Skip to content

Warmist Billionaire’s Yacht Destroys Protected Coral Reef

January 31, 2016

By Paul Homewood    



A massive luxury yacht owned by Microsoft Corp co-founder Paul Allen destroyed most of a protected coral reef during a visit to the Cayman Islands in the Caribbean earlier this month, media reported.

An anchor chain from the vessel damaged nearly 14,000 square feet (1,300 square meters), or about 80 percent, of reef near two scuba diving sites in the West Bay, the islands’ environment department said, according to the Cayman News Service.

Allen’s Seattle-based Vulcan Inc organization, which manages his fortune, said on Wednesday that the M/V Tatoosh was moored on Jan. 14 in a "position explicitly directed" by the local port authority and that his team was cooperating with the investigation.

"When its crew was alerted by a diver that her anchor chain may have impacted coral in the area, the crew promptly, and on their own accord, relocated their position to ensure the reef was protected," Vulcan said.

The damage to the coral, which is vital for marine life, comes five months after the billionaire philanthropist announced support for research to stabilize and restore coral reefs.




Could this be the same Paul Allen who wants to shut down the coal industry to fight climate change?





Or who feels so strongly about the marine environment?





Surely not!

  1. Ian Magness permalink
    January 31, 2016 12:31 pm

    Don’t worry, very shortly “climate change” will mean that no reef in the world will be shallow enough below that monster ship’s hull to touch it. In fact, he probably thought that already. Further, it won’t be many years before rising seas levels will allow him to pilot his little dinghy all the way up the flooded Seine into Paris, thus enabling him to visit future Clowns Of the Planet meetings without having to lower himself by rubbing up again common people at places like airports.

  2. January 31, 2016 1:19 pm

    Why are people who return a very small part of their vast ill gotten profits, always known as “billionaire philanthropists”?

    It’s easy to be a philanthropist when you’re worth $18 billion.

    • January 31, 2016 2:33 pm


    • January 31, 2016 3:19 pm

      “… ill gotten…”?

      That is a cheesy smear. Nobody forced folks to buy Microsoft products. It was a huge boon to the economy with the increased efficiency the program’s allowed. He may be a lot of things but he earned what he has and it that regard should be applauded not smeared.

      • January 31, 2016 3:30 pm

        I totally agree, mkely. Paul Allen is a warmunista, but Microsoft’s products, like Windows benefit the lives of many people.

      • catweazle666 permalink
        January 31, 2016 9:39 pm

        “Microsoft’s products, like Windows benefit the lives of many people.”

        They certainly do!

        Over the years since MS-DOS 3.2 they have made me a really good living!

        If everybody had had a Mac (like me) I’d have had to have a proper job.

      • February 1, 2016 1:14 pm

        @CatWeazle666 – Only since 3.2? Young fellow! 😉

      • catweazle666 permalink
        February 2, 2016 1:08 am

        “@CatWeazle666 – Only since 3.2? Young fellow! ;-)”

        That was when I acquired my first DOS machine and retired my trusty Apple ][ with 32 whole KB of RAM and two 160KB single sided FDDs (which I still have).

        My first exposure to computers was in December 1964, in fact.

        Plus, I’ve still got one of these!

      • February 2, 2016 1:21 am

        Ah, my mistake. I read MS Dos as DOS. You have me by about 10 years then. I started out (on the micro side) with the Apple II (C then E). Not mine, I just had to support them. (too poor).

        The best day of my professional life was when they invented the SIMM. I never again had to worry about DIPs! 😉

    • February 1, 2016 1:13 pm

      I think he will be “philanthroprising” a lot more than he originally intended to. 😉

  3. January 31, 2016 2:04 pm

    I don’t begrudge anyone their money. However, I wish these folks would not listen to the “envy” crowd and use their money to buy approval from the left. It ends up hurting the very folks and society they claim to care about and funds the left.

    • January 31, 2016 2:25 pm

      I don’t normally but for years Microsoft had a virtual monopoly over operating systems for desk top computers and you couldn’t buy one without being forced to take the latest version of windows and then change half of your software because it didn’t work any more.
      In a truly competitive world there would have been a multiple choice of OS software.
      The fact that Microsoft owners accumulated so much money, proves they were overcharging for their software.

      • January 31, 2016 3:42 pm

        QV, there is “a multiple choice of OS software.”, like the Linux Operating System, the Google Chrome Operating System and the Apple OS.

      • January 31, 2016 4:43 pm

        I am not talking about what is available now!

        I have had 3 computers since 1999 and they came with windows XP, 98 and 7. Not once has an alternative been available.

        “By the turn of the 1990s into the 21st century it was a commonplace that Microsoft had, with Windows, a monopoly on desktop operating systems. Apple AAPL +2.71% had MacOS, yes, Linux existed as did other flavours of Unix. But for the desktop box 95% of the market used Windows. And that was the sort of technological lock in that meant monopoly. New software would of course be preferentially developed for that 95% of the marketplace and being the platform upon which new software was written obviously encourage people to purchase Windows.”

        “Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market,” Jackson wrote.

        Of course there is no direct charge for Windows when you buy a PC but you are still paying for it an it is not “free”.

    • January 31, 2016 2:35 pm

      Anyone who believes these people actually care are fooling themselves. These people only care about themselves. Most of the time, I doubt they even care about their wives and children and certainly they care nothing about future generations. It’s the “I have mine, who cares about you?” phenomena seen worldwide.

  4. Bloke down the pub permalink
    January 31, 2016 2:05 pm

    Surely such a dedicated environmentalist should have a sailing yacht?

    • joelH permalink
      February 13, 2016 10:49 am

      …AND a couple of GulfStream jets

  5. January 31, 2016 2:15 pm

    As a long time seafarer – I will defend Allen here.

    The vessel was explicitly directed to anchor near the reef – it is generally unwise to quibble with directions from harbour authorities. The crew moved the vessel to a better place when weather intervened…

    I don’t see how that can be – or indeed should be – played as billionaire trashes environment. This sort of sniping is far, far better directed at Mister DeCaprio whose hypocrisy is seemingly bottomless.

    That is an absolutely tiny reef btw. – and the damage will likely grow back.

    • January 31, 2016 2:38 pm

      Yes, he was following instructions from the harbour authorities. However, someone so concerned about the environment should have immediately gone after the people who instructed him to anchor there (assuming that is the truth, of course) and chastised and sued and screamed at said persons. After all, he CARES about the environment. (Though Bloke makes a valid point that if said billionaire actually cared, he should be using a sailing yacht or at least a solar powered one.)

    • joelH permalink
      February 13, 2016 10:51 am

      So – what about his GulfStream jets………..??

  6. January 31, 2016 2:32 pm

    @tomo: I disagree. First, why is it alright for a Climate Change advocate to run a huge ship that probably burns in excess of 200 gallons of diesel fuel AN HOUR? What is his carbon footprint for just this Cayman’s trip much less the rest of his trips? Also, I notice that one of the toys is a helicopter which isn’t solar powered, and I’m sure there are other fossil fueled toys aboard like runabouts and jet skis. And I’m sure Mr. Allen doesn’t fly commercial. The hypocrisy of these people is beyond astounding. I have no doubt that he and the other elites would have you and me riding bicycles to work if they could swing it. If Mr Allen had been living his stated values instead of being a two faced hypocrite, there would have been no accident that wiped out a fragile coral reef, but Mr Allen, Mr. Gore, Mr. DeCaprio, want it both ways. They want us to have carbon footprints that would fit in a thimble while they are free to live as they choose because they are elite and care so much don’t you know? There fore they are excused to do as they wish and not be affected by what they would foster on the rest of us.

    • January 31, 2016 6:02 pm

      I think we have to separate two issues here – the ineptness of the Caymans maritime authorities and Paul Allen’s antics as somebody who’s got more money than he knows what to do with…

      As an aside Mr. Allen’s yacht might burn that amount of diesel (900L) in a day at anchor and several times that depending on speed (maybe 10x going flat out) if it’s going anywhere.

      Guilt trip Green ideology seems to pervade the western mega-rich and it sometimes seems that to be a “recognised player” in these high ‘falutin circles Green credentials have to be regularly burnished with great handfuls of $100 bills….. Given the episodes of willy-waving “my yacht’s bigger than your yacht” tours of Caribbean islands – having more money than you know what to do with looks like a pretty hollow game.

      I agree with everybody’s venting about the screeching hypocrisy on show – and wonder why there isn’t a billionaire who’s overtly taking a skeptical position about global warming and climate change – even the mega rich are it would seem terrified of social exclusion ;-/

      The hypocrisy doubles down when one looks closely at what else these folk are involved with…

      • Bloke down the pub permalink
        January 31, 2016 6:12 pm

        I wonder if the ‘Cayman harbour authorities’ was actually just a local guy in a boat who told them ‘Yeah mun, you park up there if you want’?

    • Brian H permalink
      February 1, 2016 2:30 am

      Ironically, carbon footprint is a favor you do the planet. The greening results are in, but the Warming (which would also have been good) is gone missing, except on retro-adjusted graphs.

  7. January 31, 2016 3:22 pm

    When I lived in Bermuda a billionaire was fined for blowing up parts of a reef so his boats could get near his recently acquired home. This was in the early 1990’s.

    • January 31, 2016 6:04 pm

      a ‘Merkan or an I-van?

  8. John F. Hultquist permalink
    January 31, 2016 5:04 pm

    Reply to QV and others:

    The real source of wealth for most company founders comes not from “profits” but out of thin air. That is, it is created when others think of a huge future stream of income and pay to acquire part of that. Those “others” become shareholders (passive owners) and the process of wealth creation in this manner is called an initial public offering (IPO). The company founders, such as Gates & Allen or (more recently) Mark Zuckerberg, get a big payout because of their ideas and hard work – before the stock sale.
    I haven’t found an amount for Paul Allen but some numbers for Bill Gates are available.
    Microsoft “shares, offered at $21 on March 13, zoomed to $35.50 on the over-the-counter market before settling back to a recent $31.25. Microsoft and its shareholders raised $61 million. The biggest winner was William H. Gates III, the company’s co-founder and chairman. He got only $1.6 million for the shares he sold, but going public put a market value of $350 million on the 45% stake he retains. [July 21, 1986]

    For entrepreneurs the wealth comes from folks that also are well off, maybe not extremely wealthy but they are not worried about their next meal. In contrast, celebrities (sports, music, movies) get rich from the expected transfer of money from the lower 50% (that’s a guess) strata of society. Here think of themed football clothing, baseball caps, printed posters, and plastic lightsabers.

  9. January 31, 2016 8:00 pm

    GPS must be a windows operating system………….

  10. January 31, 2016 8:26 pm

    In our State shallow reefs are protected by permanent under water anchors that are reached by diving a rope down. Don’t use them and you are in big trouble.

  11. February 1, 2016 1:51 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  12. Moderately cross of east anglia permalink
    February 1, 2016 4:28 pm

    Have I missed something here…surely someone so concerned about coral reefs would have been alert to the fact that parking his plastic boat on top of a protected reef was unlikely to be good for the reef and questioned the directions given or gone somewhere else. That’s even before we start asking if the Tootanic’s toilets and sinks flush direct into the sea washing off sun cream and worse, having presumably done for the other 20 per cent of the reef.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: