Prince Charles and the Environment

[tommy1716]

I'm not saying he shouldn't offset my point was that i think it has less of an effect when you’re talking about such big emissions. I've always felt that offsetting was meant for the times in life when we have to pollute, yes we all want a holiday once a year, yes we all need to fly for business so we can offset these, but it doesn’t stop us trying to be "green" whenever we can. Charles however seems to take the view that it doesn't really matter what he does as so long as he offsets it won't have an impact but sorry I don't believe that. There's a difference flying out with hundreds of other people on a chartered flight and chartering such a massive jet for such a relatively few people.
You have to ask yourself also, how many people will really take note and act upon what he says about the environment on this trip – will that justify such a massive carbon emission just to travel out to say be more “green”? Again, I don’t think so really personally. If he wants to talk about being more environmentally friendly then why doesn’t he, when talking about being “green” stay at home and do it via video etc?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by tommy1716

There's a difference flying out with hundreds of other people on a chartered flight and chartering such a massive jet for such a relatively few people.

Offsetting is worked out individually to cover whether it is a small car or a super airbus.

You have to ask yourself also, how many people will really take note and act upon what he says about the environment on this trip – will that justify such a massive carbon emission just to travel out to say be more “green”? Again, I don’t think so really personally. If he wants to talk about being more environmentally friendly then why doesn’t he, when talking about being “green” stay at home and do it via video etc?

Even if he manages to convert 10 people, who go on to convert 10 more, it is worth the trip. It has made the major papers and major TV stations, so already it is doing some good.

You will always get some diehard cynics, denying global warming or the causes thereof and those that are only interested in keeping their red lifestyles.

Would he get this much coverage by announcing a video link, no IMO. They are not going for a while yet and yet it has probably generated massive publicity for offsetting and green issues.

[Duke of Marmalade]

i wonder what kind of carbon footprint al gore left whilst promoting his global warming message, how many private jets he used to fly around the world to, among countless other events, collect his nobel price.

for me prince charles is a great asset to this country, somebody who is not afraid to speak up on issues, politically correct or not. yes he is being critizised for using a private jet but i prefer him being critizised to do so while promoting the "green issue", something he has done for many years, rather than using his private jet to get to one of these senseless events, as many other royals or politicians usually do.

in the beginning people said 'oh he's a wacko with all his green stuff' until they had to acknowledge that he was right, and now they are looking for other ways to critizise his dedication or commitment, like 'oh he doesn't walk there or take the train'. it's the cause that counts and charles is, unlike many others, not somebody who jumped on the bandwaggon when it was fashionable to do so but was one of the first high profile people to raise awareness. seems the media is now exhausted with critizising gordon brown for everything and they are desperate for a new target.

[tommy1716]

I don't have a problem with what Charles says, and i respect fully the fact that he has indeed being talking about "green" issues well before they became the "in thing" to jump on board with. However i think he would be taken more seriously if he flew scheduled (in first class if he wants) or even on a smaller jet. Why does he need such a large plane? A smaller one and him taking less people f necessary would surfice.

[Skydragon]

The plane he is using only seats 29 (an Airbus A319), hardly a large plane. On that plane they will have to eat, sleep and change, to appear fresh and ready to go.

[tommy1716]

it only seats 29 now but usually it seats over 150 passengers. How much room do they need really? Or is Camilla planning on wearing some massive hats that need half the plane?

[Skydragon]

That is not quite correct, It seats 29 but if used commercially can be adapted to accommodate 150, (narrow row, after narrow row). It is a private jet and therefore has ample room for anyone who wishes to use it. It's not as if they have had the other seats taken out to accommodate them.

[kimebear]

Originally Posted by AuroraB

Other articles state that it will be a staff of 14 people and a private jet.

Latest Headlines, Top News, Entertainment, Health, Science and Sports News - UPI

The easiest solution would be for TRH to just stay home, stick to hologram meetings, or teleconferencing, and still continue with their regular engagements in the UK. No carbon footprints.

I don't have a problem with them taking a private plane to do a trip like this. It is much easier logistically and the environment is a serious issue. However, given the current economic climate at this moment in time, £300,000, which is the expected cost of this 10 day trip, might be better put towards employing 10 people for a year, or saving 10 families from foreclosure on their homes.

[Skydragon]

With PAYE, £300,000 would not be enough to employ 10 people for a year and they could hardly pay the arrears on 10 peoples houses without the other 100,000 demanding to know why they were not helped!

[kimebear]

Thank you for your opinion, Skydragon. It does nothing to dissuade my own that the money to pay for this trip could be better spent elsewhere at this time.

In my opinion Charles as the future king, for all of his good intentions, might want to rethink such a large expenditure when so many of his future subjects are in dire circumstances. The average person may very well resent hearing that their future monarch is spending such a large amount of money on a 10 day jaunt when they are wondering how they will feed and house their family.

[Duke of Marmalade]

Originally Posted by kimebear

Thank you for your opinion, Skydragon. It does nothing to dissuade my own that the money to pay for this trip could be better spent elsewhere at this time.

In my opinion Charles as the future king, for all of his good intentions, might want to rethink such a large expenditure when so many of his future subjects are in dire circumstances. The average person may very well resent hearing that their future monarch is spending such a large amount of money on a 10 day jaunt when they are wondering how they will feed and house their family.

i think the average person (including me) living in the uk at the moment rather detests the ongoing mentality to pay people for failure and incompetence in form of bailouts, bonuses, pay-offs etc, waisting billions of taxpayers' money on incomprehensible and disgusting matters. i'd actually see it as a step forward if gordon brown started wasting money on issues prince charles is trying to promote instead of allowing money to disappear into a black whole. completely blown out of proportion by the media.

[kimebear]

My point exactly. It is because of what the politicians and bankers are doing right now that could make people more sensitive to an article describing Charles' massive private jet expenses. As I had posted earlier, it is not his activities that I question, it is the timing.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by kimebear

Thank you for your opinion, Skydragon. It does nothing to dissuade my own that the money to pay for this trip could be better spent elsewhere at this time.

I wouldn't expect it to change your opinion. My own is based on experience of the PAYE system that would eat up the £300,000 within 6 months. The benefits system that would stop any benefit if a payment was made on these hypothetical houses and good old human nature, which would have every other person screaming "why not us".

As DoM has said, people are more concerned with how the government is wasting our money on bonuses.

Charles is at least trying to do something for future generations and it does become depressing when everything he tries to do is condemned for whatever reason. If he waits for the recession to end before approaching any environmental problems head on, he would be waiting an awfully long time. Had he merely announced a video link, people he is trying to encourage to do more for the environment would be asking why they were not worthy of a visit.

[Al_bina]

I see the points made by kimebear. It is quite laudable that Prince Charles strives to address environmental issues. At the same time, ordinary people are concerned with more taxes environmentalism may entail. Thus, they demand hard proof of "global warming". The scientific community holds debates over the issue. Under such circumstances, Prince Charles may be perceived as a person, who is out-of-touch with his subjects.
Given the Australian bushfires, the tour timing is poor anyway. Prince Charles should have visited Australia and improved his approval rating there.

[kimebear]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Had he merely announced a video link, people he is trying to encourage to do more for the environment would be asking why they were not worthy of a visit.

Really, I would think he could tell them that "At this time, it would be unseemly to pay such a good deal of money for only 10 days travel when the same conversation could be held via videophone". Especially if he is to speak with interested environmental supporters who would, I imagine, appreciate the lack of a need to offset such a large carbon footprint as the jet surely would create.

Originally Posted by Al_bina

Given the Australian bushfires, the tour timing is poor anyway. Prince Charles should have visited Australia and improved his approval rating there.

A very good point. Just the other day I was reading at another royalty site where there was talk about how a lot of Australians are fond of Crown Princess Mary of Denmark. One of the Australian members posted that it was because they have no royalty there and they identify with her as one of their own. Honestly, I wasn't sure if it was just an innocent slip or if the poster really did not consider the BRF as a royal family for Australia. Perhaps Charles should pay more attention to the Commonwealth or he may find himself King of an increasingly smaller number of lands. Perhaps his inaction has some Australians wondering if they are not worthy of a visit on a private jet.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

I see the points made by kimebear. It is quite laudable that Prince Charles strives to address environmental issues. At the same time, ordinary people are concerned with more taxes environmentalism may entail. Thus, they demand hard proof of "global warming". The scientific community holds debates over the issue. Under such circumstances, Prince Charles may be perceived as a person, who is out-of-touch with his subjects.
Given the Australian bushfires, the tour timing is poor anyway. Prince Charles should have visited Australia and improved his approval rating there.

Charles can't just come to Australia.

He has to be invited and neither the Victorian government not the Federal government have issued an invitation.

I doubt if many Aussies would welcome him coming here now either - we need all the money we can get to support those who have lost everything in the fires in Victoria and the forgotten floods in Queensland (where some people will be cut off for at least another month).

[milla Ca]

I wonder how some people criticize Charles for taking a private jet to go to South America and in the same breath they want him to fly to Australia. Isn´t a long flight a long flight?
Do you really think his presence in Austalia could help the poor people who lost their homes?
Does Charles ever gets a chance to do it right?
___________________________________
February 15
Prince Charles' North Highland Initiative is encouraging people to rescue derelict farm buildings and redevelop them into homes

Caithness has properties ripe for renovation - Times Online

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

----- snipped ----- At the same time, ordinary people are concerned with more taxes environmentalism may entail. Thus, they demand hard proof of "global warming". The scientific community holds debates over the issue. Under such circumstances, Prince Charles may be perceived as a person, who is out-of-touch with his subjects.
Given the Australian bushfires, the tour timing is poor anyway. Prince Charles should have visited Australia and improved his approval rating there.

Do you have anything to support your view of more taxes to support environmental projects or indeed of any concerns of ordinary people?

As ever, Charles will be out of touch with a few Ostriches, but very much in touch with other people.

With regard to Australia, if he is invited, I am sure it will be slotted in to his schedule, but until an invite is issued, it is out of his hands. Are they likely to issue one, unlikely IMO, they need all the money they can get to support the victims.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by milla Ca

Does Charles ever gets a chance to do it right?

Of course not!

[Menarue]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

With regard to Australia, if he is invited, I am sure it will be slotted in to his schedule, but until an invite is issued, it is out of his hands. Are they likely to issue one, unlikely IMO, they need all the money they can get to support the victims.

Exactly, they would naturally have to receive him in the way he is accustomed whether he wanted it or not, now it is every penny to help rebuild and try and get normality back into the lives of the survivors.