Copenhagen climate summit: Prince Charles warns climate change will drive starvation and terrorism

The world has only seven years before climate change causes a “point of crisis” that will drive food shortages, terrorism and poverty, the Prince of Wales has warned.

Speaking at the opening ceremony of the ministerial segment of the Copenhagen climate conference, the Prince said the “survival of the species” was in peril.

The talks have been dogged by walk-outs and protests as the poor world becomes increasingly frustrated at the lack of refusal by richer countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Yesterday Yvo de Boer, the head of negotiations, admitted things are moving “too slowly” as pressure grew on the world’s two biggest emitters China and the US to compromise over cutting carbon emissions and committing money to climate change.

Prince Charles said world leaders owe it to “our children and grand children” to make a difference.

“The future of mankind can be assured only if we rediscover ways in which to live as a part of nature, not apart from her,” he said. “The grim reality is that our planet has reached a point of crisis and we have only seven years before we lose the levers of control.”

“Reducing poverty, increasing food production, combating terrorism and sustaining economic development are all vital priorities, but it is increasingly clear how rapid climate change will make them even more difficult to address,” he warned.

The Prince, who flew in by private jet, joined Arnold Schwarzenegger the Governor of California and Al Gore, the former US Senator, who also flew in to add impetus to the talks.

Now IF IIRC you are ‘friends’ with this IDIOT prince. You can tell him from US he is a looooon.

Of course he is - anybody who doesn't agree with you on one issue is both an idiot and a loon. What does that then say about you that you probably agree on 95% of issues?

His Royal Highness is a conservative. The idea that climate change is a real threat that mankind has the power to do something to address is just about the only issue on which he'd disagree with the majority of people here at FreeRepublic (he'd also disagree with extreme demonising of people just because they happen to have been raised in the Islamic faith - he has no time or truck with those who use religion to justify murder, but he believes there are plenty of Moslems out there who are people of good will who just happen to have been raised in a particular faith, just as he was raised from birth in the Church of England.) But on the vast majority of issues, he's a conservative. He is pro-religion, pro-Christianity, pro-gun (by no means a universal position among British conservatives), pro-military, pro-limited government - I could go on, but is there any point? It doesn't seem to matter what somebody supports if they happen to disagree on even one or two points.

Constitutionally, and by convention, the Prince can only speak publically on issues that are either so minor Her Majesty's Government has no policy on them, or where he happens to agree with government policy. This is the reason why the Prince speaks so often on climate change - because it is just about the only point of agreement he has with Britain's current socialist government. He'd like to speak more broadly - but when you are constitutionally not permitted to have opinions that differ from the elected government of your country, that doesn't leave you much to talk about when you disagree with 95% of what they stand for.

The Prince knows what certain people think of him - he accepts that as the price he has to pay to continue to act within the constitutional conventions of the United Kingdom. He'd much rather be called a loon and an idiot than violate his oath to his nation and his Queen.

I feel fortunate that there is impediment to his friends speaking out in his defence, even when he is not permitted to do it himself.

I disagree with the Prince on climate change, and he knows it. But though I disagree with him, I'm also aware that he has spent at least one hundred times as long as I have and at least one hundred times as much effort, studying the issue before coming to his opinion. He has spoken to experts on both sides of the fence (one advantage he has over most people, is if he asks to speak to someone, he generally gets to do so). His position is honestly held based on what he considers to be the best available scientific evidence. I respect that, even if I disagree. And I will speak of him as I find him to be. Honest, sincere, dedicated, patriotic, and utterly committed to doing his duty as he sees a duty to be done.

While the Monarch does have spiritual authority within the Church of England, the primary role of the Monarchy is secular not religious.

The primary duties of the Monarchy are those set out in the Coronation Oath. In that oath, a new King or Queen pledges to:

to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Dominions, and the Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs.

to do all in their power to cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all decisions.

and

to the utmost of their power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? To maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Tom maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And to preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them.

The third part of this oath is the part that makes the Monrarch Fidei Defensor - Defender of the Faith. And it most directly refers to their duty to uphold the established Church of England and its doctrines, not Christianity in general.

The Monarch's duties (and those of their Heirs and Successors according to law) goes further than just the Coronation Oath, however. It's governed by Constitutional Convention, and except in emergency situations (such as a collapse of Parliamentary government) the duties are subject to very strict control. The Monarch cannot express public views that are at odds to those of their government and Prime Minister unless the government and Prime Minister are acting outside convention themselves. The Prince of Wales speech in Copenhagen was probably written by somebody at the Foreign Office to present Her Majesty's Governments position, and if it wasn't written there, it was certainly cleared there.

The modern Monarch functionally has three roles and rights - to advise, to be consulted, and to warn. If the Monarch disagrees with his or her government, he or she can say so in private. There are other powers, some of them significant, but most of these only come into play if particular circumstances apply, and none of them are relevant here.

Her Majesty's Government has the constitutional right to both negotiate an agreement, to sign that agreement, and attempt to persuade other nations to do, if it chooses to do so. It's not exceeding the authority of Parliament. And so the Monarch's hands are tied.

The only potentially relevant power that applies in this case is one of the Lascelles Principles, which gives the Monarch to power to take certain steps in a case where the national economy is under serious threat. But even if that was considered to be relevant, all the Monarch could do is dissolve Parliament and call an election - something that has to happen by next June anyway.

While the Monarch does have spiritual authority within the Church of England, the primary role of the Monarchy is secular not religious. The primary duties of the Monarchy are those set out in the Coronation Oath. In that oath, a new King or Queen pledges to: to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Dominions, and the Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs. to do all in their power to cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all decisions. and to the utmost of their power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? To maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Tom maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And to preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them. The third part of this oath is the part that makes the Monrarch Fidei Defensor - Defender of the Faith. And it most directly refers to their duty to uphold the established Church of England and its doctrines, not Christianity in general. The Monarch's duties (and those of their Heirs and Successors according to law) goes further than just the Coronation Oath, however. It's governed by Constitutional Convention, and except in emergency situations (such as a collapse of Parliamentary government) the duties are subject to very strict control. The Monarch cannot express public views that are at odds to those of their government and Prime Minister unless the government and Prime Minister are acting outside convention themselves. The Prince of Wales speech in Copenhagen was probably written by somebody at the Foreign Office to present Her Majesty's Governments position, and if it wasn't written there, it was certainly cleared there. The modern Monarch functionally has three roles and rights - to advise, to be consulted, and to warn. If the Monarch disagrees with his or her government, he or she can say so in private. There are other powers, some of them significant, but most of these only come into play if particular circumstances apply, and none of them are relevant here. Her Majesty's Government has the constitutional right to both negotiate an agreement, to sign that agreement, and attempt to persuade other nations to do, if it chooses to do so. It's not exceeding the authority of Parliament. And so the Monarch's hands are tied. The only potentially relevant power that applies in this case is one of the Lascelles Principles, which gives the Monarch to power to take certain steps in a case where the national economy is under serious threat. But even if that was considered to be relevant, all the Monarch could do is dissolve Parliament and call an election - something that has to happen by next June anyway.

Where exactly during the course of history did the Monarchy gets its authority? Few people on this earth will ever sit on that continuous promised earthly throne. And during the course of history there have been some Godly ones and then others that turned their back on Him.

It is beyond ridiculous to be claiming that man made climate change is going to cause starvation and terrorism. Most especially when it literally means that US are going to be the ones to fill up this new age collection plate. And more so it is against Christ.... and the Ten Commandments, and the promise made long ago to Noah after the flood. Genesis 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in His heart, "I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth neither will I again smith any more every thing living, as I have done.

22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease,"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.