What's 'enough' for the Greens?

As someone who has believed for 30 years that we need to 'save the planet' I am continually astonished when I come across what I think are counter-productive attitudes among self-described Greens and the environmental left.

Case in point: The Prince of Wales' visit to America. British Greens are calling him out for an 'ecologically harmful junket'. Tonight Al Gore (last year's winner) will present Prince Charles with the Global Environmental Citizen award from the Harvard Medical School's Center for Health and the Global Environment.

According to the AFP:

But green activists in Britain criticized the royal couple's decision to fly across the Atlantic with a 20-person entourage, accusing the prince of "green hypocrisy."

"Why can't he set a genuine example and accept the award by video link instead?" Sian Berry, the principal speaker for Britain's Green Party, was quoted in Britain's Independent newspaper.

"I am disappointed to see that ... his recognition of the threat posed by climate change does not extend to toning down his personal flying habits," Berry was quoted as saying.

Inconvenient facts after the flip.

What is so ridiculous is that only last month Clarence House (the Prince of Wales' offical residence) announced that they would be reviewing travel for the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall in consideration of the impact on global warming. They cancelled their customary ski trip to Klosters, Switzerland (by private plane), and announced their intention to use more commercial flights, including this weekend's trip to the US.

But no, that's not good enough for the greens. Well, boo-fucking-hoo. I wonder if they would be happy if he took a knife and opened a vein? Could we have a little honesty here? Let's run this one again...

"...his recognition of the threat posed by climate change does not extend to toning down his personal flying habits...".

But that's exactly what he's doing--he's flying commercial instead of taking a private jet and modifying his other travel plans. Moreover, in accepting this award, the future head of state of a major industrial country is raising awareness of global warming and the future of the planet. Would it have been OK if he had crossed the Atlantic in a wind-powered ship? How about if he came across alone in a row boat? Give me a fucking break!

Look, I think monarchy is an antiquated notion. But all of the 16 Commonwealth Realms (of which Charles is the heir apparent) are democracies and can change if they wish, just as many of the components of the former British Empire have. So, for now, this is what they have to work with. And I think he's doing some very good things. Here's a guy who is an organic farmer--the Duchy of Cornwall is a major player in this area. He is a proponent of liveable urban development and very vocal in the fight against global warming. What the hell do these people want?

Not only that, but they're lying about his position. This is soooo stupid. It does our credibility absolutely no good.

•  Tip jar.

  Can we please stop shooting ourselves in the foot and remember who our real enemies are?

  by homogenius on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 05:14:22 PM PDT

  •  Hear, hear!

    That damned circular firing squad again...

    by EeDan on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 05:28:58 PM PDT

    •  Flames where flames are due.

      But how many people IN THE WORLD in his position are pro-environment? Yeesh.

      Don't condemn him for what he has done right--encourage him to do even better. I truly believe he would.

      by homogenius on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 05:35:23 PM PDT

  •  So when do we start ...

    reducing global air travel?

    -7.75 -4.67

    "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

    by Odysseus on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 07:13:25 PM PDT

    •  Define 'we'.

      The Prince of Wales has already announced his intention to do exactly that. What steps do you propose? I have taken exactly one plane trip in the past five years, SFO--SEA, and that was two years ago. In the five years before that, I took four trips within the US.

      What more do you want me to reduce? And what about you?

      by homogenius on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 07:22:20 PM PDT

•  For some of them...

  ...I don't think it'll be enough until we all live on communes devoid of modern technology. They want us to be the modern-day Amish.

  by dennisl on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 05:23:49 PM PDT

  •  Bring back the Luddites.

    PLEASE...can we please stop the destruction of our home?  But to do so, we need to be smart. We're already faced with the combined might of the corporate machine and their minions in the media. Do we have to do their work for them by discrediting the environmental movement?

    by homogenius on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 05:28:18 PM PDT

  •  A few days ago we had a diary

    and a comment that suggested a rather Amish approach. I've been thinking about it. Although it may be admirable for a few individuals to commit themselves to this lifestyle the average person just throws up their hands and says "No way! Those people are too crazy for me." The average individual, average business owner etc. are the ones who have to be convinced in numbers to make a difference.

    In winter, turn thermostat down to 60

    [new] In winter, turn thermostat down to 60 degrees (5+ / 0-)
    One of you suggested turning the thermostat down to 68 degrees in winter.  Before I was Peak Oil Aware and before I saw An Inconvenient Truth, I kept the thermostat at 67 degrees all winter long.  Last year, I kept the thermostat at 63 degrees all year long.  This fall and winter, I have been gradually lowering the thermostat and now have it down to 60 degrees.  I also have also improved energy efficiency by putting rope caulking in the cracks around the windows and installing plastic insulation.  Since the house I live in has drafty METAL framed windows, it doesn't take much to make a substantial improvement.
    I find it MUCH easier to cut back on heating than air conditioning.  Before I was Peak Oil Aware and before I saw An Inconvenient Truth, I set the thermostat to maintain an indoor temperature of 79 degrees in summer.  I still keep the indoor temperature at 79 degrees in summer.  I find indoor temperatures in the 80s to be oppressive, and there's no quick solution.  At least I can easily deal with the cold in winter by wearing more clothing.  There is no similar quick solution for dealing with the heat.

    by paul2port on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 05:40:16 PM PDT

    •  I have a programmable thermostat

      that turns the heat down to 60 overnight and during the middle of the day, when no one is home, but I think few people would want to live in a 60 degree house all the time.

      by davybaby on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 06:00:04 PM PDT

      •  Same here n/t

        by paul2port on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 07:03:20 PM PDT

    •  Well, this is a personal tolerance matter

      Quite honestly, I would come home and crawl under a pile of quilts on my sofa and never get anything done for four or five months if I turned my thermostat down to an utterly inhumane 60 degrees, or even for that matter, 68. I think this is equivalent to torture.

      On the other hand, air conditioning set at 79? Why on earth do you need air conditioning AT ALL unless you live in a place like Houston or Phoenix. I live in Cleveland, ohio and I'm fine with anything in the 80s -- I live in a nicely ventilated old house -- and even in the 90s if it's not more than a week or two, which it rarely is. I have a room air conditioner and it's been sitting on the porch for six years. I've just never installed it.

      by anastasia p on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 07:51:21 PM PDT

      •  I'm like you.

        I can't stand the cold. I'd never be able to move. On the other hand, I live in Florida and have my windows and doors open in the summertime quite often. I'm lucky my house has good shade and cross ventilation. Still, most people can't believe I can tolerate a good part of the Florida summer without a/c. I figure it balances out.

        by pattyp on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 09:00:41 PM PDT

•  Prince Charles

  never had the public eye or the public presence that Princess Di did.  But he's done remarkable things for the public/green good.  A hell of a lot more than someone like Bush ever thought of doing.

  I don't begrudge him a transatlantic flight.  I think the UK greens are just picking on an easy target, since Charles doesn't have the popularity that Gore does.  It's a truly stupid fight to pick, IMHO.

  by Fabian on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 05:24:32 PM PDT

  •  Agreed.

    Off-topic, but by all accounts he was a helluva Dad, too. That's not an easy job even if you're not in the public eye 24/7.

    OK, and they're both WAYYY cute, too. IMO.

    by homogenius on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 05:33:34 PM PDT

•  Greens can flame me if they like

  But alot of greens and radical vegans are just miserable SOB's who hate themselves in particular and humanity in general and would be crushed to ever not be dissapointed by somebody or something.

  How much joy can you have in life when you continually are worried about everything verbally, annoyingly, and constantly? They are like old time catholic theologians straining over the debate of how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

  If somebody used 20 gallons of gas to go be the deciding vote in reducing emissions by 100,000,000 barrels of oil a year, they would have bitched that they could have at least used public transportation.

  I am not saying this of ALL or even most vegetarians or greens. I have a great love for the environment, healthy eating, but I have a life too. You all know exactly the type of people I am talking about. You avoid them whenever you can.

  by trifecta on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 05:26:15 PM PDT

  •  And I don't wanna know...

    How many of them voted for Nader. And I certainly don't want those purists at my party.

    by homogenius on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 05:30:09 PM PDT

    •  Another thing they remind me of

      Rock Purists. Another miserable lot. You know the ones who loved R.E.M. when they were a local band in Athens, Georgia that nobody else heard of, but hated them when they got popular and "sold out".

      I want serious money into non carbon based fuels. Serious money. I have a feeling though if we ever got to the point of zero emissions, these folks would bitch about something new. That is what frustrates me. They gravitate to something to be miserable about. Ralph Nader is grumpy, he therefore is their patron saint. They bought his line that Gore and Bush really had no differences between them. It hit their way of thinking to a tee.

      Everybody sucks, poor me. I also have not known one yet without serious depression/bi-polar issues. I just want them to get therapy, properly medicated as needed, listen to good old Tipper Gore about treating your mental health seriously, and shut the fuck up about how the world is irrepairably screwed.

      by trifecta on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 05:34:07 PM PDT

      •  I think that's true.

        On the other hand, we may well have fewer people on our side in high places with untreated mental health issues. The worst problem I can recall in a democratic White House was a President who couldn't keep it in his pants (and I voted for him twice even with that assumption). That's a far cry from untreated, uncontrolled substance addiction, narcicism, unchecked sense of entitlement, Oedipal issues (thank you, Barbara), megalomania...Oh hell, just make it stop!!!

        by homogenius on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 05:50:23 PM PDT

    •  My mother voted for Nader in 2000

      She was 85 years old at the time, a life-long Democrat and the child of life-long Democrats, who had never voted for another party's candidate in her life.  She was that disgusted with the behavior of her party, which she felt had totally sold out the interests of its constituents in favor of corporate interests.

      I'm sure a good number of Greens voted for Nader.  And some number of independents. But most of the people I know who voted for him were Democrats, who felt the same way about their party as my mother.

      Oh...my mother lives in Florida.

      by Free Spirit on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 06:12:46 PM PDT

  •  Oh yeah, like bloody Chrissie Hynde

    refusing to play at the stadium concert for the opening of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame until a McDonald's (or was it Burger King?) sign was covered up. She wasn't even the headliner, just one of about 30 or 40 acts on the bill. They should have told her to get lost.

    I'm a vegetarian too (three decades) but I don't give a shit what other people eat.

    by anastasia p on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 07:54:00 PM PDT

•  What it sounds like

  Is the conservative talking point that Al Gore doesn't live up to his own standards because he (gasp!) HAS TO FLY to give all his global warming talks.

  by GoldnI on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 05:31:15 PM PDT

  •  For that matter...

    The Reagan treasure: "Trees cause polution".

    by homogenius on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 05:51:29 PM PDT

  •  Well....

    why doesn't he SWIM?!?!?

    ;-P.............

    by Hardhat Democrat on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 06:08:15 PM PDT

    •  OMFG! That is so perfect! n/t

      by homogenius on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 06:31:01 PM PDT

      •  If he did, though...

        He'd run the risk of being accused of contaminating the water with his 'People Germs' and what-not...I don't see any way to win here.........

        by Hardhat Democrat on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 06:37:46 PM PDT

        •  You can't win--

          Not within a purist meme. Rethug/neocon or ultra-left, you can't win. It's all or nothing.

          by homogenius on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 06:49:06 PM PDT

•  Ever notice?

  That progressive Democrats talk about greens the same way that conservative Democrats talk about progressive Democrats?  Which is the same way Republicans talk about Democrats?

  The attitude is the same and the need to remember who the "real enemy" is is common.

  To be fair, the I've heard Greens talk about anarchists in the same way.

  by Drunkard on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 05:32:31 PM PDT

  •  The anarchists talk about

    Maxists the same way.  I've always wondered, when anarchists plan an action, is it correct to describe it as "planned anarchy"?

    There is always someone more pure.  

    by TomP on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 05:40:14 PM PDT

  •  Based on what?

    If it's just bashing Greens for being the 'crazy Aunt in the attic' then that's no good. But if it's based on measureable actions, then that's something different.

    Let's keep it reality-based. We have a planet to save and all who dwell thereupon. We can't afford circular firing squads, either in or out.

    by homogenius on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 05:42:08 PM PDT

    •  I don't quite understand your comment

      But the Greens suggested that he accept by video link.  Why is that a terrible suggestion?

      And why should they ever hold back?  If they have an agenda to champion they might as well just keep pushing it.  They shouldn't ever think we're doing good enough.

      by Drunkard on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 08:43:46 PM PDT

  •  Greens ARE the real enemy

    If not for that fucking asshole Ralph Nader, President Gore would be midway through his second term.

    by davybaby on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 05:55:15 PM PDT

    •  See my earlier post

      If not for those effing corporatist Dem *ssholes, a lot fewer people...and especially a lot fewer Democrats...would have voted for Nader.

      If not for a lot of things, Al Gore would be president, including the many Democrats who couldn't be bothered to get up off their butts and vote for the own candidate.  At least Nader's voters actually voted.

      by Free Spirit on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 06:20:33 PM PDT

      •  Nope.

        A lot fewer Dems would have voted for Nader if they had not voted for Nader. Don't blame the 'effing corporatist Dem *ssholes' (could we please agree to one form of euphemism?) for what individual voters did.

        by homogenius on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 06:28:46 PM PDT

        •  Fine, then don't blame Nader

          ...for what individual voters did, either.

          by Free Spirit on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 06:36:24 PM PDT

          •  No, I blame Nader for what Nader did.

            Give me a break. Nader said there was no difference between Dems and Rethugs. He didn't tell his supporters in swing states to vote for Gore.

            by homogenius on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 06:42:47 PM PDT

        •  True

          ...a dreadfully circular argument but true. It's also true is that a lot fewer Dems would have voted for Bush if they had not voted for Bush.

          by Free Spirit on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 06:37:17 PM PDT

          •  Nice try.

            My 'circular argument' was intended to show the paucity of your reasoning--that 'those corporate Dem *ssholes' were not responsible for Dems voting for Nader. The individual voters were responsible for their own actions, just as individuals are responsible for their actions vis-a-vis the planet.

            So spare us all the bullshit.

            by homogenius on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 06:46:53 PM PDT

            •  True

              That's why the corporate Dem *ssholes are responsible for their actions that drove long-time Democratic voters to Nader.

              by Free Spirit on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 07:35:10 PM PDT

            •  Another thing we liked about Dean

              He absolutely supported Nader being in the race and said the Democrats, not Nader, were responsible for persuading voters to vote for the Democratic candidate.  Moreover, if the Democrats failed to do that, it was their failing, not Nader's.

              by Free Spirit on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 07:37:26 PM PDT

    •  Not ALL Greens, IMO.

      Not by a long shot. People who identify as Green are primarily concerned about sustaining all life on planet Earth. That sounds good to me. But I believe that achieving that goal requires effective use of political processes around the globe and that means making intelligent choices. And that's VERY hard work.

      by homogenius on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 06:25:49 PM PDT

    •  The real enemy

      They voted for the candidate they wanted.  If the Democrats voted the way the Greens wanted, then Nader would be president.

      And who says Gore would be in his second term?  The Republicans would have called him weak and he'd be out.

      And if you recall, the election was stolen in Florida.  If Nader had not run, they would have just stolen more votes.

      by Drunkard on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 08:33:43 PM PDT

  •  Isn't it ironic

    Yes, and I thought the diarist's tip jar comment was particularly ironic:  "Can we please stop shooting ourselves in the foot and remember who our real enemies are?"

    by Free Spirit on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 06:15:19 PM PDT

  •  To be fair,

    I've heard Greens talk about Democrats in the same way. Incessantly.

    by Vico on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 07:59:39 PM PDT

•  Think of all the hot air. . .

  in that one press release. . .

  by LarryInNYC on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 05:55:30 PM PDT

•  yes there are some absurd environmentalists.

  but what, really, is more absurd than being prince charles? start with the concept of royalty & work your way to the plane trip. if you want to factor in that he dumped diana to be camilla's tampon...enh, you choose.
  ya'll wanna bash yerseff some greens? have fun. but taking umbrage because they were mean to prince charles? puh-leeese.

  by rasbobbo on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 06:03:03 PM PDT

  •  Uhhh, no.

    I think I can judge the bashing on its own merits.

    1. It's not his fault he was born who he is. He's responsible for what he does, not for his parentage. This is a very liberal concept IMO.

    2. So he made tacky sexy talk with his lover on a cell phone that should have been private...I sure as hell don't want that standard applied to me.

    3. There's enough blame to go around for everyone in his first marriage--it's a long list.

    4. I prefer to judge this argument on the facts--they made an accusation that wasn't true. You can decide for yourself whether or not he is doing enough. But I think he is doing more than the British Greens are giving him credit for.

    by homogenius on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 06:22:23 PM PDT

    •  a group in london is not "the greens"

      straw man number one. i don't recall any worldwide environmental confab where condemnation of this trip was voted on. if i am wrong, please post a link. so, condemning "the greens" seems a little over the top for starts. are the "hippies" next? then the radical feminists? pretty soon you don't have to worry about circular firing squads, because you're all alone.
      how monarchy fits into a liberal concept has me scratching my head. is not the whole concept of royalty simply slavery turned upside down? he can't help it, he was born to a life of wealth & entitlement? some day a truly enlightened human will become king & disband the whole system.
      as to what it is he does & how much credit he should get for whatever he does away from the polo fields, i do not know. i'm pretty sure he hasn't ordered "his" army out of iraq. he'd be entitled to a plane ride, in my opinion, if he did that.

      by rasbobbo on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 07:00:01 PM PDT

      •  Speaking of 'straw men"...

        1. "he hasn't ordered 'his' army out of iraq'--what part of 'constitutional monarchy' don't you get? Not only is Prince Charles NOT the head of state of the UK and the other 15 Commonwealth Realms, but the Queen, herself, has NO POWER, whatsoever, to 'order' anything from the British military.

        2. "someday a truly enlightened human will become king and disband the whole system"--well, don't look now, but there is one particular instance among several throughout history--the ex-King of Bhutan gave away his absolute power against popular opinion and recently abdicated in favor of his son ahead of planned constitutional and parliamentary elections.

        3. Actually, Prince Charles doesn't play polo any more. Very few men of his age do.

        4. My criticism was based on comments that were clearly referenced: "Berry, the principal speaker for Britain's Green Party" and "according to the AFP". For your reference, here is the article I was referring to. So I think the spokesman for the British Green Party is something more than a straw man...n'est-ce-pas?

        by homogenius on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 07:17:09 PM PDT

        •  Straw woman actually

          Sian Berry  is one of two "principle speakers" for the Green Party in Britain. These are official positions akin to MPs with particular reponsibilites in opposition parties in Parliament. Currently the Greens have one Peer and two members of the European Parliament. The latter is due to the election being held under Proportional Representation and I believe both seats are "regional top-up" ones.

          Actually the senior members of the family have fairly good environmental credentials:

          A £1 million, four-turbine, energy-efficient plant enabling the change at Windsor Castle has been granted full planning permission and will be built at Romney Weir on the River Thames. It will generate 200 kilowatts, about a third of the energy required to power the castle.

          A spokeswoman for the Queen said: "We’re constantly looking at ways of saving energy. We use energy efficient light bulbs at Buckingham Palace and recycle 99 per cent of green waste."

          Members of the Royal Family have long embraced an environmentally friendly lifestyle. The Duke of Edinburgh uses a taxi cab fuelled by liquid petroleum gas to travel around London, and water in a bore hole at Buckingham Palace is used to supply air conditioning to the Queen’s gallery before topping up the water levels in the Palace lake.

          I seem to remember that an earlier scheme to use a biogenerator to convert the animal waste from the farms on the Windsor estate failed fairly spectacularly when the digester exploded.

          by londonbear on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 08:39:18 PM PDT

          •  Nicely done, thank you.

            Part of this I had heard, but didn't readily recall.

            by homogenius on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 09:49:14 PM PDT

•  He makes great cookies n/t

  by shaharazade on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 08:31:45 PM PDT