Prince Charles, heir to the British throne, has long fancied himself an environmentalist.
In 1970, he gave his first speech on the “climate emergency.” Charles outlined his desire to tackle the pollution destroying beaches and seabirds and that belched out by factories and automobiles. In the half-century since, he has frequently returned to the subject. While he has not forfeited his private jets or stately mansions, he does recycle and encourage organic farming. The charities he heads often encourage environmental awareness. He also uses his bully pulpit to encourage greater environmental consciousness.
Initially, he found a niche in seeking to bring investors together to support environmental projects. As the longevity of his mother Queen Elizabeth II eroded his ability to shape any agenda as monarch, however, Charles’s rhetoric grew shriller. Looking back on a 1970 speech, he lamented “the white heat of progress and technology to the exclusion of nature.” He later asked, “What good [does] all the extra wealth in the world gain from business as usual if you can do nothing with it except watch it burn in catastrophic conditions?”
Perhaps he can no longer contain himself. As the United Nations holds an environmental summit in Glasgow, Charles has become even more fervent.
According to an interview with the Daily Express, “Charles wants to revamp urban areas and encourage lifestyle changes to cut carbon pollution causing global warming. He will argue that fixing cities, which already account for 70% of carbon dioxide emissions and are forecast to double their populations by 2050, is key to cutting greenhouse gases.”
Certainly, it may sound ridiculous to compare Charles to Pol Pot, Cambodia’s communist leader who emptied the cities and sought to remake Cambodian society in the 1970s. Pol Pot’s quest for ideological purity and forced deurbanization ultimately led to the deaths of a million people. The Cambodian dictator justified his actions in egalitarianism rather than environmentalism, but the motive was irrelevant to the policy’s execution. Such a travesty could never happen in the United Kingdom. The rule of law is deep-rooted and strong there. But, as men such as Charles confuse theory with fact and approach environmental causes with the fervency of religious fundamentalism, they can do vast damage.
Charles is wrong. Cities are not the problem. Urbanization was the inflection point that allowed human flourishing. They are not only economic engines for those who, unlike Charles, must provide for themselves financially. They are also reflections of choice: Those who crave a more cosmopolitan life gravitate to urban centers. Those who wish a quiet or more bucolic life choose the suburbs or countryside.
Charles is right that cities can be greener. Zoning exists to create order out of chaos. But the ticking clock fanaticism with which Charles demands change, mixed with frustration that others do not share his beliefs or sense of urgency, can only come at the expense of people’s freedom and livelihood.
Herein lies the conceit that Charles dares not admit: His environmentalism has moved from advocacy to justification to restrict freedom. For Charles, the cost might be worth it. For those forced to live in a system, the price could be too much to bear. Those most impoverished seldom embrace highbrow environmentalism. The British monarchy will soon transition. Britons will miss Elizabeth II’s wisdom, restraint, and soft touch, even more so with the juxtaposition of who follows.
When leaders rationalize freedom’s sacrifice for an ideology, a cause, or to rebuild a new society, history shows harm most often follows.
Michael Rubin (@mrubin1971) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential. He is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
