Prince Charles and the Environment

[Duke of Marmalade]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

----- 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]

Does Charles ever gets a chance to do it right?

Of course not!

 

[Menarue]

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.

 

[muriel]

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.

Whilst £300k may prima facie appear like a lot of money to pay for travel, it is not given the multiple destinations and the number of people. Gven the reported entrourage of 14, plus C&C, ie 16 in all, that will end up being £18,750 per person. If one flew First Class to those destinations, I am sure the actual cost would not be that much less. Once you throw in the argument for flexibility and security constraints, one can see why a charter plane may make sense.

Query whether the press pack will be flying with C&C.. that too will offset the costs as the press will pay equivalent commercial flight costs.

 

[Skydragon]

The Prince of Wales is to focus this year on his project to save the world's rainforests and could feature in an advertising campaign with Harrison Ford, it has been reported.

Prince of Wales 'could star with Harrison Ford' in bid to save rainforests - Telegraph

 

[kimebear]

Whilst £300k may prima facie appear like a lot of money to pay for travel, it is not given the multiple destinations and the number of people. Gven the reported entrourage of 14, plus C&C, ie 16 in all, that will end up being £18,750 per person. If one flew First Class to those destinations, I am sure the actual cost would not be that much less. Once you throw in the argument for flexibility and security constraints, one can see why a charter plane may make sense.

Query whether the press pack will be flying with C&C.. that too will offset the costs as the press will pay equivalent commercial flight costs.

I really don't have a problem with the plane itself or the cost of it as a method of travel. As I have said already, I only have a problem with the timing. I also don't think it will be years and years and years before the financial crisis eases. This trip could, in my opinion, wait until next year.

 

[BellaFay]

I really don't have a problem with the plane itself or the cost of it as a method of travel. As I have said already, I only have a problem with the timing. I also don't think it will be years and years and years before the financial crisis eases. This trip could, in my opinion, wait until next year.

No it can't wait until next year. The G20 summit at which Gordon Brown intends to raise the economic impact of climate change is due to take place in London at the beginning of April 09. + The largest international summit since Kyoto (about 10 years ago) which is definitely going to be discussing how to deal with rainforest depletion and its effect on global warming is due to take place in Copenhagen in December 09. This Sunday past the English broadsheet papers were full of articles about how global warming and drought had impacted on the Australian fires and another report that the loggers were back in action in the Amazonian region of Brazil.

 

[Al_bina]

I hope I am not veering off the topic too much ...

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.

I believe that you have misunderstood the point I tried to make. People feel wary about environmentalism because "In many cases, individual green taxes and charges are failing to meet their objectives, are set at a level in excess of that needed to meet the social cost of CO2 emissions, and are causing serious harm to areas of the country and industries least able to cope". The above point has nothing to do with the rainforests Prince Charles and Hollywood crusaders attempt to save. Fighting for survival, common people tend to think that Prince Charles and the rest are out-of-touch with reality. I am not necessarily a "naysayer" about global warming ... however, I am skeptical. Does it make an ostrich? I do think that human beings should strive to be better stewards to the environment. Having said that, it would be fair to say that there is no scientific consensus like the man made global warming supporters claim. Additionally, global warming and everything organic has become a business in its own right. Significant sums of money and power are seized and redistributed by environmentalism in the name of preventing global warming. Usual people, who are forced to survive in the times of hard economic crisis, do not care much about environmental issues because they try to meet their basic need (food, shelter).
The TaxPayers' Alliance - Economics 101: The Case Against Further Green Taxes - Report and Poll
The Global Warming Tax Scam Kicks In
(I do understand that you can consider the above information as inaccurate and biased).

As for Australia ... if Prince Charles and the Clarence House had any desire to visit the country in question, the Australian government would have accommodated the request. Duke of Marmalade said it better http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=894241&postcount=51

 

[Skydragon]

--- common people tend to think that Prince Charles and the rest are out-of-touch with reality.

Again, do you have anything to back this one point up? Yes I have seen the article by the Taxpayers alliance, (both the articles you linked are by them) but I would not consider them representative of 'common people' or how they feel. Friends we have are 'salt of the earth' Yorkshire folk (you should try their Yorkshire Pudd recipe, traditionally only ever served with the main meal), they don't 'hold' with 'mumbo jumbo stuff' but, they have installed a wind turbine and solar panels, they also feel that good old Charlie is doing a sterling job for our planet. As they say, if and when the economic crisis is over, we all want the earth, as we know it to be there.

As for Australia, that is a different thread altogether.

 

[Al_bina]

Once again ... everything is a matter of perspective. Prince Charles's reality is entirely different from that of Mr.YY or Ms.XX, who was made redundant due to the current economic crisis. When I say that Prince Charles and Hollywood crusaders alongside him are out-of-touch with reality, I mean that the above individuals are rich enough to forget meeting about their basic needs and take on higher missions.

Charles - who has campaigned for the rainforests for 40 years and set up the project last year - has also called for rich countries to pay a "utility bill" which would be used to aid rainforests and stop deforestation.

Prince Charles proposed the developed world should start to pay for "eco-services" from the rainforests during a speech to the Indonesian President, Dr Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, in Jakarta.

Is it financially possible for well-developed countries to pay for absolutely everything? Do common people in these rich countries have a say in the matter? Should rich countries solely care for preserving a clean environment? While Prince Charles is fully entitled to have his own opinion on the matter, his suggessions may be impossible to carry out in practice. At the same time, I do agree that Prince Charles should be lauded for contributing to rainforests preservation through awareness campaigns and donations.

The annual U.N. climate negotiations, currently under way in Poznan, Poland, have stalled. Here's why: Rich countries want a commitment from poor countries to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions. Poor countries want a commitment from rich countries to pay for those cuts. Those competing claims have long posed a major obstacle for any kind of global climate deal. But the negotiators face another big handicap of their own making: The list of who's rich and who's poor that would be used for any final agreement is hopelessly out of date.

Bad Ecology: Prince Charles - finally cracked I do not like the language of this article though.

Reference:
Prince Charles' rainforest call
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Prince calls for rainforest bills
Prince Charles: Rich countries should pay annual 'bills' to stop rainforest destruction - Telegraph
Climate negotiatiors need to overhaul their list of who's rich and who's poor. - By Michael A. Levi - Slate Magazine

(Once again, I do understand that you view my proof as inaccurate).

 

[Skydragon]

Not at all, thank you for taking the time to find them. As always 'we' can only speak for ourselves and people 'we' know, the same with anyone writing an article/book/blog/post. You are right in one respect, most of the people I speak to are only concerned with their own debt, loss of job, benefits, etc but overwhelmingly, if the subject comes up, they say they hope that Charles can do something, I think as much as anything he gives people hope for their children's future, when they do not have much for their own.

 

[MARG]

You make a good point Sky. I know several people that feel that there is nothing they, indiviuallly, can do to "help" planet earth but are both inspired by Charles work and hopeful that he can do what they cannot.

People listen to what Prince Charles has to say while remaining pretty jaundiced about politicians and multi-national company directors. Charles has campaigned tirelessly for decades on the environment, far pre-dating most "hollywood" celebrities.

Prince Charles - Finally Cracked
The sheer hysteria in Charles' voice during the interview (played this morning on Radio 4's Today Programme) suggests he may really be losing his grip on reality. It's worth noting that, his ancestor, George III's "madness" only started to manifest after the age of 50 and Charles is 59.

It is thought that George's porphyria (thought to be the inherited disease responsible) was only brought on by excessive use of arsenic in his "medicines". Porphyria can be masked by use of Beta-carotene and fish oil supplements, but set off by changes in the formulation and large doses of other vitamins.

I wonder if Charles has changed the large doses in his rigorous vitamin supplement regimen recently? Somebody should alert him to the fact that such a change can set off symptoms of porphyria (including "madness") - as can gall stones or excess alcohol consumption.

Today's Daily Telegraph carries an interview in which Prince Charles shows exactly how clinically insane he has become in his old age. . . . . . . . . . . I do not like the language of this article though.

The fact that you see fit to include an article that outlines it's case for Charles being "insane" before stating the "facts" against his environmental stand, even though you don't like the language, indicates that you are, in fact, a believer. That while you don't like the language, you accept the premise on which the substance is based.

 

[sthreats]

I used to not think much about the enviroment. But the amount of pollution in the city here is staggering. Especially air pollution. The inner city children have twice the rate of asthma and asthma related deaths as in the suburbs/country. Also in many heavily industralized areas there is increased incidence of cancer deaths (eg mestholemia, some brain neoplasms in children to name two). So I began reading more about the enviroment, global warming, pollution, recycling etc. In truth, my kids know as much about these things as I do and they are still in grammar school. I am grateful to "teachers and thinkers" whatever their title or profession who spend the time looking into these things and informing others.

The articles were interesting

Once again ... everything is a matter of perspective. Prince Charles's reality is entirely different from that of Mr.YY or Ms.XX, who was made redundant due to the current economic crisis. When I say that Prince Charles and Hollywood crusaders alongside him are out-of-touch with reality, I mean that the above individuals are rich enough to forget meeting about their basic needs and take on higher missions.

Is it financially possible for well-developed countries to pay for absolutely everything? Do common people in these rich countries have a say in the matter? Should rich countries solely care for preserving a clean environment? While Prince Charles is fully entitled to have his own opinion on the matter, his suggessions may be impossible to carry out in practice. At the same time, I do agree that Prince Charles should be lauded for contributing to rainforests preservation through awareness campaigns and donations.
Bad Ecology: Prince Charles - finally cracked I do not like the language of this article though.

Reference:
Prince Charles' rainforest call
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Prince calls for rainforest bills
Prince Charles: Rich countries should pay annual 'bills' to stop rainforest destruction - Telegraph
Climate negotiatiors need to overhaul their list of who's rich and who's poor. - By Michael A. Levi - Slate Magazine

(Once again, I do understand that you view my proof as inaccurate).

 

[Al_bina]

...[snipped] The fact that you see fit to include an article that outlines it's case for Charles being "insane" before stating the "facts" against his environmental stand, even though you don't like the language, indicates that you are, in fact, a believer. That while you don't like the language, you accept the premise on which the substance is based.

... believer in what exactly? There are very few things I actually believe in. Under the circumstances, I would rather be a naysayer, if you do not mind. I have been asked to provide proof, and I have done so. I just happen to gather that it is impossible to implement some of Prince Charles proposals (e.g., payments to countries to stop rainforest destruction). It is easy to throw lofty suggestions/proposals and have fundraisers like Price Charls, Mr. Gore, and the others do. Everything always looks good on paper. However, implementing initiatives, which will really work with less possible damage for the parties involved, is an entirely different matter. I wish it were possible to create industries: sustainable, economically feasible, and ecologically clean.

 

[scooter]

Al Bina, I must complement you again on both your marvelous english and forbearance when asked constantly for proof of why you hold the beliefs you do . Did you always live in Kazakhstan?

 

[Elspeth]

I believe that you have misunderstood the point I tried to make. People feel wary about environmentalism because "In many cases, individual green taxes and charges are failing to meet their objectives, are set at a level in excess of that needed to meet the social cost of CO2 emissions, and are causing serious harm to areas of the country and industries least able to cope". The above point has nothing to do with the rainforests Prince Charles and Hollywood crusaders attempt to save. Fighting for survival, common people tend to think that Prince Charles and the rest are out-of-touch with reality. I am not necessarily a "naysayer" about global warming ... however, I am skeptical. Does it make an ostrich? I do think that human beings should strive to be better stewards to the environment. Having said that, it would be fair to say that there is no scientific consensus like the man made global warming supporters claim. Additionally, global warming and everything organic has become a business in its own right. Significant sums of money and power are seized and redistributed by environmentalism in the name of preventing global warming. Usual people, who are forced to survive in the times of hard economic crisis, do not care much about environmental issues because they try to meet their basic need (food, shelter).
The TaxPayers' Alliance - Economics 101: The Case Against Further Green Taxes - Report and Poll
The Global Warming Tax Scam Kicks In
(I do understand that you can consider the above information as inaccurate and biased).

As for Australia ... if Prince Charles and the Clarence House had any desire to visit the country in question, the Australian government would have accommodated the request. Duke of Marmalade said it better http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=894241&postcount=51

There's a very strong consensus within the scientific community about the general notion that current global warming is largely anthropogenic. There's a lot of quibbling about details.

 

[MARG]

... believer in what exactly?

Why that Charles is quite obviously insane as predicated in the article you quoted.

It is easy to throw lofty suggestions/proposals and have fundraisers like Price Charls, Mr. Gore, and the others do. Everything always looks good on paper. However, implementing initiatives, which will really work with less possible damage for the parties involved, is an entirely different matter. I wish it were possible to create industries: sustainable, economically feasible, and ecologically clean.

I would suggest that Prince Charles has a track record of putting his money (and his Duchy) where his mouth is, and it has not come cheap.

 

[Skydragon]

Al Bina, I must complement you again on both your marvelous english and forbearance when asked constantly for proof of why you hold the beliefs you do .

It is such a little thing to ask why someone holds the views they do and an even simpler one to post them. That gives everyone the opportunity to see what reading matter was involved for the person to make their determination as to it's possible accuracy.

If I posted a view that all Horses would be better with three legs, surely you would want to know how I had come to that conclusion, rather than dismiss it out of hand, It really is as simple as that.

 

[Al_bina]

It has not been my intention to start war of personal opinions on the global warming/climate change and Prince Charles' environmental crusades. Do I view Prince Charles as insane? Absolutely not. Why? Because (1)Prince Charles exists in a different reality; and (2)Prince Charles' hierarchy of needs differs from that of people like me. Sadly enough, but unfavrourable conditions in the economic environment have made my needs shift toward lower levels: (1)survival (i.e. the basic animal requirements such as food, water, shelter, warmth and sleep); and (2)security/safety needs (the social and financial, such as job security, rather than purely physical requirements). Of course, I still care about my social needs. TRF membership might be viewed as one of examples of meeting my social needs. Prince Charles and other wealthy eco warriors can afford to completely shift their attention onto needs of a higher level (self-esteems, status, and self-actualisation) because their lower level needs ceased to be motivators by being fully satisfied. In the case of Prince Charles, I dare to assume that his key need is self-actualisation because ego/status needs are fully met. I am aware of the fact that my explanation seems primitive because "needs continually overlap; for example social needs are felt by everyone, including those whose basic needs are not met". If I were Prince Charles, Bono, and etc., I would pursue the same goals as the aforementioned individuals have been doing.

There is a consensus about anthropogenic climate change. I do not dispute this statement. "Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics." I happen to believe that the devil is in the details. Even the grandest project depends on the success of the smallest components. The main question of what to do about the climate change has not been answered yet.

The saddest thing for me is that environmentalism has been turned into a fully-fledged business venture, which tends to undermine harmonious ideas Prince Charles and others try to preach in my opinion. As stated earlier, Prince Charles favours a financial compensation to the various vested interests profiting from the rainforest destruction. It would be fair to assume that certain parties can take full advantage of the situation by "gently pressuring" well-devloped countries to help them to become greener/ecologically cleaner in industrial and energy sectors.

Reference:
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science
They call this a consensus?
Abraham Maslow: the hierarchy of needs. - Free Online Library

Finally, I believe it is a fruitless attempt on my part to explain my point of view because dissenting opinions are considered as heretical. We can spend time and pages excelling in witness and creative interpretation of certain sentences/paragraphs. This, however, does not change the fact that we shall never agree with each other.

 

[MARG]

Do I view Prince Charles as insane? Absolutely not. Why? Because (1)Prince Charles exists in a different reality;

So . . . in a nutshell, Charles is not insane because he lives in a different reality? How so, and can we move there too?

"Neurotics build castles in the air, psychotics live in them and psychiatrists collect the rent". Just a thought.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I'm not sure, but I think that Al-bina's point is that Prince Charles's basic needs are met and therefore he lives in a different reality than people who spend their days concerned with their own physical survival. I can't say that I disagree with that.

So . . . in a nutshell, Charles is not insane because he lives in a different reality? How so, and can we move there too?

"Neurotics build castles in the air, psychotics live in them and psychiatrists collect the rent". Just a thought.

 

[MARG]

Heavens! I too must live in a different reality if that is the case. However, I still worry about the environment in general and air quality in particular because whilst I breath the same air as everyone else in the city, only a few end up in hospital on oxygen every now and then. Myself included!

"Reality" never protected anyone from environmental consequences.

 

[Al_bina]

As an educated person, I do care about the environment and try to be a good steward of it by reducing waste, recycling, not squandering water/electricity/gas, etc. At the same time, I am skeptical about the ways of reducing the global warming. The skepticism is not crime, is it? Prince Charles builds his green legacy like French Kings used to build Versailles. That is all. The effects of Prince Charles' green legacy are remained to be seen.

I'm not sure, but I think that Al-bina's point is that Prince Charles's basic needs are met and therefore he lives in a different reality than people who spend their days concerned with their own physical survival. I can't say that I disagree with that.

That is exactly what I have meant.