Written by Ann Farmer

 

It was reported in The Express that Prince Charles, with his long-held interest in all things environmental, ‘could visit China for the first time in a bid to persuade the world’s biggest polluter to help curb climate change’. Via a video link to the UN COP15 ‘biodiversity summit’ in the Chinese city of Kunming, he will say that ‘world polluters must pay for environmental destruction and the true cost reflected in the price of goods.’ The 72-year-old is understood to be ‘open to an invitation to visit the emerging superpower in the next couple of years’, and his speech will mark ‘a British diplomatic charm offensive using the Royal Family to bring Beijing and other rapidly developing economies on side for next month’s COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow.’ Apparently, his ‘intervention comes as the West fears Chinese goods are undercutting competitors and benefitting from an economy fuelled by coal power and other global warming causes’ (link).

We have certainly cut our own carbon emissions – but only because we have closed our own heavy industries and coal mines and refuse to take advantage of an abundance of shale gas, while outsourcing all our energy needs; although this approach does allow our green-obsessed politicians to lecture the rest of the world on their carbon emissions (link).

But China is far from an ‘emerging superpower’: having finally got its hands on Hong Kong, it is using its massive economic and military strength to bully Taiwan and other nations within its ambit – see e.g. here and here. However, its influence now goes worldwide, buying up poor countries via the ‘Belt and Road’ initiative, but also because the West has outsourced much of its manufacturing to Chinese factories. Meanwhile, China is buying influence in Western universities, making creative use of Western commercial ideas and also edging its way into our defence systems (link).

It is unlikely that the Chinese Communist Party, under President Xi Jinping, will be quaking in their boots at the prospect of a lecture on global warming from Prince Charles; their appalling human rights record (see here) shows they are no slouches when it comes to picking on those smaller than themselves. The plight of the Uighur Muslims has attracted Western attention in recent years, but millions of Chinese have perished under Communism, not only from starvation and cruelty, but also before birth in forced abortions, in a brutal attempt to cut their own population (link).

Indeed, it is likely that their population control programme explains the reluctance of Western environmentalists to draw attention to Chinese pollution, and now ‘green’ issues are being prioritised over human rights: John Kerry, U.S. special presidential envoy for climate, ignored China’s record of genocide in order to do a ‘climate’ deal with the regime, and when asked ‘“What is the process by which one trades off climate against human rights?”’, responded: ‘“Well, life is always full of tough choices in the relationship between nations” (link)’.   

Thankfully, Prince Charles has bucked this trend, taking some ‘tough choices’ of his own: in 1999, he ‘boycotted a state banquet for the then visiting Chinese president over the country’s occupation of Tibet’, missing ‘a similar banquet in 2005 and another for President Xi in 2015.’ Sadly, it now seems that human rights come second to environmental concerns – and logically speaking, if human beings are killing the Planet, the more human beings killed the better. Perhaps China should be awarded a green medal after all.

The environmentalist anti-human stance is exemplified by Sir David Attenborough, who ‘calls the benefits of nature “indispensable” to human life in a new film about biodiversity’  (Daily Express, October 12, 2021). Unfortunately, despite the emphasis on helping humans, his concern does not seem to extend to human biodiversity, especially in the developing world. A long-time patron of population control focussed on Africa (e.g. here), Sir David has called humans a ‘plague’ on the Earth (link). Jetting around the world to lecture about the state of the environment (see here). Along with other high-profile environmentalist, he is heavily involved with population control (link), and has supported a drastic reduction in human population in order to make humanity ‘sustainable’.

With his keen interest in the built environment (source), Prince Charles has done much to encourage a more attractive world, and now says that ‘“regenerative agriculture, including practices such as organic and no-till farming to restore soil fertility, could enable agriculture to play a critical role in addressing climate change, revitalising rural communities and enhancing human health”’ –  indeed, ‘“the transition to sustainable land use can help raise the next 1.5 billion people out of poverty and represents a significant global investment opportunity.”’ (link). Such heartening and hopeful statements may be taken with a shrug of disdain by Chinese Communists, but they are enough to make the ‘greenwashed’ population control movement give birth to countless kittens – in their view, vastly preferable to human beings. 

However, their stated aim of reducing world population rather than raising billions of people ‘out of poverty’ should make Prince Charles cautious about being used to promote an essentially anti-human agenda. Far from rescuing people from poverty, the Malthusian lobby and its military wing the ‘family planning’ movement – more accurately, the family banning movement – know they can ply their trade most effectively against the voiceless poor. And now they are using the ‘threat’ of ‘climate change’ to demand even more money to fund abortions in poor countries – dressed up as ‘choice’, of course (see here and here).  

Prince Charles should rethink his Chinese charm offensive which, if it fails to take into account China’s murderous human rights record, will be not so much a charm offensive as a smarm offensive, doing incalculable harm to humanity – and being much more offensive.

 

Photo by Carl Graph