Liz Truss has told King Charles not to go to the COP27 meeting next month

The only question was how long it would be before Charles started to interfere in affairs he had no business interfering in; it looks like we have the answer now.

By leaking to the press that the government stopped him going to COP27, Charles is putting pressure on government not to stop him doing what he wants next time. That’s a dangerous game to play.

I have never seen a briefing operation by Buckingham Palace against a prime minister similar to the one in the Sunday Times

King Charles III is going to be a wholly different and more politically interventionist monarch to his mother

He is not a “globally respected voice in the environment.” He’s a meddler, a hypocrite and dilettante. The rich produce most CO2 and they need to burden the cost of tackling climate change. Charles isn’t interested in that, he just lectures the rest of us.

Copied from Thought on twitter

Room for all opinions on GN

Whitewavemark2

The optics are so bad though.

The idea of preventing your head of state from turning up to talk about climate change is ridiculous.

The monarch's job is to stay apolitical. The late Queen did this to perfection. Charles has always known that the survival of the monarchy in Britain depends on the monarch not interfering in politics.

Constitutionally, therefore, any PM has every right to tell him, and indeed the duty of telling him to keep out of politics.

Prince Charles flew 125miles in a helicopter to give speech on aircraft emissions.

EXCLUSIVE: Prince Charles' eco row after lecturing climate scientists on reducing aircraft emissions after flying into Cambridge on the Queen's helicopter

Climate campaigner Prince Charles was at the centre of an eco row for lecturing scientists on reducing aircraft emissions – after flying in on the Queen’s helicopter.

The royal – already under fire over air travel costing £280,000 last month – flew 178 miles on two journeys.

The royal – already under fire over air travel costing £280,000 last month – flew 178 miles on two journeys.

But the chopper’s total trip, to and from base, was 368 miles.

Charles was picked up at Highgrove, Glos, and flown 125 miles to Cambridge.

A Bentley then ferried him the last few miles to Cambridge University’s world-leading Whittle Laboratory.

Its scientists are leading research into the decarbonisation of air travel and aim to develop the first zero-carbon flight.

Prince Charles has been accused of being full of hot air on climate change – after a plane flew 125 miles to pick him up.

Critics say it undermines Charles’ Cop26 proclamation when he told the world: “We have to reduce emissions urgently.

From Mirror 2020/1

Baggs

^THE FUTURE OF THE WORLD AND THE ENVIRONMENT IS NOT POLITICAL.^

It is actually because information we are being fed is based on the mistaken premise that the planet exists in a state of delicate nurture which any human impact destroys, making that immoral.

To anyone genuinely interested I cannot recommend enough the arguments of Alex Epstein in his book Fossil Future in which he reframes the whole issue in terms of well documented evidence and a starting point of human flourishing, especially with respect to the 3 billion or so people who still live (and die at young ages) with little energy except their own muscles.

I decided to read the book because I had come across Epstein's ideas on Twtr and decided I needed to read what he has to say in order to be able to refute it. His arguments are well expressed and argued with philosophical and moral conviction.

Oh not again. ?

Epstein is a climate change denier and philosopher/computer scientist who has no grasp of the science involved or the mechanisms of what's happening, and is linked to the Ayn Rand Institute.

He really doesn't know what he's talking about.

Climate Change is not political.

Whitewavemark2

Room for all opinions on GN

Not climate change denial though. That's not an opinion, it's a delusion.

Thank you, Volvo. This thread was deteriorating.

I say that the question of climate change - even if you choose not to believe in something patently obvious to most people by now - is NOT a party political one.

Anyone think the Truss would have done any similar thing to the Queen?

volver

Whitewavemark2

Room for all opinions on GN

Not climate change denial though. That's not an opinion, it's a delusion.

No I know, but Epstein has been brought up before and his denial refuted, so I ignored it.

WWM2, Alie2Oxon ??

Whitewavemark2

volver

Whitewavemark2

Room for all opinions on GN

Not climate change denial though. That's not an opinion, it's a delusion.

No I know, but Epstein has been brought up before and his denial refuted, so I ignored it.

Please could you point me to the refutations you mention.

He doesn't deny climate change so I'm rather at a loss to understand where that comes from – not from anyone who has read his books anyway.

Please could you point me to the refutations you mention.

On the last thread, a few weeks ago, that you brought Epstein up on, Baggs

Maybe it comes from people who have actually worked on climate change?

Here's one: www.eba-net.org/assets/1/6/24-327-353-Freeman_FINAL_%5b11.10%5d.pdf

Thanks, V.

Have read a few pages and it's good but it's rather out of date. A lot has happened since 2015 when it was published and yet, for example, people in Texas and California which it speaks of as good examples of states using renewable power electricity (10.6% and 25% repsectively) have suffered a lot of power cuts since because they did not also have fossil fueled back-up for when the wind didn't blow or the sun didn't shine.

I'll carry on reading for balance but there's no getting around the fact that renewables, so far, are not as reliable as fossil fuels nor that they depend on fossil fueled machines to make the concrete and steel they need and to mine for the rare earth minerals they need also.

I've yet to be convinced so-called renewables can replace fossil fuels for quite a while to come (which is what Epstein argues), especially as the people who argue for the elimination of fossil fuels also argue against nuclear power which could, in due course, replace fossil fuels.

Right now my eldest daughter is awaiting surgery for a brain tumour. I'm extremely glad that hospitals don't rely on unreliable renewable energy and that fossil fuels have contributed (made possible, even) the modern surgical technology and equipment that treatment of conditions like hers absolutely needs.

no getting around the fact that renewables, so far, are not as reliable as fossil fuels nor that they depend on fossil fuelled machines to make the concrete and steel they need and to mine for the rare earth minerals they need also.

That may well be the most short sighted and uneducated comment about renewables it's possible to make, but not unexpected. Please don't get me started on nuclear. I've ranted on at length about renewables and nuclear on GN so I won't do it again.

Sorry to hear about your daughter Baggs

Sorry for the diversion Alie2Oxon

Just to say - renewables does not equal solar and wind.

Renewables = solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, wave, tidal....

volver

Just to say - renewables does not equal solar and wind.

Renewables = solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, wave, tidal....

Yes, indeed, but many environmentalists are against hydro.

Geothermal only happens in a few places. Iceland is hardly typical of most of the world.

Tidal and wave technology (hydro too) also depend on fossil fuels to get built and be maintained.

I don't have a lot of respect for people who dismiss a book they haven't read. However, I don't expect to convince die-hard fossil fuel haters. My suggestion is for people like me who used to be terrified about climate change but now see a more nuanced picture.

The current energy crisis is not all Putin's fault. European countries in particular have made silly decisions before lookng at the whole picture. Look at Germany's dependence on Russsian gas instead of securing its own energy production. Daft.

Geothermal only happens in a few places. Iceland is hardly typical of most of the world.

I don't think you know what geothermal is.

education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/geothermal-energy

Tidal and wave technology (hydro too) also depend on fossil fuels to get built and be maintained... because we haven't invested enough in renewables to replace the fossil fuels industries' yet. Electricity is electricity, whether it's generated by fossil fuels or twirling turbines. Or the hot, hot Earth....

The UK may not have perpetual sunshine nor does the wind constantly turn the turbines as often or as long as some may have expected, but in this country we are in a prime position to exploit the potential of wave and tidal power. Better get on with it!

I agree, anno. I don’t know if Epstein does too. His argument is not about not eliminating fossil fuels ever, it’s saying that eliminating them by 2050 is unrealistic given the current state of world energy needs and the manageable climate change that is happening.

Whatever valid points Epstein may make about the phasing out of fossil fuels they are entirely negated by the position that the climate change that is happening is "manageable".

Hurricane Ian? European heat waves? Forest fires in Europe and Australia? What's his view? That it's just collateral damage and we need to suck it up?

It is reported that the Palace sought the opinion of the government on this matter, and that he was advised not to go.
I think he really knew that he could not carry on as before once he became the King.
He cannot give any assurances on matters to do with climate change on what the UK will do or needs to do.
It does not matter, there are plenty of people who can do this for him, but it has to come from political figures.

That's so wrong. Where's my headbanging girl? It does not have to come from political figures. Where does Attenborough fit in this? Is he political?

The King doesn't need to give assurances about how the UK will spend money on this problem, but he should be there to help keep attention on something that is not political, but will cause us until issues across the globe in the future.

All that soft power that the RF are meant to have - this is an ideal opportunity to use it. But it doesn't suit Truss's vision of the future, so - stay at home Charlie.

until untold