foundation has invested more than $1.2 Billion in BP and Exxon Mobil. Her excellent choice of words is also hard to miss. For instance, by stating that Gates has ‘a firewall between mouth and money,’ Klein succeeds in showing that it is easy for the billionaires to make green initiative commitments but when it comes to honoring these commitments there is a conspicuous unwillingness pointing to the billionaires’ dishonesty (Klein 285).
However, it is noteworthy that in this chapter Klein only conducted a comprehensive analysis of Richard Branson while discussing the other billionaires in a limited number of pages. Therefore, it is prudent to state that Klein’s assertions were based on incomplete analysis and that if she had conducted an extensive examination of other billionaires as she did for Richard Branson, her argument would become must solid. Therefore, the brief analysis she gave for other billionaires leaves a lot to be desired from the chapter and the readers might question the wisdom behind the title of the chapter, The Green Billionaires Won’t Save Us. Perhaps, a more appropriate title for the chapter should be, Richard Branson Won’t Save Us since the whole chapter was tilted towards discussing green initiatives of Virgin thus making the chapter more about Richard Branson than about the billionaire class green initiatives as a whole.
To sum up, despite that Naomi Klein generalizes her argument from the analysis of Richard Branson alone and an incomplete examination of other billionaires, she clearly and convincingly communicates why billionaires will not help in the fight against climate change through skillful logical appeal using case studies. The structure of Klein’s case study analysis, her choice of words, the use of logical appeal as well as the use of rhetorical questions in some instances make her arguments very effective. Her intelligent choice to use Richard Branson, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and others as case studies is very effective in illustrating how billionaires’ commitment to green initiatives is usually a PR strategy since they seem to engage in activities that accelerate global warming despite their commitment to promoting clean energy.
Cited Work
Naomi, Klein. This changes everything. Simon & Schuster, 2014.
