7th June 2022
Why do some of the royals insist on carrying on like overgrown Gretas?
The royal family is supposed to be ‘above politics’. The queen’s studied neutrality, maintained over 70 years, is central to the endurance of this feudalistic set-up. Her descendants, however, cannot seem to keep their views to themselves.
At the Platinum Jubilee celebrations, Prince William marked the occasion by lecturing his grandmother’s subjects on the ‘pressing need to protect and restore our planet’. While he noted the ‘unimaginable technological developments’ that have improved the lot of mankind over the past 70 years, he warned that the ‘impact humans have on our world’ has made the planet more ‘fragile’.
For some reason, the royals have got it into their heads that the environment and climate change are not political issues.
They carry on as if there is already a consensus that something must be done about climate change – and, though this part is often left unspoken, that ordinary people should be willing to make huge sacrifices to ‘save the planet’.
Clearly, Prince William does not intend to make many sacrifices of his own to reduce humanity’s impact on the climate. He arrived at the Jubilee party, as the royals often do, in a helicopter.
In fact, thanks to all the helicopters, private jets, gas-guzzling convoys and vast palaces at their disposal, the royal family produces a ‘carbon footprint’ that is 50 times the size of that produced by the average UK family.
The royals’ hypocrisy on the climate issue is a recurring phenomenon. Who could forget Prince Harry taking a private jet to a Google-run retreat in Sicily, where he delivered a lecture, in his bare feet, on the dangers of climate change?
Prince Charles is by far the most vocal of the royals on environmental issues. But he also has by far the highest carbon footprint of all the royals, largely due to the staggering amount of land he owns.
The Jubilee speech was not Prince William’s first foray into green politics, either. In the past, he has bemoaned the potential impact of space tourism on the planet, he has discussed climate change with David Attenborough at the World Economic Forum (WEF), and he launched the Earthshot Prize for green-friendly innovation.
All this green advocacy might all sound harmless – charitable, even. But it is anything but.
While the likes of Prince William talk in vague soundbites about ‘restoring our planet’ and ‘taking better care of our world’, what this means in practice is becoming clearer by the day.
The Net Zero agenda represents a significant curtailment of our quality of life and an enormous constraint on economic growth. In the UK, climate policies are already contributing to a near-unprecedented spike in energy prices, causing enormous pain to households and industry.
And this is just the beginning.
The UK’s Climate Change Committee believes that more than 60 per cent of future emissions reductions will not come from improvements in technology, which might be painless and unobjectionable, but from ‘behaviour change and individual choices’.
Needless to say, these will not be voluntary changes. Efficient, cheap and proven methods of producing energy, heating our homes and moving around will be phased out, banned or taxed very heavily. More expensive and less reliable eco-friendly methods will be encouraged or mandated.
These measures aren’t the inevitable consequence of the situation we find ourselves in. They represent a political choice to place environmental concerns above our liberties and living standards.
And their impact will be felt most by the least well-off, who will be priced out of the modern conveniences that we today take for granted.
Isn’t it strange how the common denominator around all of the world Leaders, that are pushing the fear of climate change & the supposed need for drastic controls, seems to be membership of the WEF?
In my opinion the WEF concentration on climate change is driven not by economics, but in fact is driven by their desire for world domination and control.
The WEF recently convened its annual conference in Davos, Switzerland, to discuss the “climate crisis.” It was revealed there that arctic ice is currently at a 30-year high, according to data from the intergovernmental European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites.
Globalist groups like the WEF have been pushing for years to redistribute the wealth of nations as a “remedy” for alleged global warming and climate change. It turns out that the real problem might be global freezing.
We have been told for years by climate fanatics that the polar ice caps are melting, which Al Gore infamously said would cause flooding due to sea level increases.
In 2007, Al Gore began warning the world that scientists were predicting that by 2013, the Arctic would be ice-free during the summer.
The solution, of course, was more government control over people, more taxes, and more tyranny. This, the “experts” claimed, would keep the planet at just the right temperatures.
Time has proved how wrong these fanatics ended up being with their climate hysteria.
The American government through its Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued an announcement about how it plans to treat climate change as a public health issue.
By doing this, the government granted itself the authority to invoke emergency powers just as it did with the coronavirus (Covid-19), except this time the restrictions will include things like curbing private vehicle use and limiting the amount of animal products people consume.
Fossil fuels like gas and oil are also slated for elimination, only to be replaced with highly unstable and unreliable “green” technologies such as wind and solar.
The current Labour government arbitrarily successfully imposed lockdowns under the guise of a ‘public health emergency,’ and they have already made a local declaration of a climate emergency; so how long will it be before we see them trying to achieve the same sort of dominance under the guise of a climate emergency?