Login Register

Prince Charles exclusive: We must tackle climate change

By WMNPBowern  |  Posted: July 18, 2015

Comments (14)

Tackling global warming is the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced, the Prince of Wales tells today’s Western Morning News.

In an exclusive interview before the Prince and the Duchess of Cornwall arrive for a three-day visit to the Westcountry on Monday, His Royal Highness warns that we have just 35 years to save the planet from catastrophic climate change.

He says with a global population boost of around three billion by 2050 the 90 trillion dollars of global infrastructure development predicted to take place over the next 20 years must be “as carbon neutral as possible”.

And he points out the timescale means these are not problems that will face only our children and grandchildren but the vast majority of people who are alive today. He says cutting emissions from transport, cities, deforestation and agriculture is as important as reducing industrial greenhouse gases. And he warns that while global summits later this year on tackling the crisis will help, the “real work, by governments, the private sector and civil society has yet to begin”.

Related content

But the Prince – who takes the title Duke of Cornwall when in the Westcountry – puts his faith in farmers as those “best placed to manage the landscape and wildlife.” In what will be seen by many in the South West farming community as welcome words of support during difficult times, he says farmers are, in the main, “conservationists by nature”.

Read more from Western Morning News

Do you have something to say? Leave your comment here...

max 4000 characters


  • Jim_Hunt  |  July 20 2015, 9:53AM

    Good morning PAWB, So in your view everybody else's energy bills should be higher so that you can grow higher hollyhocks?

    |   1
  • KindraMKenney  |  July 20 2015, 3:57AM

    even though Kathleen `s rep0rt is really great... last wednesday I got a gorgeous Land Rover Defender after having made £6081 this-past/4 weeks and would you believe, ten grand last munth . with-out a doubt this is the best work Ive ever had . I started this 8-months ago and pretty much straight away started to bring home at least £74, p/h . see this page ........✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ http://tinyurl.com/FrontRangeNetMoney ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ 。★\|/。★★。\|/。★★。\|/。★★。\|/。★

    |   -1
  • PAWB46  |  July 19 2015, 8:42PM

    Jim. I already answered the point about energy efficient homes. The carbon cutting is pure nonsense. I love carbon dioxide, a necessary plant food.

    |   3
  • Jim_Hunt  |  July 19 2015, 5:58PM

    Evenin' PAWB, At the risk of repeating myself "Why bring that up at this juncture? Can I take it from what you say that you will be following my example and sending a stern note to your own Member of Parliament about the so called productivity plan's "energy inefficiency" innovations?"

    |   -1
  • PAWB46  |  July 19 2015, 5:15PM

    Afternoon Jim. I did a little statistics at university, just the basic stuff you get as part of the meths in support of physics. I was sent on various statistical courses from work, one at Cranfield I remember. One thing that is pretty clear is that the warming we have experienced since the Little Ice Age is not statistically significant - it is what one would expect from a chaotic system - and there is no evidence that human emissions are causing any warming. There has been no warming (the 'hiatus' ) for nearly 20 years, based on measurement uncertainty. Over thousands of years the planet has alternately warmed and cooled with various frequencies - all due to natural physical processes.

    |   4
  • Jim_Hunt  |  July 19 2015, 3:12PM

    Hello, good afternoon and welcome Roland, Please forgive my brusqueness, but can you read? I've done original work on theoretical statistics. Matrix algebra, that sort of thing. The WMN article didn't mention "so-called renewables", and neither have I. Why bring that up at this juncture? Can I take it from what you say that you will be following my example and sending a stern note to your own Member of Parliament about the so called productivity plan's "energy inefficiency" innovations?

    |   -2
  • rolandsmith  |  July 19 2015, 2:43PM

    Jim_Hunt: Sorry to butt into this conversation but it is clear that you weren't concentrating at school or I may be more kind in saying that you were absent for the part of your A-level maths course which covered statistics. I must say that I'm all for energy efficiency in the home, and at work for that matter, but what I cannott accept is waste such as so-called "renewables". Not one of them – solar, wind, tidal etc. – can be relied upon to meet demand so are a waste of money because they all need investment in an equal capacity of generation to cover for times when the tide is slack, the sun's down or there's no wind. Perhaps this is what PAWB is referring to when he talks of "ill-thought-out schemes". Low/zero carbon generation, such as nuclear and hydro, would be a far better option. You only need to look at France to see how it's done http://tinyurl.com/qjusuja

    |   6
  • Jim_Hunt  |  July 19 2015, 12:11PM

    Good afternoon PAWB, Did your A-Levels include much in the way of statistics? I did pure maths and applied maths, but no stats that I can recall. Nonetheless I did eventually end up doing some original statistical theorising. Unfortunately you cant "read all about it" in a learned journal because the work was MoD funded. The animated graph I pointed you at demonstrates that "global warming" has been proceeding unabated for decades. What about it do you fail to comprehend? Getting back to energy efficiency, are you implying that "the zero carbon Allowable Solutions carbon offsetting scheme, and the proposed 2016 increase in on-site energy efficiency standards" were "ill-thought-out"?

    |   -3
  • PAWB46  |  July 19 2015, 10:41AM

    Morning Jim. No I didn't fail science at school. A-levels in physics, chemistry, maths and further maths, followed by two physics degrees. I'm not sure why you want me to look at a blog about arctic ice, a blog which seems to be very biased and not very scientific. The "pause" (as measured by satellites) continues within measurement uncertainty. In all likelihood, the "pause" will be followed by prolonged cooling as the sun and ocean cycles both become negative in their effect. I am all in favour energy efficient homes. Wasting energy that home-owners have paid for makes no sense. But of course it all has to be cost effective. My house is timber-framed, with double-glazing throughout and the prescribed amount of loft insulation. If people want to spend their money on saving energy, all well and good, but it is not obvious why taxpayers should be asked to pay for ill-thought-out schemes.

    |   6
  • Jim_Hunt  |  July 19 2015, 10:08AM

    Hello again PAWB! Did you fail science at school? Are you unaware that there is no "20 year pause" in "global warming"? I don't suppose one can embed animated GIFs here, so I suggest you take a look at these moving pictures if you don't believe me: http://tinyurl.com/gwbull Moving on to my architectural point, one of Prince Charles' hobby horses also, what have you got against energy efficient homes? Surely reduced energy consumption, and hence reduced fuel bills, is in everyone's best interest? (Except possibly for shareholders in the "Big 6"!) On that basis it seems to me that your "idiot" label should be applied to the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than the Heir to the Throne!

    |   -4