The lessons of Eco-Prince Charlie
Accompanying the publication of Prince Charles' annual accounts today was an interesting update on his progress towards his avowed target of cutting his emissions by 25 per cent from 2007 to 2012 - and our government could certainly learn a thing or two from the results. By implementing a few simple changes, the eco-prince has managed to slash his emissions by 18 per cent in just one year, so is in course to surpass his target years ahead of schedule.
If only Britain, and most other members of the EU for that matter, could emulate such progress, the future of our planet would be looking a lot brighter than it is today. The latest EU emissions report showed a dip in emissions of a piffling 0.8 per cent in 2006 for the original 15 members, a dip being the operative word here given that most experts attribute the drop to warmer weather conditions that year.
Admittedly the Prince's task was on a rather smaller scale than that of the British government. But the ease with which he has reduced the Royal carbon footprint by taking a few simple steps demonstrate how quickly we could all "green up", given a little support from the government.
To cut his emissions he has -
1. Reduced the amount of plane trips he takes, using the royal train (which has been converted to run on biodiesel) or public trains for UK travel.
2. Converted his 38-year-old Aston Martin to run on bioethanol (from surplus English wine and whey from cheese, so sustainable too)
3. Converted his other cars (a Jaguar, an Audi and a Range Rover) to run on biofuels from cooking oil
4. Encouraged his Clarence House staff to use a bicycle for short trips within London
5. Installed wood-chip stoves in his country homes and energy efficent boilers at Clarence House
That's it. Now I'm sure there are many committed eco-warrior households in Britain who have done far better, and admittedly having four cars isn't all that green whatever they run on, but his success in such a short space of time, without having to compromise too much on lifestyle, is a model that we could all follow with a bit of encouragement (and perhaps funding) from the government.
All hail the eco-prince!

"admittedly having four cars isn't all that green whatever they run on"
I don't understand, does he drive them all at the same time?
Or is it the emitions from the production of the car and garages that mean they're less green?
Posted by: tom watson | 3 Jul 2008 10:18:50
Charles Windsor should pay income tax on ALL his earnings, as should the rest of the immune royals. Further, the cost of these outdated, fuddy-duddy, badly-behaved, irrelevant royals should be recouped by sacking the lot of them.
Posted by: Cheng | 3 Jul 2008 09:10:50
'Charles Windsor and his inglorious wife 'just spent 285K of OUR TAXPYERS money galavanting around the Caribbean on a 2 week cruise under the offensive title of 'official duties'
Yes !, but what was NOT reported is that' the wife' was too drunk to remember much about it but she could recall David Linley and Michael Fawcett were on the Bolly with Charles as well ...lol...Mnnnn
what fun...
Posted by: Frank | 2 Jul 2008 23:12:00
Britain's history has been one of gradual change from absolute monarch toward a modern democracy. And yet that democracy remains incomplete as we continue to hold on to the last remnants of an outdated system of power and privilege.
During the last century and a half, the world has experienced fundamental changes, both political and social. Britain, too, has changed, with democracy and universal suffrage largely replacing an aristocratic and hereditary system. More recently, some powers have been devolved to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. However, despite all these changes our constitution remains a family affair, a system in which the 'crown' is sovereign and the Windsor family reign supreme. As citizens we should be sovereign, not the crown nor parliament. In a democracy we should be choosing our next Head of State, not leaving it to the genetic lottery of the Windsor family.
Britain still retains a political culture centred on "Her Majesty's Government" - not ours, but hers, a powerful reminder in days gone by of where our place was in the system. The idea of royal "ownership" continues to pervade this culture and to reinforce the idea that the system is not our own.
Despite the extravagant costs of monarchy, and the increasingly erratic behaviour of the royals, our arguments are concerned with democracy, the principle that this is our country and we should choose our heads of state.
We should have the right to elect and hold to account all who hold public office and such people must remember that they are there to serve us, and not vice versa.
It is time to claim the right to our own country and to choose our Head of State.
Posted by: Frank | 2 Jul 2008 22:50:11
If all our village converted to fuel from cooking oil from the local fish and chip shop I doubt there would be enough for a mile a month per vehicle. Whilst "every little helps" it's not a very practical proposition for anything on a significant scale.
Posted by: david | 2 Jul 2008 19:55:13
Oh KAMS KAMS KAMS!
"They (the Royals) are not even that rich".
In the cold light of day, and in a genuine spirit of goodwill, we will give you the oportunity of retracting that remark.
Posted by: Soreofhing | 2 Jul 2008 17:54:51
To Susan Bowen: Cornwall is not a country.
And to many of the others: Instead of railing at the Royals, turn your ire to the long line of politicians who have made one mistake after another, after all the Royals have very little actual power over our everyday little I'm-not-ridiculously-wealthy lives. Besides, they're not even that rich (who's looked at the 100 Richest recently?..)
Posted by: Kams | 2 Jul 2008 16:36:43
So this useless apendage has an Aston Martin, a Jaguar, an Audi and a Range Rover and then has the temerity of asking his servants to use their bikes.
I trust he asks them to pull their forelock when they meet him as well.
Now that I think about it, I haven't seen Charles on his bike for a long time.
Posted by: Soreofhing | 2 Jul 2008 15:34:25
I bet he still uses more than a 100 times more than me.
Posted by: Glen | 2 Jul 2008 13:56:53
I think it is easy for the prince to reduce carbon use due to his overconsumption. In a recession your average householder might buy green light bulbs but may not convert thier car to biodiesal or change boilers due to upfront costs.
http://ferozi.blogspot.com
Posted by: Ms Ferozi | 2 Jul 2008 11:55:11
As long as he's using british wine as that's all it's good for!
Posted by: Will | 2 Jul 2008 11:04:56
Charles Windsor or perhaps Saxe-coburg-gotha. Is the De Jure; Vice Roy of Cornwall who whilst gaining most of his wealth from business dealings in that country, abdicates any of his official duties and responsibilities. I cannot see him ever taking the crown of England which couldn't possibly go to a more immoral weakling who went to university on the strength of 2 poor GCE results, failed Gordonstoun School, and came weeping back from Australia where his father sent him to toughen him up.
Posted by: Mrs Susan Bowen | 2 Jul 2008 10:03:04
Yet again the wisdom and intelligence of His Royal Highness leads the way.
I've just instructed my Gillie to institute green husbandry techniques down on my estate.
Posted by: Brian Brown | 1 Jul 2008 21:39:14
When your carbon emissions are as grossly excessive as Prince Charles it isn't too difficult to make a dramatic cut. How about he reveal what they are today and how many planets it would take to sustain everyone at that level...
Posted by: Patricia | 1 Jul 2008 17:27:13
Well, if we all wait for others to act not much will happen. I can't afford to wait, nor can the environment.
Charles Windsor set himself a target to do something about CO, met it and by the looks of it may even exceed it. He could properly do more, but at least he did something. That is good and others should do the same no matter their job, name or income.
Posted by: Matt | 1 Jul 2008 15:24:47
Dear Matt;
Sour grapes, not really, I will do all you request (except I do not drink, I do not have a car) but will willing conform as soon as
His Highness The Prince of Wales does likewise
Posted by: Peter Bolt | 1 Jul 2008 14:28:31
The grapes seem sour here. So you need to be a millionaire to be green? Get a grip! Jump on your bike to the supermarket or the pub instead of taking the car, it might even improve your health. Buy energy saving light bulbs, it both saves energy and your money. Wash your clothes at 30 deg. C, saves energy and money. How about your new flat screen, do you leave it on standby because it's easier? Turn it off together with your computer and other electrical stuff. You really need to drive a car? Convert it to LPG, pay 50p/liter and save the congestion charges if you live in London.
There are loads you can do, so keep your perspective, stop moaning and take responsibility for the environment and your wallet!
Posted by: Matt | 1 Jul 2008 14:19:42
If I had a income of £1m per annum, still less an increase of that amount every year I too could be as "Green" as HRH
Some of us appear to be "green behind the ears"
Posted by: Peter Bolt | 1 Jul 2008 11:28:44
Thre republican argument is dead in the water. It's been around for 150 years, it's never won, never convinced a decent sized minority, let alone a majority. It just hangs around like an EU treaty, never going away, never accepting the democratic verdict.
Nobody wants to give up the Westminster parliamentary system for an executive presidency and a ceremonial presidency would be just scar tissue. Only certain maladjusted wonks could feel a presidency like Ireland's (reserved for the PM's cronies or holier-than-thou campaigners), Germany's (who?), Italy's or Israel's (currently mired in rape and sexual abuse allegations) would enhance the dignity of our country.
As they have lost the argument, like humiliated schoolboys republicans challenge every single mention of the Headship of State. We have to have a Head of State, we have this one, there is no serious argument aboiut it so please go away and try again in a generation or two.
Republoican viciousness is particularly unfair at the Prince of Wales. He was born into his situation, there was nothing he could have dione to have changed it but he has made a better, more thorough and more humanitarian fist of it than any heir to the throne ever, possibly anywhere.
Posted by: F T P Topcliff | 1 Jul 2008 09:57:03
'Green' journalist fawns on parasite.
Where's the critical analysis? The challenge to the greenwash PR stunts and press releases?
Sadly lacking in anything resembling competent journalism
Posted by: Anthony E. Price | 1 Jul 2008 07:59:28
'Green' journalist fawns on parasite.
Where's the critical analysis? The challenge to the greenwash PR stunts and press releases?
Sadly lacking in anything resembling competent journalism
Posted by: Anthony E. Price | 1 Jul 2008 07:58:57
'Green' journalist fawns on parasite.
Where's the critical analysis? The challenge to the greenwash PR stunts and press releases?
Sadly lacking in anything resembling competent journalism
Posted by: Anthony E. Price | 1 Jul 2008 07:58:26
Prince Charles is a great example of the emerging eco-consumer. They are wealthy, ethically-motivated and can make significant investments in expensive upgrades to their cars and homes. Research by Verdantix indicates this consumer segment will grow steadily, not explosively, over the next 3 years in the most wealthy income groups. From a business perspective it doesn't matter if he is a prince or a thief. What matters is disposable income -- being green is expensive!
Posted by: David Metcalfe | 30 Jun 2008 23:59:33
OK, I meant balls to the two below. Sorry.
Posted by: Kim Birley | 30 Jun 2008 23:41:51
Balls to the two above. Knee-jerk republican snarling is quite as tedious as servile Royal brown-nosing. Prince Charles appears to have done his bit to set a good example - good luck to him. Do I detect a little eco-guilt in the adolescent passion of these attacks? I think I do.
Posted by: Kim Birley | 30 Jun 2008 23:40:20