Prince Charles to Use Commercial Flights

[kskiska]

LONDON - Putting his money where his environmentalist mouth is,
Prince Charles is swapping gas-guzzling private planes and helicopters for commercial flights, train journeys and biodiesel cars.

A longtime champion of green causes, the heir to the throne says action is needed now to avoid leaving a ruined planet to the next generation.

"From February, we are going to look at the diary and see what we can do to reduce our carbon footprint," a spokeswoman for the prince's London residence, Clarence House, said Thursday on condition of anonymity in line with royal rules. "Wherever possible, we will be making less use of helicopters and chartered planes and rely more on car journeys, scheduled flights and trains."

The prince is also having his Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles converted to run on 100 percent biodiesel and is converting to the use of electricity from sustainable sources at his London and country homes, the spokeswoman said.

more…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061207/ap_on_re_eu/people_green_prince_4

[patricia92243]

1. Leaders leading by showing a good example - how novel. Wish our Fearless Leader would do the same.

[aceman2373]

13. do you seriously expect the president of the united states

to fly commercial?

[Canuckistanian]

14. No, but he could fly a lot less

And he shouldn't be using AF1 solely for campaign purposes.

[Vinca]

31. Air Force One is used like a cheap, taxi service.

Take, for example, what it probably cost to fly that plane from Texas to D.C. for the illustrious Terry Schiavo legislation signing. Kudos to Prince Charles.

[Midlodemocrat]

21. Why not?

Clinton does it now that he left office. Oh, yeah, I forgot. He wasn't universally despised like shrubbie.

[jannyk]

22. Why on earth not. If it's good enough

for the future King of England why not the President? Seems to me Presidents are easier to replace than Kings :shrug:

[earth mom]

25. If the future King of England can fly commercial, so can the "decider". nt

[Captain Hilts]

39. No, he can't. The future king doesn't have "the football" with him everywhere.

Not that I approve of President Bush having access to the nuclear button...

[freeplessinseattle]

57. If he feels our airport security is decent then why not? n/t

[mopinko]

46. are you saying the prez is afraid of his people?

what does that tell you? sounds like a good test to me. if you are afraid to go near your people, you ought to be impeached. not like bill, who never saw a ropeline he didn't want to jump.
and as far as the football, do you really think our intelligence services can't figure out how to hide the football? it ought to be a little cellphone/blackberry thing by now anyway.

[Initech]

2. That's awesome!

Hopefully more leaders (*ahem* Bush) will decide to follow in his footsteps!

[Christa]

3. Not gonna happen

* is way above royalty in his delusioned mind.

[Initech]

6. Ah, very true!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

8. And let's be honest here

Considering how hated he is, would you want to fly on the same plane as bush? I know I wouldn't.

[tavalon]

35. I totally agree

I would feel like a sitting duck on a flight with the Chimpster. As well, the stench would be nauseating.

He should stop using Air Force One for campaign trips and should use a bus whenever possible, though. As a matter of fact, he should go back to his pig farm and just fucking stay there for the next two years. The only flight he should take during that time would be one transatlantic flight - to the Hague.

[hootinholler]

42. As long as it was at least an hour, yes I would.

Oh, and leave the SS behind. I would love to spend an hour in his face.

-Hoot

[AngryAmish]

4. I can't stand that guy

I also love it when DUers kiss his ass - the man is going to be a king. Why the people of Britain have to pay money so certain people (appointed in their minds by God) can live literally like kings and queens is so anti-progressive as to make one's head spin.

Go ahead point to his "good" works. It doesn't get past the central problem - he lives of life of luxury on stolen, inherited money.

[uppityperson]

5. approving of 1 thing someone does is kissing ass?

1 thing may be only 1 thing, but still it is a start of 1 thing.

[PeaceProgProsp]

7. I'm with you. If anything should make liberals angry, it's royalty.

And I'd start liking this family if they had the courage to end the monarchy and give 99.8% of what they own to charity and to the state.

[thingfisher]

9. One of the richest families in the world.

I bet Charles will find commercial flight not so much to his likeing after awhile. He'll probably end up taking a lot more green limos to and fro.

[Captain Hilts]

18. He and QEII were the only folks willing to give it to Thatcher straight. nt

[jannyk]

23. Newsflash!! So does your President

however, without the redeeming feature of any 'Good Works'.

He's the son of a President and that was probably the only reason he was elected (I can't think of another) - He's claimed God speaks directly to him - it's a dynasty - what's the difference?

At least we don't let Charles play with running the country or give him Nuke launch codes, and as far as I'm aware, he's never killed anyone!

People in glass houses, just shouldn't......

<<Go ahead point to his "good" works. It doesn't get past the central problem - he lives of life of luxury on stolen, inherited money.>> :spank:

[Voltaire99]

32. I agree with you, royal subject.

There's little difference in being led by a scion of the American oligarchy or a British royal. One, as you point out, is that the former can do a lot more harm. And has done, of course--enough for several lifetimes.

Charles, unlike, say, the lad who dresses up like a Nazi, makes himself fairly useful and has a good opinion or two. I'd certainly prefer him to any Bush, any day.

That said, don't you find it shameful that in the 21st century, not only does a modern state install a parasite class above its citizens in honor of a tradition that once kept most of you as disenfranchised peasants, but then also has the cheek to parade its well-kept pets as tourist attractions?

I mean, isn't Madame Tussauds enough?

[treestar]

36. Kind of agree, but then again it's up to them

The British, that is.

[Captain Hilts]

40. The British royals are not beholden to monied interests, and, as a result...

have been advocates for the disadvantaged.

When there were the racial riots in the East End x years ago, Prince Charles was there the NEXT day. We haven't seen anyone do stuff like that since Eleanor Roosevelt.

Liz and Margaret Thatcher HATED each other. Lillibet just didn't take to a woman who became famous cutting milk funds for kids in primary school.

[Stella_Artois]

50. Its not really like that.

I mean, just because there is no direct election doesn't mean that the population doesn't have a say on who is or is not king / queen.

It wasn't very long ago that a future king abdicated because the people at that time would not stand a divorcee as his wife. Either he totally misread the situation, or the people do have some say in who sits in the throne....

[Nihil]

28. He, on the other hand, is tolerant enough to stand you.

Get a grip pal.

[truebrit71]

48. You are an idiot.

If you had the VAGUEST idea of who the man is you wouldn't be spouting your self-righteous trap off in here...

Wanker.

[AngryAmish]

52. I'm glad you are well too

But at least I do not bow and scrape to my "betters".

[truebrit71]

53. Who is bowing and scraping? Certainly not me, but as far as royalty is concerned...

..I'll take the House of Windsor over the House of Bush every day of the week and twice on Sunday...

[MrsMatt]

58. I would too

except I'm stuck with the gang who can't shoot straight.

[FedUpWithIt All]

54. If the British people decide they no longer want a Monarchy...

I will support them in their decision to do away with it. In the meantime, their nation, their call where they put their money.

Personally, i think we should be spending all of our time putting OUR money where our mouth is. How many Christmas parties for Mr. bush this year?

[Divernan]

10. Prime Ministers of little Caribbean islands fly in one class prop planes

We're talking 12-20 seat commercial passenger planes with benches bolted to the floor - no co-pilot or other crew than the pilot, no assigned seats. Just jammed in with regular folks.

And good for Prince Charles - an excellent example for all the self-important politicos and corporate hotshots.

[Elidor]

11. Good for the Royal Tampon, say I

Give him another decade or two and he might almost seem human.

[superconnected]

12. Good choice, 40 years over due, but good choice.

[humbled_opinion]

15. Obviously First Class only no hob nobbing with the classless passengers. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

17. Charles isn't like that at all. Neither are his sibs. They have to deal with security...

issues.

I've known a couple of folks that have worked with Charles and were in the military with Andy and all have said how personalbe and 'regular folks' they are. They prefer to be that way. Someone else I know says that Princess Anne shovels the snow off the front stoop for an elderly neighbor.

I'd trade most of our presidential kids for the Windsor kids any day.

[Captain Hilts]

16. Well done, Chuck. Tell your mum I said 'Hi'. nt

[Vidar]

19. Good for Charles.

[MasonJar]

20. It also irritates me when DUers decide that other countries cannot

control their own destinies. The royal family of Britain has a lot of land and money which is personal wealth. They are one of the main reasons that visitors travel to Britain. They are in fact usually noblesse oblige. They are not a repetition of the W faction. Just consider that the royal family does not linger behind secret service men. The royals go into service, as have William and Harry. The two princes may very likely end up in Iraq; they certainly hope to serve their country in an honorable manner. The royals do an enormous amount of important charity. Queen Elizabeth worked as an ambulance driver and etc, during WWII. The king and queen stayed in London despite the continuous bombing. I have never understood the disparagement of Prince Charles; he has long been an advocate of environmental issues, working incessantly to improve the future of our earth. Leave them alone and concentrate on our American atrocities. We should have all been in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004. We let the world down.

[Bridget Burke]

30. Yes--Let the Brits decide whether they want to keep the Royals....

A Scottish co-worker said the Royal Family's behavior during the Blitz earned them quite a bit of respect.

Since they're officially "The First Family"--the PM can devote more of his or her energy to governing than to ceremonial occasions. (Altho' Poor Lame Duck Tony fell in with a bad companion.)

[AngryAmish]

38. He is disparaged because he considers himself to be Royalty

Royalty means that he believes God appointed his family to rule over millions of people. His mother is the Head of State of Canada, for the love of Pete. Royalty means that they believe God decided that they should get huge stipends from the people because God wants it that way.

Why do they do "good works"? Maybe they think if they didn't do those things they would get lynched. See France, Revolution.

Yes the British get to choose whatever form of government they want, no matter how foolish. Yet I as a grown up get to point out how foolish it is.

And exactly how much of the wealth came from exploited colonial persons? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koh-i-Noor_diamond> is part of the Crown Jewels - made so when Queen Victoria named herself Empress of India. So did the Indian people get a vote in that? And why won't they give it back? Answer - they don't have to give it back because they think GOd wants them to have it.

[Tyo]

43. Some of your points on royalty are well taken

However, it doesn't follow that if you eliminate them in favor of a republic or some other form of government everyone will live happily ever after. You mention the French Revolution. Ended up with thousands of deaths and sent France into a period of political instabilty from which it didn't fully emerge until well after WWII. And we all know how well things worked out for Russia once they got rid of the Romanovs. If a country is in trouble a royal family is usually the least of its worries.

[Stella_Artois]

45. One point

Even the royals are removed, a nation still needs a head of state. Probably the UK would install a president as a ceremonial head of state, as Ireland does.

This president would probably not work for free, and those who work for him/her and protect him/her would not work for free either. The running costs probably wouldn't be much different

So, what apart from salving the offended sensibilities of some would the abolition in real terms actually achieve ?

[Nihil]

49. You really DO need to read up a little before posting ...

> Royalty means that they believe God decided that they should get
> huge stipends from the people because God wants it that way.

... i.e., real world reading not some anonymous fact-free tract ...

In the meantime, I'll leave you to your little delusions. Have fun.

[ianwood]

24. who the hell is Prince charles?

he dont deserve nothing

[Nihil]

26. Deserves far more than some anonymous jerk calliing himself ianwood.

Let's see you dump your "wanna-be royalty" then you can talk about ours.

[LynneSin]

33. Deserves 1000 times more than that asshole in the White House

"Don't deserve nothing?"

:rofl:

Nice english :eyes:

[truthisfreedom]

27. i hope what he's doing influences a generation to come.

we need to change things at a rate that defies argument over the source.

[HughBeaumont]

29. Somehow, I can't see Bewsh taking the Red Line.

Can't make out with Condi without tinted limo windows . . .

[Captain Hilts]

41. I don't want him on the Red Line!!!!!! nt

[HughBeaumont]

51. Metro his ass to a nighttime visit in Anacostia.

:evilgrin:

[wicket]

34. Good for him

Leonardo DiCaprio does the same thing. Hope others will follow their lead.

[ArmchairMeme]

37. Prince Charles has studied agriculture

He is an advocate of sustanible organic farming. Perhaps the biodiesel is an outgrowth of that work he has done on his own land. He is commended for making the efforts in light of the environmental problems that the current world practice has done to the world. I am coming around to thinking that the use of oil has become an outmoded and environmentally dangerous.

At least Prince Charles can walk in public unlike the people in our current administration who are univerally loathed by the people around the world.

[Jed Dilligan]

44. And from now on,

he will only rape vegetarian, cage-free butlers.

I'm not sure Charles of Hanover is the best spokesman for sustainability.

[demgurl]

47. People can say what they want about this matter....

but the facts remain facts. We can talk about royalty all we want but the fact remains that this is what England has decided to have as part of their lives. They have it and happily live with it. Goodness knows how many people look at our country and can not see how we can stand to be ruled by someone who stole two elections and rules the country as if he were a dictator.

This is a wonderful story that I think we should embrace and spread around to others. The royal family is rich and yet people like Diana went around holding AID's babies and trying to help the poor. People like Charles could just say fuck you to the world and fly in his private jets, but he chooses to try to help the world instead.

Why is that important? Because he is one of the public figures who wields a lot of clout in this world. We now have a leader who is pointing to a subject that should be near and dear to all of our hearts. People, Polar Bears are being found drowned. Animals are dying of thirst. We are wrecking the environment. We take up so much of the world's supply and we give out the most amount of emissions. We refuse to take part in the Kyoto Accord. We have needed someone like Charles all along. If nothing else, other leaders may follow suit just out of embarrassment of using up our resources and contributing more to global warming.

We now do not only have a ton of scientists we can point to to prove that global warming exists. Now we have a leader. We have someone big who is willing to put his money where his mouth is. This is something we can write LTTE's about and ask why our leaders are not doing ANYTHING to help solve this problem when it appears others are doing everything. This is big news since it is easy enough for leaders to ask their people to give up things but we do not directly hear about them doing anything along these lines.

I, for one, am proud that at least one person is trying to lead the way by example and hopefully it will shame others into doing the same. Let's not underestimate the impact something like this can have if we get the word out. Focus on the positive and we can change the world.

[Karenca]

55. Well said, Demgurl.

Actually, it was perfect.

[demgurl]

56. Karenca.....

Thank you. We all need to keep our eye on the big picture. We are all in this together.

[CreekDog]

59. England has 1 man 1 vote, what about us?

Think of the electoral college, Washington D.C.'s congressional representation and our history of slavery and legally enforced segregation.

Then, lecture our British friends on their lack of democracy.