Prince Harry: What’s the point in having kids if the world is on fire?

Prince Harry during the start of the new partnership between Booking.com, Ctrip, TripAdvisor and Visa

As we discussed, Prince Harry had a Zoom conversation with the CEO of WaterBear, a “platform offering free documentaries and live, original content from more than 80 NGOs across the world.” He did the Zoom call to highlight the work, and the visibility of the work around conservation and environmentalism. In a preview of the conversation, he threw a little shade at people who are all talk and no action about the environment. Well, I was looking around to see if there were any more good quotes from the Zoom and I came across this Daily Mail coverage and I can’t stop laughing:

Prince Harry has urged people to be more ‘like raindrops’ in the fight against climate change, in an impassioned speech to mark the launch of a new Netflix-style platform for environmental and conservation documentaries.

Peppering his speech with both woke and whimsical references, the Duke of Sussex, 36, who currently resides in a $15million mansion in California said: ‘Every single raindrop that falls from the sky relieves the parched ground. What if every single one of us was a raindrop, and if every single one of us cared? At the end of the day, nature is our life source… But you can’t uplift, educate and inspire unless there is a form of action that follows.’

And the Duke, who has previously been criticised for his use of private jets, hit out at those who don’t take real action on the environment, saying: ‘For me it’s putting in the dos behind the says. There’s a lot of people that say, but this is about action.’

[From The Daily Mail]

The downright SEETHING!!! I’m laughing so hard. The URL shows that the original headline was “Prince Harry gets airy-fairy…” It’s only airy-fairy when Harry does it, never when Charles or William talk about the environment. I mean… imagine if the Daily Mail (or any British media outlet) had covered Prince William’s big Earthshot Prize launch this way. “Work-shy Prince William, who lives in a taxpayer-funded palace which was renovated at the cost of $20 million only for it to sit idle for years, thinks it’s important to be keen about the environment, so he screamed at his staff until they made him a project called Earthshot…William launched Earthshot as he headed off to his tenth vacation from his minor busy work, and again using a borrowed private jet from the Duke of Westminster…”

Anyway, Harry had more to say:

Speaking about his son Archie, now 19 months, Harry said: ‘Being in nature is the most healing part of life, I truly believe that’s one reason why it’s there. But the moment you become a father, everything really does change because then you start to realise, well, what is the point in bringing a new person into this world when they get to your age and it’s on fire? We can’t steal their future, that’s not the job we’re here for. I’ve always believed that hopefully we can leave the world a better place than when we’ve found it, so I really think we need to take a moment and think well how can we get what we need and have our desire fulfilled without taking from our children and generations to come?’

Harry reflected on the ‘universally tough year’ that everyone has experienced, adding that he has found solace in nature, which he believes is the ‘most healing part of life Someone said to me right at the start of the pandemic, “It’s almost as though Mother Nature has sent us to our rooms for bad behaviour”,’ he observed.

[From The Daily Mail]

Both Harry and William make similar arguments about conservation and the environment, which is that fatherhood made them understand that they don’t want to hand their kids a world on fire, a world without tigers and elephants and lions. I get that people need to hear those kinds of personal stories and hear about “what kind of world are we leaving to the youths,” but… I don’t know. People have been saying that for decades now and everyone keeps f–king up the earth anyway. It’s really difficult to NOT get frustrated with all of these conversations and all of the lack of action.

Prince Harry during the start of the new partnership between Booking.com, Ctrip, TripAdvisor and Visa

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

102 Responses to “Prince Harry: What’s the point in having kids if the world is on fire?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Eleonor says:

    I don’t know…this kind of statement make all of them seem clueless and out of touch.

  2. Alissa says:

    The problem, I think, is that no one wants to hand their children a world on fire, but also most people don’t want to be inconvenienced by doing what they’re supposed to.

    • Emm says:

      Agreed, I feel like I am voting for the environment, Biden, and do what I can to not wast or create more waste and help but there is only so much I as an individual can do and don’t feel like there is any help from the people/corporations who can really make a difference. Money is everyone’s motivation at this point and the billionaires can become trillionairs if they actually put money into the environment. I also have tremendous guilt for having children and bringing them into this shitty world. I feel like I’m going to need to live forever to try and protect them. I love my kids more then anything but that’s also the problem. I didn’t have these feelings before kids but now I have major anxiety everyday because of it.

      • Emm says:

        I meant the billionaires *can’t* become trillionairs. They want to make the largest profit on the cheap as fast as they can. If I was Bezos I would be putting 99% of my wealth into the environment honestly. What’s the point of all of this if we aren’t going to have a planet left in less then 100 years?

  3. Liz says:

    I really like Harry and I cringe when he talks publicly about environmentalism because he absolutely won’t be able to win. Anyone with an enormous footprint (as most extremely wealthy people have) will always come across looking hypocritical when they try to address environmental action, and I think the optics of hypocrisy make regular people tune out. Harry, in particular, will be drug because the BM hates him and his message will be lost.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Same goes for environmental champions Charles and William. There is a lot of hypocrisy in the climate change debate. Most of the products that people consume are damaging to the environment but I still think a conversation is necessary.

      The conversation that people should be having is about the enormous damage that capitalism and colonialism have done to the planet. Not sure anyone is ready for that conversation.

      • Mac says:

        People all over the world are having conversations about capitalism and neocolonialism because colonialism certainly has not stopped and capitalism grows more ravenous by the day. Both create tremendous barriers for poor countries, many of which are on the front lines of the climate crisis even though they are least responsible for it.

        Harry sounds like Katie Holmes. It’s nice that he is enjoying his time during the pandemic but the rest of us are struggling to stay above water.

      • Elizabeth says:

        Exactly. It’s the big corporations that are the big polluters and they won’t stop. The biggest impact is on the poor and marginalized, so those in power have little incentive really to make a difference.

      • Mac says:

        @Elizabeth – That’s why people like Harry should be centering the voices of those on the frontline. As long as they remain voiceless, nothing will change.

    • MsIam says:

      Do you cringe when someone like Bill Gates talks about the environment too? Because nothing has driven the consumption of energy like the explosive growth of the tech industry. By your logic, only goat herders who live in tents can speak out. We all live on the same planet, so we all have a stake.

      • Mac says:

        Microsoft is in the process of transitioning to clean energy and mitigating their entire carbon footprint since the launch of the company. They get that they have a stake and are taking action.

      • mrsBump says:

        “nothing has driven consumption of energy than the explosive growth of the tech industry?”
        would you care to expand upon this?
        The biggest culprits are to date : transportation, electricity ( which pre-dates the use of computers), agriculture, heating etc

    • Lorelei says:

      @Liz I literally (not exaggerating!) cringed when I saw this headline. Anyone who reads CB regularly knows that I’m 100% Team Sussex, but even I think this comes off as a bit tone deaf.

      As we already discussed, Meghan’s essay was the ONE thing the family & press avoided trashing her for, and it seems like Harry just handed them some ammunition— because most people do only read headlines, and I bet many will shriek about how hypocritical it is for him to mention having children in this context while they’re clearly trying for more. Or at the very least they’ll use it as one more excuse to write off anything he says, and his message will be lost in all of this drama the media creates, which is a shame.

      To be clear this is not what *I* think, I’m just so used to them being smeared that by now it’s easy to anticipate what they’ll seize on. It’s obviously a worthy message, but was Harry the right person to give it and was the right time now? Idk.

      • Liz says:

        @Lorelei – yes, I hate that he gave them the ammunition to go after him. We know they will gleefully load up and take aim at him and drag Meghan in as well.

        That’s why I cringe when he talks about the environment specifically. It’s way too easy to call a rich person who uses private jets and lives in a mansion hypocritical and have that accusation actually make sense to logically-minded people. RRs will always call them hypocrites over things that make no sense (asking for privacy), but anyone with a brain knows that accusation has no teeth. There’s actually some logic to the argument that his footprint is too huge for him to be asking plebes to make changes, and that makes him look bad to people that otherwise would listen to him.

      • Chica says:

        There is litrally very few things with exception to tragedy that Harry and Meghan can talk about and not be trashed and gaslit by their naysayers, so why in heaven should they stop speaking/advocating for things they care about because of these toxic a-holes? That would be exactly what those naysayers want: for them to be quiet and disappear.

        I think the complaints about them are on this are unwarranted.

        I mean, eveyone wants to bring up private jet usage like, how many private jet flights has he been on in the last two years? How does that compare to the ppl taking them multiple times a month? It’s like me asking all of you how many plastic throw away items and fast fashion products you’ve all purchased and used in the last 2 years. How much fossil fuel emissions, and meat have you all consumed? Yikes.

    • February-Pisces says:

      I definitely think public figures are damned if they do and damned if they don’t when it comes to climate change. Not just royals, even Leo DiCaprio gets shat on every time he opens his mouth about the environment. I personally don’t mind because being a public figure, your job takes you all over the world. You don’t work a 9-5 at an office that’s a 30 minute commute from your house. World travel is apart of their job. Plus when you are public figure you have a voice that reaches millions of people. If speaking about that subject can make a difference then I guess I’m ok with that.

      • mrsBump says:

        1% of travelers contribute to 90% of the pollution caused by the air travel industry.
        World travel should not be part of any body’s job. It is time we rethink that notion for both the rich and the less rich, travelling in “carbon neutral jets” and supposedly “offsetting” your carbon emissions just doesn’t cut it anymore.

  4. Mindy_Dopple says:

    I have honestly lost all kinds of faith in about half of the country (US). If we can’t get people to STAY INSIDE and away from each other for a few months, what’s the hope of every single one of them caring about the environment decades from now? Seriously.

    • BnLurkN4eva says:

      Yes this. Looking at the response to the pandemic which is in our face happening right now leaves me hopeless for people working towards making the changes necessary to save the environment for the future. People can’t even do what’s necessary to save themselves in the present moment, how are we to hope they can consider a future world they won’t be a part of.

    • LittlePenguin says:

      I feel the same. We are having anti-mask rallies here in Alberta. If we can’t manage something that will SAVE LIVES right now, how will we get them to care about something they might not be able to see? We did a bad thing and bought a plug in hybrid (issues with not enough charging stations to go full hybrid) and you would think we killed our children for the backlash we received from some people!
      I look at it this way, I am putting a lot of faith in the younger generation. They see why we need change and want it, so I hope they tip the scales as they come of age.

  5. Simalu says:

    Problem is neither one of these people who are continuously discussed on this blog – katewillsmegharry have any real expertise in any issues ranging from early childhood development to environment and science. They are frankly clueless having had no education or professional expertise in any of these subjects. Why anyone would want to pay attention to celebrities over experts on issues of such experts continues to baffle me.

    • VS says:

      Can you give me an example of Meg talking about something where she didn’t have expertise? Meg platform is not conservation or the environment; It has always been around “women”:
      1) did the Hubb cookbook require expertise?
      2) Did the Smartset require expertise?
      3) Did the vogue require expertise? it did but she didn’t work on it alone
      4) did the NY-op ed require expertise? unless you are saying there is expertise in miscarriage?
      5) did talking about BLM require expertise?
      6) did talking about racism require expertise?
      etc.

      All the above required curiosity, learning, empathy, having a brain and drive…..NOT expertise.

      7) The conversation around making internet better was a panel with experts, in case you didn’t know

      • CC2 says:

        You’re right VS. Meghan’s activism has always been within her realm. And when it isn’t, she has no problem shedding light on other experts, such as her ongoing activism for better media.

        Unfortunately this is is where criticism of Harry comes in. He’s generally more emotive than the other royals which has always been a gift, but it can get annoying when it comes to activism.

        Of course, he’s experiencing unfair treatment, but climate change is very much political, and I think he’s more suited to smaller efforts like conservation or perhaps producing and supporting films, like he’s doing now, just minus the speeches like this.

        Not because he’s rich. We should be side eyeing corporations more than us side eyeing a rich guy having a large home, although the former is more boring and less satisfying I guess.

        My problem isn’t that Harry is lecturing us poor folks, because he’s not. And I trust he’s doing what he can to be eco friendly (lol at the anecdote he gave about Meghan being frustrated that he keeps turning off all the lights) But rather the activism needs to be more heavily directed towards politics and businesses as opposed to general sentiments.

        Thank god he hasn’t veered into “Stop at 2″ or overpopulation like someone else lol. I personally can’t stand when people try to act like having children is morally wrong as if it’s on us to stop reproducing while businesses continue to wreck the Earth.

      • Nic919 says:

        Excellent questions but you won’t get actual answers because it’s easier to pretend that they all do the same thing when in reality they don’t. Meghan in particular has not called herself an expert and she has done a lot of groundwork in the issues she has promoted. She’s not pretending to invent childhood psychology like the other one. Nor is she creating a prize that purports to be like the Nobel prize.

      • equality says:

        Meghan did have pre-royal experience with clothes designing, writing articles and (pre and post) with racism.

    • Becks1 says:

      So this is where, for me, the difference comes in – Harry doesn’t pretend to be an expert. This speech is to promote a new streaming service for the environment, its not about Harry giving a speech because he is now an expert on climate change. William literally had a documentary made about him and his “passion” for the environment, Kate’s PR for the past year has been what an expert she has become and how credible she is in the early years etc. Harry and Meghan operate slightly differently in that they WANT people to listen to the experts and use their spotlight for that.

      • Ginger says:

        Thank you Becks1. He has never said he was an expert. The only thing he is asking is for us to do our part, no matter how small. He isn’t saying we can’t travel, etc..

      • Amy Too says:

        I find it kind of weird that he’s saying we need to stop talking and instead take action when he’s talking about environmentalism in order to promote a documentary that will talk about environmentalism. The documentary isn’t really an action. It’s just more talking/presenting the fact that we need to make change.

        I said this late last night on the other thread, but I so wish he and Will would do more real, tangible, quick turn around projects. Like Meghan does. Something like smart set or the cookbook but for environmentalism. A project we can all buy into and help with. Like a buy one, donate one compost bin where I buy one and one gets donated to someone who can’t afford one and then we all learn how to compost from the Sussexes. Or a sustainable home furnishings or baby clothes line. Maybe something with cloth diapers. Or non plastic baby bottles. Or native plants and seeds.

        Then it wouldn’t seem so much like the royals were just talking to us and telling us “something has to be done! We can’t just keep talking!” And then they proceed to talk and talk. I’d like something that has a quick, immediate impact that helps a charity but that also helps us do better. Like by buying the product, we are doing something sustainable, and then the money goes to the charity to help them do even more action. That’s why smart set and the cookbook were so brilliant. Immediate, tangible results.

      • Becks1 says:

        @AmyToo I haven’t explored the service yet, but I think its about documentaries that are actually about crises and steps people have taken to work on them, but I’m not sure about that yet. I’m going to take a look at it this weekend and can report back.

        But I completely agree re: tangible projects and that is something I liked about Meghan from the moment the cookbook was announced. Raising awareness is so important, for any cause, but it felt like at that point (2018) Kate had been “raising awareness” for 7 years and I remember thinking, what is it that the royals actually DO? Charles at least has some concrete projects with results, notably the Prince’s Trust, but for the rest – its a lot of ribbon cutting and “raising awareness” that does not result in additional funds for those organizations. So I would like to see William and Kate adopt Meghan’s more practical approach.

        (at least Harry has Invictus, Endeavour Fund, and Sentebale, and maybe Travlyst, we’ll have to see how that plays out.)

      • equality says:

        @AmyToo I think the new platform is about different charities that are taking action and there are supposed to be links provided to donate or become involved with the causes. Maybe there will be documentaries that will show ordinary people about recycling, composting, reuse of resources, energy efficient cars and appliances and other simple measures that anybody can take.

      • equality says:

        And Harry’s talk is supposed to be because he is president of the African Parks charity so he will surely talk about action taken by them.

    • Snappyfish says:

      Agree completely. While I understand lending ones celebrity to a cause to being awareness we are talking about the Earth we call home. It’s doesn’t really need celebrity endorsements. With that said I appreciate the effort .

    • Lana Baby says:

      ITA. 💯

      But for the last few decades, it seems we have been living in a post-expertise world. People have become their own experts with the advent of Google, etc. Add to that the public’s obsession with fame and wealth, and their eagerness to bandwagon behind their fave star, and here you have it: this hilarious mess of the uneducated leading their starry eyed followers into the abyss.

      Nobody wants to defer to experts anymore, made worse by the pervasive relativism in our modern discourse. The attitude is often, “who the hell are you to tell me what’s what?”

      Everybody believes they are experts now and the level of respect for educated, experienced, legitimate experts has dwindled.

      Let actors act and let’s not pretend they know anymore than anyone else without a background in what they’re talking about.

      To do so simply demonstrates an utter lack of understanding, which ultimately creates the problems we are now faced with.

      The worst part is that this pendulum will swing even further in this catastrophic direction for the foreseeable future. Who knows who we will be listening to and worshipping by then?

      • Anna says:

        One point I would add or counter is that for BIPOC, historically, these “experts” have been white and male and decidedly on the side of the maintenance of white supremacist patriarchy and hierarchy. Whose history is told? Whose patents and discoveries are shared? Who is epxerimented upon without regard? And so on. My point is simply to add that the growth in access means that there has been a new level of individual agency allowing, on the positive side, for those systems of power that may or may not be “truth” or “expertise” and may just be nepotism or white supremacy masquerading, to be challenged. There are options beyond and outside and around the histories and “facts” we’ve been fed. That said, I also agree to an extent about google making everyone think they’re an expert.

      • BnLurkN4eva says:

        I think H/M are the wrong pair to direct this criticism at because they seem to love seeding the floor to experts. If you remember their IG, they always highlight the experts and even here Harry is promoting a format that will allow the experts to have their say. In their zoom calls it’s letting the experts speak on the topics they are championing, so what you are advocating is exactly what they are using their enormous platform to allow.

      • Larisa says:

        @Anna,
        that’s a point I never considered, thank you for pointing that out. Still, we’re thankfully at a point where people of color and women of color occupy a lot of top positions in business in science, so let’s start listening to them! AND I feel like the biggest fans of the “who are you to tell me what to do” mindset have always been and still are white men, because they are so used to the idea that they were made to be listened to, not to listen.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Lana Baby— omg! This is the first time I’ve seen the phrase “post-expertise world” used and it’s so accurate and beyond utterly depressing. You’re exactly right, and it scares me that there’s a distinct possibility that half the population will never be able to be reasoned with ever again — and not only that, they will actively mock and DISOBEY anything said by scientists, doctors, etc. just to be contrarians.

        As we’ve seen with Covid, it almost doesn’t matter how many of us DO listen to the experts and do the right thing if the selfish 40% (ish) of the country doesn’t. Their acts will affect us all, even if we follow the CDC or whoever to the letter. We’re really in a terrifying place as a country right now.

      • Snappyfish says:

        @Lana Baby. Brilliant stated

    • Myra says:

      Meghan’s platform has mainly been on women/girls empowerment. There is a recurring theme around food insecurity through the causes she promotes. We’ve also seen her discuss racism and BLM, as well as promoting better online interactions. It may not be what you intended, but we don’t need to call her out when calling out the others to appear balanced, she already gets more flack than all of them combined.

      With that said, advocacy can be done by anyone. You don’t have to be an expert to engage in activism – a passion for the cause, a willingness to do the research and, at the very least, practice what you preach. Charles, William and Harry are similar in how they approach environmental causes. They say one thing, but have not shown us how they are prepared to follow through in their individual actions. Charles is the worst culprit of them all, yet he doesn’t get one quarter of the criticism that Harry receives. And Harry is only receiving such criticisms now because he married Meghan.

      • VS says:

        @Myra — thank you
        I said the same thing above as well when I asked the poster, who has now disappeared to point out where Meg claimed any expertise.

        This poster is trying to appear balanced. you might be too generous Myra; I suspect that poster might be a troll. Meg’s platform is very clear……Charles & W aren’t criticized because they aren’t married to Meg, the black duchess who didn’t know her place and who is just way too bright…

        Environment is an area where people like H who have the ability to Do, should just do. I hope he spends the necessary time on Travalyst and really make something of it like he did for IG, Sentebale, etc…. he should leave part of the talking to W; that’s more his aisle/the most he can do anyway

      • Myra says:

        @VS, you raised some very good questions above.

        I, too, think that Harry should concentrate on Travalyst. It actually sounds very promising. I know he was speaking because of the involvement of African Parks but maybe he should have focused his answers on the efforts being done on the ground by the charity. Leave the empty statements to Charles and William.

    • Mette says:

      Agree on all points here

    • candy says:

      But he said each of us is a raindrop! His rain just covers a lot more ground :)

  6. Amy Bee says:

    The politicians, who are in the pocket of corporations, are the ones to force action. I think a lot of NGOs do very good work but policy change is initiated by Governments. I agree that each one of us can play a part in the fight against climate change but real change only comes when the people with true power (i.e. not royalty) does something.

    • Coz' says:

      But we have massive power though : we are customers, we are buyers. But people are to damn selfish : they will still got delivery from Amazon or Uber, they’ll keep buying Fast Fashion or a new phone every 6 month. Why would corporates change a model that’s making so much money?
      And we can vote too.
      So in a sense I agree with Harry regarding the drop by drop analogy.

      • CC2 says:

        I mean, i get your point. I do think people lash out everytime personal responsibility is brought up, because they don’t want to change. But at the same time, they have a point that the biggest change is from policy.

        This is where I say…why not both? I made an order for a couple of t shirts from a non fast fashion place. It was so tempting to buy fast fashion because I’m broke, but I’m trying to start.

        Starting a norm about being green does add pressure, but we also need entities to change at the same time. He needs to make it clear, although it’s not like the daily fail will cover him appropriately

      • Amy Too says:

        I wonder if instead of trying to fight climate change directly, maybe we need to start with income inequality and poverty. Or huge tax breaks for environmentally friendly things. Why do people drive their gas guzzling 25 year old car? Because they can’t afford a new hybrid or electric. Why buy fast fashion that they have to throw away in six months because it’s got holes in it? They can’t afford to buy something that’s 100% sustainable and well made of quality materials. The option is buy a whole wardrobe for your growing child or buy one really well made, sustainable jacket. But the kid needs a whole set of school clothes. So I try to buy things that are least 100% cotton. Why do I use more heat and AC than someone else? Because my house is 100 years old and the windows are old and I can’t afford to replace them. Windows are EXPENSIVE. So I do what I can with caulk and those things you put under the door to stop drafts. Why do people buy cheap, factory farmed food that’s full of pesticides and herbicides and hormones and antibiotics that all contribute to a ruined environment? Because it’s cheap. So I don’t eat meat, and I hope that helps.

        It does kind of bug me when people talk about how the royals are a bit hypocritical and then someone jumps in with “WELL WHAT ARE YOU DOING!? Do you drive only electric? Do you have solar panels? Do you buy fast fashion and eat food that’s not organically sourced? Do you buy the milk that comes in the plastic bottle instead of the glass bottle?” Um, yes, unfortunately I do those things. And not because they’re convenient and I don’t want to give them up, but because that’s what I can afford. Royals can afford electric cars and solar powered planes and 100% eco friendly homes, and to buy the milk that comes in the glass bottle.

        I don’t think this is an instance of “when people know better they do better,” but more “when people can afford to do better, they do better.”

  7. Michelle says:

    A world without lions, tigers and elephants is because of people like the the royal family and the british empire. They killed most of them for sick trophy hunts. They still enjoy the bloodsport of killing animals. As a brit it sickens me what our country did & certain people still continue to do.

  8. Sofia says:

    I do get what he’s saying but like I said yesterday, I also completely understand the criticisms against Harry and the rest of the royal family members who talk about environmentalism.

    The power to do something does lie with him (he can make his house eco friendly like Charles has) but also politicians who have the power to push for policies as well as corporations who do a lot of harm themselves. If he can advocate for policies and for corporations to stop doing harm.

    I don’t blame him for the views he has tbh. He grew up in a (verrrrry) privileged environment but he’s also a grown up enough to unlearn them and realise how to effectively help.

    • Becks1 says:

      I’m okay with the criticism against Harry for this as long as it is just as strong against William and yes, even Charles – who has done great work for the environment but who still has an enormous carbon footprint, even with his expensive suits from 20 years ago. And at least for the british press, the criticism seems reserved for Harry.

      • Sofia says:

        Yup I agree. If people are going to criticise Harry for speaking on environmentalism while being a royal and not “walking the walk”, I hope a lot of that “ire” is also shown to William and Charles. Also royals who have used private jets quite a few times.

      • Nic919 says:

        Oh yes, even today we see new handles come in to criticize Harry on this but silence when it comes to William and his obvious hypocrisy on environment issues.

    • TheOriginalMia says:

      @Sofia, hasn’t it been reported that Meg & Harry’s house does have solar panels?

    • Shani says:

      No one needs to be learning anything about environmental causes from ANY member of the BRF. You know there are actual experts in this area…

      • Sofia says:

        Please tell me where I said that we should be learning about the environment from the BRF?

        I’ll wait.

  9. CidyKitty(CidySmiley) says:

    As everyone kind of said above, I get the message and it is important but it does make me cringe a bit. I think Harry really does care about the environment and wants to make a change but his arguments on it can come off tone deaf.

  10. Ines says:

    “‘Being in nature is the most healing part of life, I truly believe that’s one reason why it’s there” – Errm, ok.

    • Coz' says:

      That one made my cringe. Nature is not here to service humans. I know it’s probably not what he meant but that mindset is the main reason we’ve been f!cking up the earth for so long.

      • Bettyrose says:

        Yeah that bugged me too…but it’s possible that was an awkwardly worded way of saying there’s a reason nature has such a positive impact on humans.

    • Amy Too says:

      That also hit my ear wrong and I bristled a bit. It’s probably not what he meant, but it seems a bit colonial. Like it could be a justification for why the British monarchy went all over the world and hunted the animals, and took over the land, and brought the plants back to England. Because nature exists for the enjoyment of humans. It seems a little biblical. “I give you dominion over the earth.”

    • Lorelei says:

      @Ines, I know. I feel terrible admitting it, but that was so cringe. It’s clear he writes his own speeches, because that sentence literally doesn’t make any sense. Hopefully most people who are inclined to listen to Harry in the first place will let little things like that slide and absorb the message as a whole, but…yeah, that made me cringe too.

      I get what he’s trying to say, but the wording was off. If the wording had been tweaked I think it would have been a lot clearer.

  11. Becks1 says:

    So, cheesiness aside, I both like and dislike his raindrop metaphor.

    First – yes, I think it is helpful for people to think about what “they” can do. Maybe walk more instead of always taking the car (which may mean you make a very conscious choice when you move or buy a house to live somewhere walk-able.) Maybe consume less paper and plastic in your daily life. Maybe take that job that is close to public transportation. Recycle as much as you can, try to throw away as little as you can. etc.

    but second – that’s not going to be enough to reverse the problem at this point. Maybe 20 years ago that would have helped, but at this point we need significant action from corporations and governments. So while the raindrop metaphor is nice, we kind of need a hurricane at this point.

    • Sunnydaze says:

      Agree with your first point, but I would take it a step further folks need education and access about what they can do – if it’s walking more, do they live somewhere that’s possible? If it’s using less plastic, do they have money to buy more sustainable items? I think a lot of people aren’t consciously trying to live a high waste life, but because of lack of access and education about tangible things they can do to make an impact it seems insurmountable. I’m horrified by using so many diapers for example, but the biodegradable ones we have access to arent great quality and the others are twice the price. Sustainable clothing is amazing, but so expensive (and if I order something online then there’s the calculation of that footprint and if it’s cheaper on Amazon, etc). I’m sure there are work arounds (someone may very well reply to this with endless diaper producers or coupons, whatever) but then there is time devoted to sorting this all out. It’s worth it, of course, but we need more of what you mentioned “what can ‘they’ do” as opposed to a broad “do this, not that”

      • Becks1 says:

        All good points. Someone yesterday on one of these threads brought up the “boots” theory – about how it is cheaper in the long run to buy a good pair of work boots but if you don’t have that money for the initial outlay, then you buy the cheaper pair, but you have to keep replacing them every year. So the more expensive boots are better in the long run, and more cost effective for the consumer, but the initial outlay is expensive.

        And diapers are a good example – we used cloth diapers, but I’m not going to lie, they cost a lot of money upfront. Over two kids though we did get our money’s worth. But with CDs, you do have to consider the impact of higher water usage.

        I buy too many cheap clothes on Amazon which is bad for the environment in several ways but I cant afford the more sustainable fashion (so for example Charles’ sustainable fashion line was gorgeous and I liked several of the pieces, but way too rich for my blood.)

        And I do think we need more education. I think most people want to do the right thing but its hard to know what that is. Is being vegan better for the environment or eating grass-fed beef? Is new construction better, if its an energy efficient home, or is buying an already built home (that is less efficient) better? yesterday there were competing comments about raising cattle vs agriculture and it can be confusing even for people who really do want to do the right thing.

      • Maxime duCamp says:

        @Becks1, you make very valid points about how expensive it can be initially to buy more sustainable clothing. Have you tried ThredUp or Poshmark? With Poshmark you’re dealing directly with the person reselling so you have to trust their photographs and descriptions but thus far, I’ve had good luck. With ThredUp you have to send your clothing in and they’re pretty ruthless about what they will accept. Some of the stuff is new or barely worn.

        If you fit in standard sizes and prefer to buy new, AmourVert has lovely clothes and while they can be expensive, most of their stuff will ultimately end up in the sales section for a fraction of the original cost.

    • Naomi says:

      Agree with what you say, Becks1. While yes, each of us can do our part, basically the past, idk, 30 – 40 years of messaging about ‘individual responsibility’ ultimately has the effect of obscuring that CORPORATIONS are the ones doing the most major polluting. And in general, I am just f**cking done with neoliberal rhetorical of ‘individual responsibility’ — I *want* a government that will step in and regulate these corporations, pass more environmental protection laws, etc because THAT is ultimately what’s going to save us. Again: yes, we all need to pitch in, BUT but but *more* responsibility lies with the government and its regulation of industries– plus creating more jobs in ‘green’ industries.

      Harry, to me, sounds well meaning but cringey, but what do you expect from someone so insanely wealthy and privileged (no matter how well intentioned they be)?
      Side note: The whole point of the charity & philanthropic organizations that the 1% funds is to enforce the status quo: rich people get sweet tax breaks that secure if not expand their wealth, then they get to decide which charities they want to fund/donate to, then they get a tax write off, wash/rinse/repeat. Guess what: we wouldn’t need philanthropic organizations (or not as many) if that wealth was redistributed to working & middle class people via, idk, a more just tax code. Then individual people wouldn’t need to rely on the generosity & whims of rich people and their charities, because they would already have the money they need.

      • flamingo says:

        I’m going to sound like a conservative here and I don’t mean to, but the issue with increasing corporate responsibility is that those corporations are not going to eat the cost, they will be passed onto consumers. If for example, there was some sort of additional tax attached to plastic, Tide who manufactures laundry detergent and Walmart who sells it aren’t just going to say, “Oh well, that’s two cents less profit for us.” Tiny increases on every item sold at a grocery store add up and while I can afford an extra $5 a week on my grocery bill, for some families that would just be $5 less in food that they can feed their families.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Becks as usual ITA with everything you said, especially the raindrop comment.

  12. Sunnydaze says:

    Sure, maybe harry will get a larger pushback than his brother, but that doesn’t mean the criticism is unwarranted. It bothers me when anyone talks out of both sides of their mouth – talk about conservation and addressing climate change and yet there’s an unwillingness to part with the luxurious lifestyle one has become accustomed to. It’s like what another poster on this thread mentioned, people are unwilling to do the hard work but are happy to lend their name, influence and shame upon people who abuse the earth. There are real systemic issues rooted in poverty amongst other things that contribute to the erosion of the environment, so it feels very tone deaf, privileged and climate-saviory to see a prince (who enjoys wealth and name recognition from a monarchy with a pretty horrible history and is still funded by tax dollars) do a pretty minimal PR plug for the environment. Yes, harry will get the brunt of any backlash, but ANYONE who enjoys mass wealth, private travel, sprawling real estate, etc deserves a healthy dose of “sure, Jan”. I’m not saying it isn’t nice to see someone using their influence to evoke change and spread awareness, I’m only saying it’s not coming at a tremendous cost or sacrifice. Yes, save the animals and donate to worthy causes (with what money? Why animals when people are losing their homes and have no food?) Yes, live a sustainable life (how am I to afford biodegradable trash bags or diapers? Where would I even find such items in my rural area? I’m in a food desert and fast food is cheap and accessible). Again, these conversations are absolutely worth having OF COURSE but the reason it doesn’t get solved is because it’s so systemic…and harry benefits off that system. Good job Harry, and, if you’re serious, do more. (Also, the criticism here is aimed strongly at harry because that is the focus of the article, I’m not excusing the other royals, this is my take on this specific article)

  13. OriginalLala says:

    I get the drop by drop analogy, but some people (the wealthy), industries (agri-farming, fracking etc), and corporations have a MUCH bigger footprint that most of the people on earth. It’s fine to say consumers have power to make changes, and we do, but until gov’ts start imposing huge ass fines and penalties on corporations/industries and the uber wealthy who have ginormous impacts on the environment nothing will really change.

    and frankly, any member of the BRF who discusses climate change without actually taking a long, hard look at their own hugely wasteful lifestyles is not someone we should be listening to (here’s looking at you Chuck and Bill)

  14. flamingo says:

    Feeding America says that more than 50 million Americans might be facing food insecurity this year. If we go back to Psych 101, it would be difficult for anyone to get people to care about the environment if their basic physiological needs aren’t being met. I know that all of these issues are related, but it is very difficult for working class people to spend their time and energy thinking about the environment when they are worried about whether they will get furloughed and how they will pay their electric bill this month. While a lot of us who post here can spend time contemplating sustainable fashion or sticking a solar panel on our roof, the majority of Americans don’t have that luxury. The first step in getting people to care about the environment and global warming has to be making sure that their basic needs are met.

    • KatV says:

      Exactly. And that’s just America. Think about India, China etc. Even the UK, and heck here in Scandinavia where I am, people are sometimes struggling to go through everyday life.
      Wealthy people come off quite tone deaf sometimes.

  15. Katie says:

    seeing how covid panned out, don’t we know what’s going to happen with the environment? let me tell you – a group of people will try really hard to help the cause and depending on how successful they are, the complete and utter annihilation of the human race will be postponed a number of years, decades and maybe even centuries if we are very, very, very lucky. but eventually, lol, eventually, all of this is going to come crashing down no matter what because too many people are so dumb they cannot see a few steps ahead and make some sacrifices today to have a better future. ironically, being able to plan for the future and make some sacrifices is what got us here and helped the human species be so successful lol. maybe if we have some very smart and charismatic leaders and better education we’ll get away with this current dumbery long enough to actually be able to introduce real change in time. not looking good at the moment though

  16. Maxime duCamp says:

    As a childfree spinster (I’m reclaiming the word) who cares about the state of the earth and the future that we are creating for all the children of the world, I’m so tired of hearing “When I had my child/son/daughter…” It’s not as bad as the old “I didn’t realize that it wasn’t OK to be a sexist jerk until I had daughters…,” but it’s in the next neighborhood. You don’t need to have children to know that climate change is real and to modify your behavior to do whatever you can to make a difference. Take public transportation when/where it’s available; don’t buy useless crap on Amazon that going to end up in a trash heap and take a millennium to decompose; and 100s of other small actions that people, even people without children of their own, can take to try to heal the earth. /end of rant.

    • OriginalLala says:

      as another childfree lady who also cares about the environment I am also annoyed with that statement. I don’t need to have a kid to care, or be empathetic to the struggles of the next generation.

    • MF1 says:

      Yep, this bothered me too. If you really needed to have a child to start caring about things like climate change or sexism, then you’re not a very empathetic or thoughtful person.

      • Maxime duCamp says:

        This, 1000 %. You expressed my point far more succinctly than I ever could.

      • BnLurkN4eva says:

        I think people who say this don’t necessarily mean they didn’t care before, rather it became urgent for them once they had kids. Harry has been talking about the environment long before he became a parent, but it sounds like having a child just made his interest go from 100 to 200. It’s like a anti-racist person who has always been an ally and doing their part in the fight for equality, but then takes it up a notch when they marry a POC and have a POC child. I personally don’t need to have children to do my part and have been, but I’ve often said that I don’t wish to be a parent because I’m terrified of the world I will leave behind. I know that my interest in trying to make things better would probably increase if I had a child to consider. Some life experience makes things more real once you have a personal stake in it, see the fight for the cure of any disease.

      • Lady D says:

        I had neighbours whose bumper sticker read d.i.n.k. -double income no kids.

    • Traveler says:

      Completely agree with this comment.

    • MsIam says:

      Well gosh isn’t it just great that you guys started out perfect right from the get-go! Listen I would be lying if I said that I didn’t start paying attention to who was on the school board and how funding was allocated until I had children. But isn’t educating the next generation everyone’s concern? None of us are going to be here forever. All of us live in and are motivated by our own sphere of influence. It’s rare for anyone to stick their neck out especially since there are always people waiting to bash you on your head for doing so. I would rather have ten thousand Prince Harry’s then another Trump who is opening up federal lands to businesses.

      • Traveler says:

        No one is claiming to have been “perfect right from the get-go”; at least I’m not. The point I’m agreeing with is that I don’t think it’s necessary to have children to be concerned about the environment and the future for life on earth.

      • Maxime duCamp says:

        Oh geez, neither I or anyone agreeing with my comment has stated that we were perfect. And the hyperbolic ten thousand Prince Harrys vs. one Trump is a strawman argument.

        How can I say this? The constant default toward people with children, the assumption that being partnered with children is the be all end all and how only people with children can understand x,y,z that is not directly related to childrearing, starts to grate. I wasn’t reacting to Price Harry per se but the general trope, esp. used mainly by men, of “Until I had a child…” Besides, as @BnLurkN4eva stated Harry already had an established history of speaking out on environmental issues/supporting environmental causes pre-marriage and Archie, so it also seemed completely unnecessary. By the way, I love children and have nothing but respect for parents so I don’t want to come across as bashing people with kids; it’s a larger issue of societal perception.

    • bettyrose says:

      Preach! Blissfully childfree here, and I consider the three most urgent issues in the U.S. to be the environment, education, and health care, all of which are about creating a better world for the next generations.

  17. 2cents says:

    The basic human condition (egoism) is at the root of our sociological, economical and environmental problems. At all levels (rich or poor) we refuse to give up our privileges or to share our resources fairly.

    If Harry had said we need a more holistic approach to solve the environmental problems this beautiful Waterbear initiative would be seen in the right way, namely as a small step in the right direction, to do our part to restore the balance with Nature. It’s not the medicine for everything and to be fair this is not what Harry or Waterbear claimed.

    I prefer small steps like Waterbear instead of big pretentious initiatives like the Great Reset by Bill Gates and Prince Charles. The Great Reset looks like a desperate push by the 1%-elite to retain their power and dominance over the 99%.

    I still don’t understand why Charles, William and Harry have to be so competitive as advocates of the environment. Why don’t they join their forces together and make a bigger global impact? Or is it just PR?

    • BnLurkN4eva says:

      In the case of Harry he is no longer part of the BRF – working royals as the call it. He doesn’t seem to have a relationship with William and a lukewarm relationship with his father at best. William and Charles should probably team up, but it’s probably unrealistic to expect that Harry will team up with either of those two. He is teaming up with others and promoting their work, which seems smart from where I sit.

      I just never got the argument about rich folks being tone deaf on these issues. Their privileges are just more than any of ours in the West, which are all enormous compared to almost the anywhere else in the world, are we tone deaf when we do our part?

      • mrsBump says:

        I think it depends who you are preaching to. The average privileged person in the West lecturing to someone living in the developing world ( where i am from ) is tone deaf.
        A royal/uber rich individual lecturing to anyone less privileged than themselves are rightly criticized too. This is not an even playing field. The rich get to take so called carbon neutral jets which pollute just as much as any other jet , but they get to stand on a pedestal and tell us, how they have been able to offset their extravagant travel by offsetting their carbon emission. In the meantime, their toxic fumes have already been released into the environment they pretend to care so much about.

      • BnLurkN4eva says:

        @mrsBump, someone needs to stand on those pedestal as you call what they are doing. Let’s face it people like Harry gets the attention needed to create the awareness that allow the experts to do their thing. Until we live in a world where more people pay attention without needing the celebrity to say something, I am ok with him standing on his pedestal to say something.

  18. Lunasf17 says:

    I feel like he is trying but his children (and William’s) will most likely be protected from environmental impact thanks to their wealth and status. They have the means to live and travel anywhere they want. It’s the poorer countries now that are already experiencing climate displacement first and the poor that will pay the price before anyone else. For once I would love to see someone with the means to live extravagantly choose to live in a modest solar powered/green powered home instead of a 16 bathroom mansion. We all are environmentalists until we are asked to change our lifestyle and downgrade. He is speaking up but not walking the walk IMO. With his money and fame they could do so much better. I like him and Meg but I don’t put them on a pedestal. There are many more deserving environmental activist who we should actually learning from and elevating instead of a prince born into a certain family.

    • MsIam says:

      He’s not asking to be elevated. It’s my understanding that the streaming service is going to show documentaries by people who are involved in the environmental movement. He’s helping to bring awareness to it. It’s not the Prince Harry show. And have you changed your lifestyle and downgraded? I raised two kids in a 1300 square foot house with one bathroom but I know there are millions, if not billions, around the world who would say I lived in a “mansion “. So let’s not get into this stupid argument of who should and shouldn’t be speaking.

    • candy says:

      “He is speaking up but not walking the walk IMO. With his money and fame they could do so much better.” which is exactly what he is accusing people of, lol. Agree it would be nice to see more modest people have a huge platform.

  19. I hear this sentiment expressed more and more. Without decent wages, healthcare, or parental leave policies in the United States, there is no safety net for young families. Add in climate change, pandemic, and so many other uncertainties, and I would certainly think twice too.

  20. Dallas says:

    The world is burning with wildfires and the permafrost is melting. Can someone please explain to me why anyone would bring a new human into this world?

    • candy says:

      Agreed. I don’t have kids. It wasn’t my choice, but in the end, it seems like overpopulation is a huge factor so I’m not sorry to not be contributing to it. Glad I also don’t have to explain this f*cked up world to anyone.

  21. L4frimaire says:

    I like how this turns into policy debates and the role of individuals and private sector vs.gov’t whenever Harry talks about the environment. He may annoy some people and cause eye rolls but he always gets the dialog going. I just need to add that caring about the environment has nothing to do with parenthood and is the reason some people choose not to have kids. Just to be petty, William promoting Attenborough’s documentary was treated as such a big deal and Harry goes out and promotes a whole streaming network of environmental documentaries and programming that involves many different organizations. Just saying.

  22. Jessie says:

    I get it. I had my last child in mid when it looked like we would be able to save the world and before Trump was president. If I had known about Trump and the pandemic before I had my first in 2013, I would not have had children. Being trapped at home with only bike rides as an outing for almost a year now, with years of active attempts to make their lives less safe as Mexicans, coupled with attempts at total annihilation of the Board of Education, etc, etc, the list goes on. I only have two, but this is not the world or life I envisioned for them and I can only hope that we continue to move forward after we get rid of Trump and the boomer cult starts diminishing as they, well, die out.

    • Traveler says:

      Wow, the boomer cult. You may want to start worrying about the many non-boomers who have been rearing their ugly heads……………..Steven Miller, Hope Hicks, the Drumpf kids, Ben Shapiro, Kayleigh McEnany, and on, and on, and on. Just saying it won’t die with us boomers (BTW, proud, liberal boomer here)

  23. Lorelei says:

    Am I imagining things or did someone post a link to an article (Vanity Fair, I think?) earlier in this thread? I swear I thought I read comments saying what a good article it was, but now I can’t find it.

    If anyone knows what I’m talking about, please link if you can because I really wanted to read it!

  24. Miasys says:

    I think Harry is coming to terms with his new life and this is part of one of the many stages of acceptance. He probably had all of these great plans – and think about what incredible advocates that he and Meghan are – and his petty-*ss family just pulled the rug out for them daring to want a life together. Guessing this interview caught him at one of the more angry/frustrated points. I admire their passion and commitment to philanthropy. I personally find it hard acknowledging as a parent that this environment is the legacy I’m leaving to my children. Completely relatable and of course Petty Betty and her crew will spin this just to torture the Sussexes even more. Tone deaf old regime being jerks is pretty on brand for that bunch.

  25. lee says:

    There is nothing inconsistent about being wealthy and being an environmentalist. The US national Park system is hear because Teddy Roosevelt a man of great wealth wanted the land protected. Wealthy people who have the money give millions to ev=nvironmental causes. Nothing he is saying is controversial. He talks in a thoughtful, lyrical way and the haters just want to discredit him anyway they can. His father put up with years of abuse for his views on the enviroment and he has since been proven right.