Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
HRH The Prince of Wales

GET UPDATES FROM HRH The Prince of Wales
 

Address to the Nobel Laureates Event at the Sustainable Development Conference Rio+20

Posted: 18/12/2012 00:00

Below is a transcript and video of the address made by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to the Nobel Laureates Event at the Sustainable Development Conference Rio +20 today by kind permission of His Royal Highness.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am most flattered to have been invited to address you today at this very special event at the UN's Conference on Sustainable Development. I am afraid it has proved impossible for me to do so in person, but by being with you in this virtual manner, at least I am able to say what I feel needs saying in a low-carbon way.

Bearing in mind the message published at the end of the three day conference I convened in London three years ago, you will not be surprised to hear that the message of your event today - that there has to be proper recognition of the peril we are in - is one I agree with wholeheartedly. As you may know, for many years I have done what little I can to raise awareness and to encourage action on the whole issue of sustainability. I even played host to a preparatory international gathering on board the Royal Yacht Britannia in the Amazon Delta some fourteen months before the first Rio Earth Summit 20 years ago. This was attended by the then President of Brazil, President Collor. I remember everyone wanted the first summit to be a success, but many viewed the scope of it to be far too optimistic. There were basic perceptions to overcome, particularly public awareness of climate change which was lamentable to say the least. Which is why, despite countless such meetings and gatherings ever since, the increasingly dire warnings issued by yourselves and others around the world, that we are rapidly breaching one planetary boundary after another, have been consistently and alarmingly ignored.

Any 'progress' in this context has therefore been a somewhat relative concept. We should applaud the work of both the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which of course were opened at Rio, or the subsequent efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals agreed 10 years later in Johannesburg, but we are facing challenges that are increasing rather than diminishing in their severity and urgency.

I have watched in despair at how slow progress has sometimes been and how the outright, sceptical reluctance by some to engage with the critical issues of our day have often slowed that progress to a standstill. In this, I am forcibly reminded of Sir Winston Churchill's words of warning as the threat of a cataclysmic Second World War was being studiously ignored during the 1930s. He spoke against continuing with the "strange paradoxes of being decided only to be undecided; resolved to be irresolute; adamant for drift; solid for fluidity."

As I speak, the world's rainforests continue to be destroyed, wiping out so much of the world's vital biodiversity and removing our chances of storing carbon naturally; and we continue to ignore the painful lessons of the so-called 'Green Revolution' in India by intensifying our food production methods in such blinkered, chemically and technologically-based ways, that the land and the oceans are now both beginning to fail. Tragically, we cannot even plead ignorance of the consequences of our actions, for the scientific evidence is overwhelming and the impacts are well understood. There is widespread consensus within each discipline which, when put together with all the rest, forms a powerful, aggregated picture that we can ill afford to ignore. Not least that we are heading for a significant rise in global temperatures that could very easily exceed three degrees above the level it was before industrialization and may well even go higher to four degrees, which would be absolutely catastrophic to life on this planet. Already levels of CO2 have exceeded 400 parts per million. 450 parts per million is the tipping point we have to avoid so, every day of delay threatens to make the change more dramatic. And yet we seem resolved to be resolutely adamant for drift.

Gone are the days, I am afraid, when we can somehow imagine that the situation is not as bad as our scientists say it will be, nor that the consequences are so far off in the future that we need not worry. Like a sleepwalker, we seem unable to wake up to the fact that so many of the catastrophic consequences of carrying on with 'business-as-usual' are bearing down on us faster than we think, already dragging many millions more people into poverty and dangerously weakening global food, water and energy security for the future.

One thing is clear. We need to be much more informed about the actual state of the planet. We do not have nearly enough knowledge on which to base the decisions that will be the best for the long term. Until we do, we expose ourselves to the mounting danger of major shifts in policy that are not well conceived, but come as panicked responses to crises that could have been avoided.

With that in mind, in March this year I hosted a meeting of the major resource assessment programmes brought together by my International Sustainability Unit, or ISU for short. The purpose was to see if a more coherent, integrated approach might be possible, whereby the data that is currently collected separately, on energy, water, biodiversity, forestry and soil, is brought together and analysed as a whole. If this could happen, at least then we would know what the state of the planet actually is - and then plan accordingly. The problems we are facing are systemic and, therefore, to address them we need a set of integrated solutions based upon a comprehensive assessment, rather than a piece-meal picture and policy that often seem at cross-purposes.

A gleam of hope in these difficult times is that when science does form the basis of policy, the results can be encouraging. For example, in the marine sector, where for years the industry has been reluctant to accept the evidence of the decline in fish stocks, if the scientific community works hand in hand with the fishing industry - as it has, for instance, in the South African hake fishery - really positive results can be achieved and a truly sustainable management system created.

One thing is certain. At the moment there is a dangerous, fundamental disconnection between scientists, the public and the private sector. It is "dangerous" because it blocks so much progress on the ground, partly due to the fact that too few people believe - or are discouraged from believing - what the best of our science is telling us and partly because they do not relate that troubling global picture to their own, isolated situation and behaviour. Which is why I cannot stress enough that any action from now on must have as its ultimate aim, the goal of integrated thinking.

Not only do we need to connect each individual's concern with that of the Earth's, we also need to forge an economic framework that is just as joined-up. We can ill afford anymore to let things operate in separate silos within individual disciplines. Thinking must be integrated, just as policies must be integrated, so that action at the corporate level and on the ground is much more co-ordinated and aligned. It is to this end that my ISU has been working to encourage countries to undertake economic reviews of food security within the context of energy and water security, so that the full economic, social and environmental impact of these sector policies, when taken together, can be understood and fully grasped.

We do not have long to capture such a comprehensive picture, and so I would appeal to you as you meet here in Rio to make an even greater and concerted effort to persuade policy and decision-makers to act before it is finally too late. It is, perhaps, a trait of human nature to act only when the worst happens, but that is not a trait we can afford to rely on here. Once the worst does happen, I am afraid that this time around it will be too late to act at all.


If you want to learn more about Prince Charles' 28-year commitment to sustainability, be sure to check out the article, 'Nature's Prince,' here.

 
FOLLOW UK
 
 
  • Comments
  • 116
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Natalie Pace
Natalie Pace is the author of You Vs. Wall Street
10:41 PM on 06/20/2012
Learn more about Prince Charles' 28-year commitment to sustainability at this article. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/natalie-pace/the-diamond-jubilee_b_1547507.html
05:16 PM on 06/20/2012
Wonderful speech! Please continue to use your power, influence, and eloquent words to help make this issue something that people will be inspired to passionately and tirelessly fight for.
02:40 AM on 06/20/2012
did all of know that the Prince of wales directly infulanced 12 bills passed by goverment that would have affected his businesses and his 700 million fortune
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClarcKing
Citizen
08:46 PM on 06/19/2012
The concern for the environment is a rational imperative; however often times Green lectures convey the demand to depopulate the planet. This cannot be, as man's destiny is to distribute humanity throughout the galactic universe. So science driven projects that enhance our environment; oxygen, water harvesting, food production, animal husbandry are all absolutely necessary in the survival and perpetuation of the human race. Problem is, the unsustainable monetary financial system, in its collapsing operation, makes demands upon the population's physical economy, that are irrational, genocidal. Confronting these demands leaves little for the issues of environment.

If we fail to communicate the damage and on-going threat to humanity by the collapsing Imperial monetary financial system, expressed in Perpetual War, governance by Banker bailout decrees, unrelenting unemployment, austerity, enduring a lower standard of living, humanity cannot possibly create the higher order of existence demanded here.
07:04 PM on 06/19/2012
So that wasnt you on the balcony of buck house watching yet another fly past by the RAF, burning off tons of fuel, hypocrit
This comment has been removed.
06:13 AM on 06/19/2012
I have not thought of Charles Windsor as being a significant leader until I watched this clip. Either I was wrong or ill informed or the man is finding his voice. In any case, he clearly intends to be heard as a leader in the global sustainability movement. Regal in the true sense of that word, I dare say. May blessings fall on his efforts.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
yevsek hunter
04:18 AM on 06/19/2012
What a good example of how even atheists recognize the intelligence and wisdom manifest in the Creation. That is why many atheists are also ecological activists who are trying passionately, to preserve the ecology and return it to its natural state. This illustrates that our solar system, the Earth's distance from the sun, the vast amount of water on this planet and the interdependent biological diversity of our ecosystem are not just a pointless, dumb luck, accident, but rather something wonderful to be admired, appreciated and preserved. This grand Creation is in deed, a wonderful, intelligent and wise design. Don't you agree?
This comment has been removed.
10:52 PM on 06/18/2012
Your concerns highlight fundamental issues of existential importance to the planet, Earth. Left unheeded our heritage of abuse may well be enunciated, not only by the well-earned absence of the human species, owing to the heinous indifference and abetting nurture our own extinction, but also by the deplorable plight our species has wrought against the survival of numerous other species that have so abundantly provided this marvelous opportunity of stewardship, one which our species is so recklessly plundering.

Many alternative matters compete for our precious opportunities towards wholesome efforts. Those efforts which disregard our individual personal responsibilities, as members of our own species to learn and implement ways to wholesomely coexist so as to sensitively nurture, not only our wellbeing interpersonally, but also to nurture the wellbeing and abundance of interspecies diversity, however, are calamitously simplistic by comparison.

Thank you, Your Royal Highness, for your magnificent contributions on behalf, not only of the United Kingdom, but on behalf of all inhabitants of our planet in helping to focus our attention and our priorities to avert our mutual extinction.
iflew
Pro Publiae Bonae
06:53 PM on 06/18/2012
Depending on our leanings we can believe that cave men or biblical people made a much better use of renewables. For them it was about harvest of nature's bounty including the cedars of lebanon. For our contemporaries we should be resowing, and replanting for the harvest 20 years from now as well as the next grain crop, or rubber or fruit tree that may need 5 years to mature. Replanting can be done with cloned or grafted trees as well as seeds which after sexual reproduction may be uncertain as to qualities desired at some state of development. For diversity some sexual reproduction of plants may be needed. Where the Koch's paper pulp trees are now harvested, can be replanted for future harvest, and the family should diversify into the replanting as well.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tim Veater
05:59 PM on 06/18/2012
The central paradox, that no-one seems to address is how you achieve "growth", the current buzz word, without entailing the sort of problems the Prince, with a carbon footprint the size of a small town, enumerates. There are thousands of brilliant intelligences within the scientific community. Let them put their heads - their economic, social, and environmental expertise - together to address this fndamental question: "How do you advance the economic welbeing of individuals and countries without consuming ever more raw materials, endanger other life forms and polluting the planet with harmful materials, including the ubiquitous CO2?"
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hg wells
06:09 PM on 06/18/2012
Easy...first of all stop using precious raw materials to make things that you are going to blow up (bombs) and use to blow up other things (buildings). That will lots and lots of raw materials. Then use the same raw materials to make things that last and satisfy basic human needs. The fuel required to launch one fighter jet once will feed a community in south america for a year..so they don't have to cut down trees. Honestly...this is all very simple.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tim Veater
06:59 PM on 06/18/2012
Not quite that simple HG. (With a name like that I would have expected you to be more percipient lol) The trouble is that economic growth is dependent on consumption, which is the diametric opposite of cutting CO2 (among other things) If growth declines, unemployment and debt increase with all its attendant problems. Even the "military/industrial complex" is used to keep economic activity in the west buoyant, for which war in the east (or somewhere else) is the essential pre- or se-quel. Regards, Tim.
01:40 PM on 06/19/2012
You address the paradox of growth by repudiating it. We are part of the life of a finite, complex interrelated , fragile web of life. The life of Earth is composed of many interrelated living communities, (forest community, sea community desert community etc.) They are composed of all the plants, animals , organisms, earth, air, water, sunlight. They all interact with each other and with the other communities to create a web of life.
If something is removed, it must be replenished, that takes time and resources. If too much is removed and the community is not given what it needs to replenish it becomes destroyed. Constant growth is a fallacy totally at odds with the reality of our existence. We need to lessen (voluntary) the human population, and change our lifestyle to one which is both comfortable and sustainable.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tim Veater
03:41 PM on 06/19/2012
I quite agree. But the my point is not the what but the how without causing the economic problems of Europe at the moment, riots on the streets or mass starvation?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
doodlebug2
05:47 PM on 06/18/2012
thanks HRH
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hg wells
03:03 PM on 06/18/2012
Nobody hates trees, nobody. The problem is poor people have to choose between the tree and their children. For them, cutting down the tree is a matter of life and death. Eating or not eating. Heck, the western world justifies destroying their environment for the sake of transportation (tar sands in Canada, Gulf Oil Spill, etc.). The choice isn't even life or death and we destroy our land, air and water. So...now we got a problem. We better start feeding these people and more, or they will continue to do just as we do.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
doodlebug2
05:47 PM on 06/18/2012
why can't these people quit having children? Seems easier than trying to feed more and ruining the planet.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hg wells
06:05 PM on 06/18/2012
who do you mean? Americans? British? Who do you expect to stop having children...brown people?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
procopios
Pray for us sinners
09:14 PM on 06/18/2012
There's no doubt that the developed world lifestyle is wasteful of resources. But masochistic reverse-natalism has already born its fruits, and it hasn't made the First World less wasteful, nor caused people in the developing world to lower their expectations whenever economic growth has become possible. The Cause must be to uncouple carbon output and resource usage in general from quality of life.
01:53 PM on 06/18/2012
"One thing is clear. We need to be much more informed about the actual state of the planet. We do not have nearly enough knowledge on which to base the decisions that will be the best for the long term."

The only quote that means anything to me. Agreed. Carry on Old Chap.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wardropper
New empty micro-bio
03:15 PM on 06/18/2012
But is it really true that we don't have the knowledge...?

I'm old enough to remember such knowledge being freely available thirty years ago.
Isn't the real problem the fact that we don't LIKE the knowledge, and the corporate despoilers of the planet like it even less.
They, after all, have the money to make the uncomfortable truth go away - until it suddenly arrives in one of their swimming pools... Ah... no water... ... ...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hg wells
04:53 PM on 06/18/2012
I totally agree. This isn't rocket science. The problem is westerners like HRH are trying to think up ways to solve the problem without having to sell their mercedes, or live in their mansions, or take vacations in Fiji. It is simple...pay poor people enough to stop cutting down trees for fields, or wildebeests for food, or elephants for ivory. But that means sharing.