Let's start with Prince Charles' upcoming trip to Canada:
LONDON (Reuters) - Prince Charles and his wife Camilla will visit Canada next month as part of celebrations to mark his mother Queen Elizabeth's 70th year on the British throne, his office said on Tuesday.The trip, the 19th the heir-to-the-throne has undertaken to Canada, will see the royal couple travel more than 2000 miles from Newfoundland and Labrador to the Northwest Territories over three days from May 17-19."The Prince of Wales has long believed that we need to learn from indigenous peoples around the world how better we should live in and care for nature and the planet," Clarence House said in a statement."Canada is seeing the impact of climate change and so this tour will highlight an emphasis on learning from Indigenous Peoples in Canada as well as a focus on working with businesses to find a more sustainable way of living with global warming."
Because nothing says conservation like a transatlantic flight followed by traveling 2000 miles in three days and then flying back home. Perhaps some of the indigenous elders could suggest that to him.
I can't resist pairing that story with "Yacht to know better," from Harper's:
From “Why yachting families make great climate caretakers,” which was published in November on the website Superyacht Life. The average superyacht is estimated to produce 7,020 tons of carbon dioxide each year.Those on board a yacht become a part of the ocean’s ecosystem, and they are perfectly positioned to assist in the fight to protect our warming earth. Here are five ways yacht-owning families can help our oceans heal:1. Young yachting families can use their time at sea to bear witness to how the ocean is changing. Photographing marine life and accumulating ocean plastics is not just something adults can do. It is an activity for children too.2. By ferrying scientists to and from remote locations, yachting families can take a hands-on approach to ocean conservation. By working with scientists at sea, children can develop a love of climate protection.3. Families can sponsor and track their own sea creatures. “My whale is called Luke!” laughs Dr. Vienna Eleuteri. “I adopted him when my nephew was born.”
Two more equally ridiculous examples at the link.
It seems to me that that easiest way for a yacht-owning family to help the ocean would be to tow it somewhere, remove all toxic chemicals, fuel, etc. and sink it to provide fish habitat.
ReplyDeleteThe Canadian Monarchy is engaged in green initiatives:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2021/10/26/how-the-queen-went-green-uk-royal-familys-eco-projects-in-spotlight-ahead-of-cop26/
Prince Charles leads the way offsetting the carbon impact of airline travels by purchasing green offsets:
https://www.wired.com/2009/07/prince-charles-the-first-carbon-neutral-monarch/
I didn't know that. Thank you.
DeleteBig environmental voices keep saying we need Big Solutions. The actions of individuals are merely ritualistic gestures. Sadly, without individual transformation--a willingness to sacrifice--the social fabric, by definition, made-up of individuals, can't begin to support system-wide change. Failing to get this is the biggest mistake in human history.
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit disingenuous to demand that a leader/royal who cares about the environment can not visit the lands that he bares responsibility for.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure people would not accept a crown-prince, prime-minister or president to never leave his castle/office because he cares for the environment.
Nor would it be accepted if Charles took a yacht ride across the Atlantic as Greta Thunberg did. "Prince lounges away for weeks on Ocean for 3-day visit!"
Now if you want to argue that it's weird that the British Royal family is the same folks as the Canadian Royal family, and that they should visit Canada more, then you have a point. But history is weird, cute, and this point has nothing to do with environmentalism.
Finally, Europeans should shut up, because they move the Europarliament once a month from Brussels to Strasbourg. All of it. People, filing cabinets, staffers, hup in a train, truck and cars back and forth. Now that's really insane.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-20096221
So, there's just no place to begin. Everyone gets a pass if the Royals get a pass. (Who's to say I shouldn't fly to Ireland every week, 12K RT, to visit the graves of my ancestors?) And, hell, how about we all just shut up? I mean, you really can rationalize every bit of the consumption that just keeps adding-up to humans consuming three Earths, year after year.
DeleteWho's to say I shouldn't fly to Ireland every week, 12K RT, to visit the graves of my ancestors?
DeleteYou yourself. By using this ridiculous answer you indicate that that would be too much.
But please point to any leader anywhere that has been able to lead without ever leaving his place.
My hyperbolic example is meant to illustrate a point: We can rationalize anything. So, of course there's a way to support Charles in flying to Canada to meet with indigenous elders, or whatnot. And we're great at this rationalization game. So, we extend it to everybody getting what they want--well anyone that can afford plane tickets and can afford to live any lifestyle that uses multiple Earths. And so, we burn-down the biosphere. The alternative is to begin questioning the "need" to burn a zillion barrels of A-1 every year, along with all else that falls into the non-essential category (80% of what Americans consume). But, that gets ugly, because we see this really is "personal" and that's very uncomfortable. So, I can't see, in my lifetime, that any of this "way of life" stuff is being challenged in any honest way. And it's what makes me very pessimistic about the outcome. I can't say there won't be a sea change, but so far, not.
DeleteThe young yachting families, everyone seems to be assuming motor yachts. They could be sail or now even solar electric powered. OK, probably not but it's possible.
ReplyDeletexoxoxoBruce
I think the more interesting question is why Britain still has a monarchy? Clearly many people remain in favor of it, but why?
ReplyDeleteHmmm, I've had small 30' yacht and I can say in the Bahamas I witnessed a Bahamian motor boat gas up pour oil in and on leaving the marina the oil containers were tossed in the water.
ReplyDeleteThere was a rubbish can on the dock, go figure.
Walked countless beaches on the Isles of Bahama. Euphemistically, cruisers referred the the beach as "Bahamian
hardware store" one could find just about anything on a beach walk. To be fair, most of the trash on the beach is "sea detritus" washing up.
In Guatemala small towns there is copious amounts of trash on the right side of the road out of town. Much, much less on the way into town, as passengers waiting for buses buy snacks, drinks etc. and discard out the window. The effect is very noticeable. Not just Guatemala, the whole complete
Central and S America during my travels in 1972.
Sad, so very sad, and here we are 50 years on and there are more people and more trash.
I have often believed that the disposable world came to third world countries without the proper disposal education. As a child, 73 now, our mother kept a "litter bag" on the knob of the dash and all 8 children were taught to pass litter to the litter bag during car trips.
Finally, I put the onus on the big corporations producing plastics while filling their pockets with money.
I quite agree, but it's not just a "third world" problem. When I lived in Kentucky I had a home in a rural location; the roadsides were littered with trash, and when I bought a home with a deck looking over a sloping hill and then walked down the hill I found soup cans etc in the tall grass that had been tossed from the deck. And the toilets didn't flush to a septic tank; the plastic tubing ended in the woods. But that's another story...
DeleteThere's no question these visible pollutants are significant, but only the tip of the iceberg of what's not visible. Maybe if cola cans and plastic waste came out my exhaust pipe, or there was a landslide of plastic behind Prince Charles' jet, we'd connect the dots. Better to throw a bag of trash out the window of a bus than to travel by plane. The weight of the GHGs in plane travel quickly outpace bus travel by thousands of pounds per passenger. Of course humans are now seemingly addicted to a level of mobility our ancestors would find incomprehensible:
Deletehttps://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566
Thanks, Cowboy for the valuable input on visible vs. invisible pollutants. I could not agree with you more. I would respectfully add relatively unseen pollution from manufacturing, electric generation (esp coal and all coal burning) and the chemical industry. Least we not leave out the effluent in our rivers, nitrates from farming, micro plastics, treated sewage, industrial waste, even pharmaceuticals! that end up in waters from lakes, to rivers and finally the oceans. Dead zones already exist in Gulf of Mexico.( https://oceantoday.noaa.gov/deadzonegulf-2021/ )Good time to be an old man, as the earth appears to be doomed! by the hand of man.
DeleteI hear you on the old man thing. And, yeah, 100% with you. Every consumer item I touch, from necessities to outright luxuries, has a giant, essentially hidden environmental footprint. There's nothing in our evolutionary history that "wires" us for such a moment. We're creatures of the immediate in time and space. So, that Amazon package comes to me without the mine tailings, 50 pounds of carbon, etc. And, all I see is the package, like a ripe berry hanging on a vine a million years ago. I respond accordingly--ordering another package!!!! More berries. It's comical and tragic.
DeleteThe answers are too painful for them to contemplate. Smaller businesses not bigger. Intentful production of durable goods. The whole system falls apart. Too much generational wealth involved. Taking the steps to learn is important but then actually doing the work with what you have learned has to be the next step. Nobody is really interested in the next step.
ReplyDelete