Prince Charles Vs Climate Sceptics - Again
With The Deepest Respect, Charles, Please Do Shut Up
Prince Charles has attacked corporate lobbyists and climate change sceptics for turning the Earth into a "dying patient", making his most outspoken criticism yet of the world's failure to tackle global warming just when the heir to the throne is assuming a growing number of the duties of what is supposed to be an apolitical monarchy. Prince Charles's views were reinforced by Lord Stern, author of the 2006 report on the economics of climate change, who called sceptics and lobbyists "forces of darkness" who would be driven back. --Fiona Harvey, The Guardian, 9 May 2013
The prince's remarks were attacked by climate change sceptics and dismissed by several lobbyists. Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the thinktank founded by Lord Lawson, which takes a climate-sceptic stance, accused the prince of poisoning the debate on climate change with "apocalyptic language that a government minister would not use", and accused him of being happy for consumers to pay more in their energy bills for green policies. --Fiona Harvey, The Guardian, 9 May 2013
Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation - a climate-sceptic think tank set up by former Conservative chancellor Nigel Lawson - sharply criticised the prince. "He doesn't make himself popular by attacking half the British public, who are known to be sceptical." Dr Peiser said the heir to the throne should "have a conversation with his father", who he said had a different view. "It's not about the science," he said. "It's about the apocalyptic rhetoric that is poisoning the debate." --BBC News, 9 May 2013
In the fields of medicine, agriculture, architecture and energy production, the prince is taking positions that are intensely partisan; and some of these are areas in which decisions have monumental economic implications for every family in the land… The prince certainly needs someone to point out to him that the planet is not “dying” and that it was doing just fine when CO2 concentrations were vastly higher than they are now or are ever likely to be as a result of whatever amount of fossil fuels we burn. --Dominic Lawson, The Sunday Times, 12 May 2013
But no matter how much you and I agree, Prince Charles should have remained silent. Charles strays into areas of political dispute over what should be done [about global warming]. Charles's lack of judgment may explain why, though he will take over duties such as attending Commonwealth heads of government conferences, the Queen will not agree to either abdication or a regency. Charles is a dangerously divisive figure – not because he may destroy the monarchy (which I would welcome), but because he threatens an already fragile public confidence in democracy. --Peter Wilby, The Guardian, 10 May 2013
The Prince of Wales has warned that mankind is on the brink of “committing suicide on a grand scale” unless urgent progress is made in tackling green issues such as carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, intensive farming and resource depletion. Adopting uncharacteristically apocalyptic language, the Prince said the world was heading towards a “terrifying point of no return” and that future generations faced an “unimaginable future” on a toxic planet. However Dr Benny Peiser, director of Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the Prince’s views were still out of step with mainstream thinking. “He is really a good representative of the environmental movement as such and it is not a personal issue,” he said. But he added that the “extreme alarm and extreme concern” was “over the top and not helpful to the debate”. “It doesn’t convince any governments or any ministers and in the end it is over the top and won’t be heard.” --Jonathan Brown, The Independent 23 November 2012
The prince's remarks were attacked by climate change sceptics and dismissed by several lobbyists. Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the thinktank founded by Lord Lawson, which takes a climate-sceptic stance, accused the prince of poisoning the debate on climate change with "apocalyptic language that a government minister would not use", and accused him of being happy for consumers to pay more in their energy bills for green policies. --Fiona Harvey, The Guardian, 9 May 2013
Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation - a climate-sceptic think tank set up by former Conservative chancellor Nigel Lawson - sharply criticised the prince. "He doesn't make himself popular by attacking half the British public, who are known to be sceptical." Dr Peiser said the heir to the throne should "have a conversation with his father", who he said had a different view. "It's not about the science," he said. "It's about the apocalyptic rhetoric that is poisoning the debate." --BBC News, 9 May 2013
In the fields of medicine, agriculture, architecture and energy production, the prince is taking positions that are intensely partisan; and some of these are areas in which decisions have monumental economic implications for every family in the land… The prince certainly needs someone to point out to him that the planet is not “dying” and that it was doing just fine when CO2 concentrations were vastly higher than they are now or are ever likely to be as a result of whatever amount of fossil fuels we burn. --Dominic Lawson, The Sunday Times, 12 May 2013
But no matter how much you and I agree, Prince Charles should have remained silent. Charles strays into areas of political dispute over what should be done [about global warming]. Charles's lack of judgment may explain why, though he will take over duties such as attending Commonwealth heads of government conferences, the Queen will not agree to either abdication or a regency. Charles is a dangerously divisive figure – not because he may destroy the monarchy (which I would welcome), but because he threatens an already fragile public confidence in democracy. --Peter Wilby, The Guardian, 10 May 2013
The Prince of Wales has warned that mankind is on the brink of “committing suicide on a grand scale” unless urgent progress is made in tackling green issues such as carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, intensive farming and resource depletion. Adopting uncharacteristically apocalyptic language, the Prince said the world was heading towards a “terrifying point of no return” and that future generations faced an “unimaginable future” on a toxic planet. However Dr Benny Peiser, director of Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the Prince’s views were still out of step with mainstream thinking. “He is really a good representative of the environmental movement as such and it is not a personal issue,” he said. But he added that the “extreme alarm and extreme concern” was “over the top and not helpful to the debate”. “It doesn’t convince any governments or any ministers and in the end it is over the top and won’t be heard.” --Jonathan Brown, The Independent 23 November 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment