At Monday night’s cocktail reception for world leaders at the COP26 conference in Glasgow, Queen Elizabeth made an appearance via prerecorded video. She gave a speech about the environment and how no one is getting any younger. She also name-checked Prince Charles and Prince William as, like, leading environmentalists. The British papers made a big deal about how she didn’t mention Harry, even though he has a long history of conservation work and environmentalism too. I theorized that the Queen blanking Harry might have stung a little bit. Guess what? It did. On Tuesday, Archewell announced that they would become net zero by 2030. They even mentioned the COP26 conference.
As global leaders convene for COP26 to commit to solutions for our climate crisis, all of us at Archewell, led by The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, share our pledge towards a more sustainable future by becoming net zero by 2030. Our co-founders, Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, have a long-standing commitment to the planet, both together and prior to their union, with global projects and partnerships dating back over a decade.
Nearly every activity in daily life results in the release of carbon into the atmosphere, and the sum total of those emissions is considered our ‘carbon footprint.’ Here are some examples of what is part of that footprint:
what we eat and how often we eat it
our transport and the frequency of it
our daily commute
our use of electricity/heating
our reliance on big industries that contribute to the problemWhile we have actively made choices to offset and balance this carbon footprint, now, with the tools provided by partner organizations, we know that we can all do better. We can be net zero, and this is what we pledge to do.
We are a young company, but today, Archewell joins our co-founders in committing to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2030. Achieving net zero carbon emissions means making a series of choices over time to make that footprint as small as possible, while compensating for any remaining emissions through high-quality carbon removal projects.
As an organization, we will work with an independent consultant to track all Archewell-related activities from our inception (internet use, commutes, and electricity in home offices, for example) to understand our collective footprint. Using 2022 as our baseline year, they will develop a plan for Archewell that aligns with the latest guidance from leading organizations, like the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol and Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi), while offsetting remaining emissions until we achieve net zero in 2030 and beyond.
As we begin this endeavor, we will leverage the expertise of the non-profit organization Travalyst, founded by The Duke, and the sustainable investing platform Ethic, to focus our investments in support of a low-carbon economy. We hope that you’ll join us.
It’s an admirable move in general and I believe them when they talk about setting this goal for themselves and their organization and how they will achieve it. I do have to nitpick the timing though – usually Meghan and Harry have great timing, and they look like leaders, not followers. This announcement so obviously comes on the heels of William, Kate and Charles’ big moments at COP26, and…*whispers*… it comes across as a bit “don’t forget about meeeee” from the Sussexes. Usually they’re too cool for that. Again, of course this net-zero move is admirable. It also would have been admirable if they announced it a week from now, when they wouldn’t have been stepping on Charles and William’s newscycle in such an obvious way. Maybe the Queen’s speech really did get under Harry’s skin, huh?
Photos courtesy of Backgrid.
Well, Harry has a soft spot for Granny and it must have hurt him to be left out of her speech. However, she was in her role as queen, not beloved grandmother. Harry can usually separate the two roles, but there was an uncomfortable blurring of roles here. I’m also quite sure she was reading a speech written for her. I wouldn’t give her a pass for any of the shit she’s done or said, but Harry is much nicer than I am.
I don’t think Harry was hurt at all. I think granny Elizabeth has a Queening job to do and she read what she had to read. Harry doesnt take it personal because probably none of what she says in public is personal. I cringed when she said she was incredibly proud of William. I’m not sure what for. Anyway, the benchmark is now Archewell’s 2030 net zero target. So let’s see how the other royals will match up. Many top american companies will be annoucing their pledge for net zero linked to the sussexes’ . That is great game.
It would have been even better if Harry had pledged that he would no longer work with Big Oil. Now THAT I find disappointing.
I realize this is a personal issue for Harry and none of our business and we will likely never know the answer, but I can’t help but wonder why both he and Meghan seem to have given the Queen a complete pass. Because no matter what William or Charles or the Middletons or the Markles tried to do, at the end of the day the Queen is the one who could have put a stop to it and she simply didn’t. The end. Obviously it’s a complicated relationship for Harry, but she is literally the one person who could have made things better for Harry and Meghan in the U.K. and she chose not to, for years, and I don’t understand how Harry gets past that.
@Annie- but, could she though? She may be the Queen, but there are a whole lot of unruly courtiers doing their own thing. She could make a statement or command them to fall in line, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to do it. They are out for themselves, and also probably have it out for Harry.
I’m with you in that feeling @Annie. She could have done something. We know courtiers appear to be pulling the strings but they don’t have the final say. They simply seem to manipulate, with their advice and leaks to the press.
I wonder whether it’s partly because the Queen is old, and they feel like she’s set in her ways. At this point it would be unfair to start pointing out all of her past mistakes. My own grandmother and great grandmother did some very dubious things in their lifetimes, and perhaps even more so in old age, but everyone felt in their final years that it would be cruel to start any rifts with them.
The other side of this is that perhaps they feel like to attack the Queen is to attack the monarchy, and they’ve never said anything negative about the idea of a monarchy itself. Just the people who pull the strings behind it.
That’s a whole other thing. I don’t understand how you can be all about equality and against racism, when you support a system built upon the exact opposite.
Sorry to be the wet blanket, but “carbon-offesetting” is a scam. You cannot “offset” your emissions. Carbon released into the atmosphere does harm – full stop. Carbon offsets are the modern day indulgences – they allow you to sooth your conscience with the belief that you have “corrected” your damage. Greepeace has been pointing this out for years.
I always rag on rich people talking about sustainability because they often have the opposite effect – they look hypocritical and privileged, and it turns people off of environmental activism, because they think “who is this person to lecture me when they don’t live the way I do?” I think it’s lovely that they want the foundation to be neutral, but the statement is extremely vague as to the specifics. I’d like to see something far more concrete.
I was going to mention this – using carbon offsets is a crock to make wasteful people feel better about themselves. I look forward to them sharing more about what they are doing to be more sustainable
An admirable goal, one we should all set for ourselves, but like I mentioned yesterday, the rich are not the people to take on (or put themselves in) leadership roles in this fight because they lead hugely wasteful lives and use up more vast amounts of resources.
Exactly – It’s like when Leonardo DiCaprio flew into a climate change conference in Davis on a private jet. Conservatives had a field day gleefully pointing out the (correct) hypocrisy and absorption of such a move, and it looked horrible. I hope they put forth a lot more about this so we can see what they are actually doing.
To a certain extent I agree but I think these pledges can work if they also commit to reducing emissioms where possible as well which is what this statement seems to state they will do but it is a statement with no specific commitments as of yet. They’re supposed to put out a report based on what these outside groups find in their audits, which also takes into account cost of heating in home offices and commute, so we’ll be able to better critique it then. I think the big question will be their travel because they’ve barely traveled the last 2 years even after COVID restrictions eased, but I imagine that will change next year. (Meghan only did the one work trip to NY with Harry and their staff by pj while Harry additionally visited the UK twice by commercial and went to Colorado for work by pj).
I don’t think it should even be called “carbon ofsetting”. It gives the impression that it’s something that it’s not, and it’s a tactic used by wealthy people and big corporations all the time, to make it look like they’re more environmentally friendly than they really are.
If you have the money, it should be put into these projects, but as Chelsea says, cutting down your own footprint had to be the place to start.
The impact that wealthy individuals could have by reducing their lifestyles, would “offset” so many average families footprints already.
Agreed.
Not to mention they are but words. There is no real way to quantify carbon-offsetting.
Actions speak louder than words but rich people really live in a parrallel universe.
Look at all the private jets flying into Glasgow this week…
It’s better than nothing, though, right? What is the alternative? That big companies and rich people do nothing because the things they’ll do aren’t enough? Tree planting or investing in clean energy isn’t ever a bad thing. I think it’s good that they included that they will try to reduce their carbon emissions by as much as possible first. That seems like it would actually be helpful as less carbon will be released, meaning less damage is done. And then carbon offsetting for the rest. Maybe it shouldn’t be called carbon offsetting? Because you can’t actually unrelease carbon or cancel it out, but if they want to spend their money planting trees or restoring natural lands or investing in solar or wind, then how is that bad?
No one is saying the rich should do nothing, you’re purposefully not listening to the arguments being stated here.
What’s the alternative? Uh…reduce your footprint to the best extent possible? That’s it. Really. It is impossible to not have any carbon impact. You have an impact simply by living. That’s not the problem. The problem comes with actions that are excessive in their impact.
Here’s the real issue – there is no way to meaningfully quantify carbon impact by any reliable metric. How many trees have to be planted to offset one single private jet flight from LA to New York? What is the carbon impact of the electricity you use? What type of program would offset them?
The other problem is that most “offset” projects don’t actually “offset” anything. or example, there was a case where the Vatican bought a ton of offsets that they were told would go towards the building of a wind turbine farm. The problem was that the turbine farm was already being funded via government grants and private investment. Meaning, the farm was going to be built ANYWAY – regardless of whether the Vatican invested or not. That means nothing got “offset” – the credits were just a subsidy.
I’d encourage you to take your own time to get educated on why the idea of “offsetting” is a scam that mostly preys on wealthy people who want to salve their own consciences about their “green” status. They would be better served by simply 1.) committing to reduce their impact as much as possible and 2.) putting money towards green causes that they care about. No “offsetting” required. See how that works?
It’s harder for big corporations, I agree, and I don’t know enough about how they function to have any ideas about what could be done to change things.
As for rich people, there is so much that they can do. Their very lifestyles are incompatible with being environmentally friendly. Huge homes with heating/aircon and electricity consumption, pools, cars, private jets, buying so much stuff. Making a difference to the environment means taking a good look at what we use and thinking about whether or not we really need to.
Looking at what we can all do personally to reduce our footprint, does make you look at the larger corporations though. In a capitalist environment, where it’s all about selling and profit, how can the two ever really be compatible? We live by consumerism, and for so many, it’s all about what you have or how to make more money. It’s going to be very difficult to truly change that mentality.
@SamThePink – did you read the Archewell statement? Because you said this: “What’s the alternative? Uh…reduce your footprint to the best extent possible?”
And that’s exactly what they say they are going to do in the Archewell statement – they are going to try to reduce their carbon footprint as much as possible and then offset their carbon usage. So while we can debate the value and importance of the latter, by no means does it sound like that’s all H&M are going to do, they’re going to take steps FIRST to reduce their output. So basically exactly what people in this thread are arguing they should do.
OriginalLaLa and SamthePink, But Archewell *is*going to reduce their carbon footprint. I said that. And I get that carbon offsetting doesn’t actually offset carbon, I also said that. But once you’ve reduced your footprint as much as possible, then what? What is the alternative to what we currently call carbon offsetting? It sounds like there really isn’t an alternative because you can’t take back the carbon you’ve emitted, so I’m saying planting trees and such is better than not planting trees and such and if people want to do that, then how is that bad?
It sort of sounded like you were totally against the idea of carbon offsetting because it’s a scam, but once you have actually reduced as much as you can, is carbon offsetting a scam that actually hurts anyone? That’s sort of what I’m saying. You implied that carbon offsetting does nothing, and if it does nothing, then that means people shouldn’t do it, so I’m asking what is the better alternative for *after* someone has reduced their carbon emissions by as much as possible? Is there one?
Amy, again, you are asking us to educate you. You can literally google this OR start with any large environmental org (Greenpeace has done a lot on this) to see WHY carbon offsetting is a lousy practice and generally does nothing for the environment. I cited you a major example – because usually, it goes towards projects that are already in process, which defeats the purpose.
The better alternative after somebody has already reduced their emissions as much as possible? Donate to already established, effective environmental programs. There. That’s your answer (which I already gave above once). But I suspect this is more about stanning for two people you’ve never met more than actually learning why this practice is problematic.
I guess I would consider donating money to an environmental fund or charity as a type of carbon offset, though. Perhaps the definition of what counts as a carbon offset needs to be better defined. Is it only when you work with a specific carbon offset company? Because depending on the company and their policies and practices, that could be when you’re donating money to a wind farm that would have been built anyways. It seems like a lot of it depends on who you’re working with and how accurately they’re measuring what the effect of your carbon offset would be. Basically how honest the company is.
When I was reading about carbon offsets, it mentioned that there were many, many ways it can be done, either through one of the many different companies that exist for that specific purpose, or on your own by paying money directly towards carbon-reducing or carbon-eliminating programs. If one of the things you can do as a carbon offset is to reclaim forest land or wetlands, then donating directly to a foundation that does that would count as carbon offsets, which sounds like what you were saying about donating to an existing environmental charity or foundation.
Maybe the problem we’re having understanding each other is due to the fact that “carbon offset” seems to have such a vague definition. What I think you are talking more about is giving a carbon offset company a certain amount of money (or even just buying a “carbon neutral plane ticket” where the price of the offset is included in the ticket price) and then trusting that the company will make good, actually helpful, non-redundant contributions, and I think you’re saying that sometimes they don’t. And I was maybe being broader with the definition of carbon offsetting to include donating to environmental charities to plant trees or save the rainforest or paying the balance directly for a new wind farm to go up somewhere in place of a coal plant, paying for a government housing project to replace outdated appliances with cleaner burning stoves and more efficient furnaces and water heaters. Those sound like the type of projects I could see Archewell partnering with people to make happen, and I was considering that as an option for carbon offsetting.
I’m actually happy to see how many people here are questioning this statement from Harry & Meghan, including people I know are die hard Sussex stans. When I clicked on this article, I was preparing myself for loads of comments trying to justify the Sussex’s words.
It’s good that they’re going to look into what can be done to cut back. The offsetting on whatever remains is better than nothing, but like so many businesses, this is only words.
It doesn’t seem like that many people are really willing to make enough sacrifices. Like William planning to fly to the US for Earthshot, does Harry really need to fly to New York? Everything can be done via video link these days. Sure it’s fun to show up in person. We all love the photos to pick apart, but it’s not a necessary thing.
How many other companies around the world are still sending people on business trips that aren’t actually needed?
Imagine the savings if people like both William & Harry didn’t take these trips. Not just their flight, but all the staff that go with them, and the transport for those people are the other end.
As for personally cutting back, it’s hard to imagine wealthy people, who are used to luxuries like pools in their huge properties, and the ability to buy whatever they want, really ever cutting back to the same level as everyone else.
Change is hard and nobody likes giving up their luxuries and comforts, but when you live with so much luxury, I guess it’s a longer way to climb back down that ladder. If we all live in properties which are only the size we need, and drive cars that are environmentally friendly, rather than status symbols, we would also be working towards equality too, but when you’re on top, how much do you really want to see equality happen? Humans are also competitive by nature and the western world especially has been indoctrinated into measuring self worth by wealth and property.
Carbon offsetting is not a scam. It’s just not a silver bullet. It can work if you find the right companies to partner with and use it as part of a package of solutions, which sounds like what the Sussexes plan to do.
Uh, I will take the word of major environmental organizations like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth (UK), etc., over your statement. It takes a few minutes to look them up and figure out what they are saying, but whatever.
@Sam the Pink, you seem hellbent on discrediting any other opinion that doesn’t align with your narrative. Apart from the organization you already mentioned, there are numerous others on the internet that state that what Archewell Foundation are committing to doing and achieving by 2030 is a good way of “carbon offsetting”. Maybe instead of attacking every poster that is not bashing the Sussexes, maybe you can take your own advice and google and see how what AF is wanting to do can be a good thing, you know? “[But I suspect this is more about BASHING two people (or anything Sussex) you’ve never met more than actually learning why this practice can really be useful]”
I love the knowledge in the comments here. Thank you for explaining it Sam, and everyone else. I was really not aware and had always taken it at face value even though it seemed a little too good to be true
It IS too good to be true! Basically, it’s a company saying “Give us money and your pollution goes away!” Pollution cannot be offset, which is the problem. By sending that message, people can think that reducing their own impact is less important – when its the most critical thing we can do. I applaud them for committing to reducing their impact (though as wealthy people, they will always have a higher impact that you or I). I just wish they did not promote the offsetting idea.
I’m glad you brought this up for what it’s worth- Look, we all love H&M here but unfortunately if they think “carbon offsets” are doing anything to offset their mansion, cars, or PJ flights, they are mistaken.
That being said, it sounds like they will be taking some more concrete steps and those could be much more effective.
Yup. Triple offsets needs to be the minimum in terms of claiming credits for emissions. There also needs to be a going back to companies who used offset schemes that turn out to be actually bad for global warming (see biofuels) and forcing them to find new offsets for the stuff that didn’t do any good. More shaming, please.
But it is still better than doing absolutely nothing.
No, I don’t think this has ANYTHING to do with granny. They’re not reactionary like that. I’m sure the statement was already planned to coincide with the conference so they could be a part of the conversation.
Yeah, I don’t think this is something they could have come up with in one day. Harry and Meghan are known for doing their research. This is something that was probably in the works for a while and released during the conference.
I agree. I do think the timing does kind of look like that, but I think this was planned a while ago to be announced this week.
Agree. This has nothing to do with not being mentioned. This is a classic PR move – news jacking. You always want to pitch your product and organization when a related topic is in the news. It’s how you make sure your item gets traction. I do not believe for a minute the Sussexes are doing this because of any personal animus. They just have a savvy PR team. This is no different than Jeff Bezos (and a hundred other companies) making a pledge at the same time.
I agree. I’m sure they had it planned to coincide with COP26 and if they are serious about making this change it’s not something they can just come up with overnight.
COP26 is a major event that has nothing to do with royals. I am sure their announcement is in line with the UNFCCC’s Race to Zero campaign.
Meh, the media already involved him in their news cycle by being smug about Liz not mentioning him, so why not? I think it would look stranger if they did this in a week cause the cop26 is happening now
For real. The queen gives an important speech about climate change and the BM is racing to make sure they put Harry in the headline and he didn’t even attend.
If his name is going to continue to be mentioned in every COP26 Royal article, then he might as well give the press something to tack onto that mention. It’s about Harry and Meghan and Archewell, it relates to climate change and the summit, so it will be a nice little aside that reporters can include in the articles they will already be writing about those things. Even if it’s just “the Queen snubbed grandson Harry—whose foundation Archewell has committed to being carbon neutral by 2030–in her COP26 speech Monday.”
Its never a good idea to play into the unhinged BMs games. This will garner a dozen write ups at the Daily Fail. Sadly!
@Noki, though, no matter what the Sussexes do, the Daily Fail, other British tabloids and haters will hate on them. We all know that by now and so do they. That’s why I believe M&H have decided to simply live their lives and do what moves them. I don’t believe M&H are reacting to the speech by QE-II, nor to the DF tabloid article. M&H were likely poised to make this announcement to coincide with this environmental conference.
Fair enough that some think M&H are reacting to the Queen’s speech. I just don’t think that’s the case. Harry left. He still loves and talks to his grandmother, and we know he’s still close to Eugenie, and perhaps he’s still in touch with some of his other cousins. But Harry understood, better than we ever could, the consequences of the choices he’s made to protect his core family. I doubt Harry is looking for public praise from his grandmother when he for sure knows she didn’t write the speech herself.
Harry is no longer a senior working royal. M&H are now power players on the world stage. Harry doesn’t need and surely doesn’t expect public recognition and praise from anyone in the royal family. I’m sure some aspects of separating himself from the firm’s toxicity has been emotionally painful for Harry. But Harry is an independent free-agent now. Surely he breathes a sigh of relief every day that he’s no longer trapped and scapegoated within the firm.
Given the orgs listed here that they are going to be working with I dont believe this is something that could be pulled together in less than 24 hours. I do think this was something they were already planning to do. As far as timing: did they always plan to announce it during the conference or decide to pull the trigger early? I have no idea but I very highly doubt that Harry pushed his staff to create something like this on short notice out of thin air because of a snub when he has literally been snubbed repeatedly(and very publcily) nonstop for like two years now.
Exactly. The Sussex’s don’t make moves based on what the royals are doing. It’s insulting to make that assumption.
This is such a weird take considering Harry has company’s that’s are involved in conservation, travel, and environmentalism.
It didn’t even cross my mind that they were trying to step on the news cycle because lots of companies make pledges like this. My company made a pledge around the time of the last conference.
I think it’s admirable! They clearly don’t care what the BM will say about them as they will travel backs and forth to other countries(some necessary by private jet if they have a team) so they just continue to do what they do.
They were also following up with leaders about vaccine equity so was that them stepping on Charles news cycle?.
If this was vice versa no one would complain another Charles trying to step on Harry and Meghans news cycle. Probably not because no one cares. They are just adding their pledge and I’m sure others will do the same just cause it’s what people are talking about right now. Kinda like when BLM marches were going on and companies were making pledges to support black education, business, etc.
Also his grandma mentioned heirs I don’t see it as a snub. And if people do that doesn’t make her look good at all.
Not everything has to be a controversy/game. Sometimes people are just trying do good and in Harry and Meghan’s case I believe that to be true.
Harry have done more than all of them,except charles, for the environment.
The Queen not mentioning Harry is an intentional passive aggressive move on the part of whomever oversees her speeches. It’s true they didn’t take the high road here, but, honestly, I’m ok with leaders being human. Perfectionism is not a trait of good leadership. We can certainly constructively critique them and say it would have been better if they had timed the announcement differently, but, I interpreted it as a message to push back against the clear cruelty behind not mentioning Harry’s name. It was a middle finger for sure and that’s unprofessional, but sometimes it’s humanizing to flip a bird.
What are you talking about? She was only mentioning her heirs in that speech, none of the other family. It had nothing to do with Harry.
As others have said, the partners they are working with make it so this announcement could not have been pulled together in 24 hours.
I think they could improve some of their goals in terms of environmental concerns but I’ll wait to see the long-term plans to criticize, I think it could be good. Like Thirtynine said below, they’re actually laying out what they’re going to do and it invites accountability.
Correct. She didn’t mention Princess Anne either so let’s not read too much into it. Charles and William were 1. present at the event and 2. are her direct heirs. That’s the beginning and the end of it. Not everything is about H&M.
Youve already come to the conclusion that “they could improve some of their goals…” but at the same time, youre gonna “wait and see the …. plans.” Ok. Got it.
@Slippers: You’re reading too much into this. Harry’s not a working member of the family so why would he be mentioned by the Queen? This is a woman who refused to have him be involved in Remembrance Day.
I disagree. People who are actually keeping up with COP26 (so not royal watchers) are not paying attention to what the royals are saying or doing but rather world leaders. It may seem like the royals are huge news but that’s because we’re reading gossip articles about them. So beyond a small group of people, people who hear this aren’t going to go “Oh it’s the Sussexes being petty”. They’ll either go “great. good timing with COP26” or shrug their shoulders.
As for the pledge itself, I’ll give them credit for trying and working with organisations to try and achieve that goal but considering they use private jets and all (for whatever reason including security), it can very easily not work out for them as they’re held to a much higher standard than the rest of the royals (which isn’t their fault but it is what it is) despite the rest of the royals (including Charles) pledging to save the environment yet still using private jets and helicopters (while the media doesn’t call it out).
Edit: I feel like I haven’t worded my last paragraph well enough so I apologise but hopefully you get the gist of it.
I was looking at the pictures Biden’s team posted on IG under the official account and as of last night there was not a single picture of him with the royals (although I think Clarence House did post a picture of him with Charles.) To me that says a lot about how world leaders view the royals at this type of event. I’m not saying Biden hates Charles, I’m just saying that he didn’t go to glasgow to talk to him.
Yes, I posted something like this under a different story. If the summit had been held in a different country, the royals wouldn’t have been there at all – they were playing host because it was in the UK. When people mention the RF, nobody immediately thinks “environmentalists.”
Sofia, all of them use private jets and helicoptar,, the british royal family as a whole, plus all the huge investors and environmental attivists like, Leonardo di capri, Bill gate ,has a company that rent private jet and helicoptar, yet they spend billions on helping the environment..i believe that in our collective efforts we will be able to achieve more, recycling of plastics, no wasting of food and water, stop Bush burning, planting trees, keeping the ocean clean etc, let us not only concentrate on the rich people.
I didn’t deny the royals use private jets. I mentioned that (and yesterday I criticised Charles for it). And while we can all do our part, the reality is that the average celebrity who uses private jets has a much higher carbon footprint than you and me and no matter how much we recycle, unless MANY celebrities and royals change their lifestyles, it’s not going to do much in the grand scheme of things (but ofc we should still recycle and all)
Naaaaahhh the Sussexes are NOT thirsty. I mean they’ve been in the news with big announcements lately, they don’t need to remind us of thier existence. I think this announcement has always been planned for a day after Scotland commenced
The statement came out at the conclusion of COP26. That was the right time to do it. They didn’t overshadow William and Charles as they’ve been constantly accused of doing. I have difficulty believing Harry expected his grandmother to mention him in a speech which was not written by her. He knows being out of the family meant that he would be ostracized.
While at COP26, did C &W pledge to reduce the Firm’s carbon footprint by 2030? It would have been the perfect way to avoid the accusations of hypocrisy being levelled at their lecture tour.
@Sure: No, they did not. It would have been great if they did.
It would also have put an uncomfortable spotlight on the Queen’s lobbying for special exemptions for the royal households from country-wide energy-saving standards. You’d be surprised by how much she’s gotten away with by keeping these lobbying efforts secret.
COP26 goes until November 12th, it’s a two week event. World leaders may be there just for the beginning but it is not concluding today.
@Amelie: Yeah but the attention is on the leaders part of the COP which was what I was focusing on. Nobody is going to pay attention this event next week.
I think it makes sense to release an environmental statement in conjunction with a major environmental conference. Its not like the conference revolved around the royals, despite what the BM or the Rota wants to portray.
@MsIam: Yeah the timing was right. A week after the event would have been too late. The world would have moved on by then.
I like the way they are very specific in what they will do. It invites accountability. I don’t get the impression that they are relying on fudging the effectiveness of their plan by utilising carbon offset, but exactly as described. When as much has been scrutinised and eliminated as possible, what is left is offset. I don’t think it’s possible to live as a human on earth without leaving some carbon footprint. But I think they’ve got high aims and good for them. They didn’t get a seat at Cop but they’re still making an impact and inspiring others, I’m sure, to do the same.
Over 400 private planes flew into in a ‘climate change’ event and bs about carbon offsets which is just like trading commodities. The entire thing is BS.
All the royals have absurd carbon footprints.
If Harry and Meghan make changes to their lives then that’s great.
And why would Betty mention non-working royal Harry? Did she mention other grand kids? Harry would not expect that.
However prince harry has been involved and a voice for climate change action, long before willy, so what are you saying?. Also he was attacked about his stance. There was no support from petty Betty, when he was a working royal, so what are you saying?, I ask again.
Hypocrisy at its best.
However prince harry has been involved and a voice for climate change action, long before willy, so what are you saying?. Also he was attacked about his stance. There was no support from petty Betty, when he was a working royal, so what are you saying?, I as again.
Hypocrisy at its best.
2030 seems an awfully long time, given that Archewell is not a big organisation and i agree with those above that say that carbon offset is nothing but green washing, it allows the rich to keep their privileged lifestyles and throw money at “removing carbon”, there has been countless studies that decry the validity of these supposed solution , the only way to be green is not emit carbon.
i dont know how i feel about this, and i wonder really how useful celebrities ( and royals) are when it comes to this topic in particular. Is anyone looking at them for guidance or inspiration, given how wasteful and expensive their lives are in general ? In order to get global warming under control will require sacrifice, and nothing abt how they live their lives shows that. Greta Thunberg has done more for the environment and raising awareness than any celeb/royal and it is people like her that we need to prop up, because she is seen as a source of inspiration and she is living her life in line with her ideals.
in my own small way, i do what i can, i dont have a car ( which is the number 1 source of transport carbon emission ), i keep my waste to 1 small bag every 2 weeks, i dont buy anything wrapped in plastic , i eat very little meat/dairy, and i travel once a year by plane to see my family. Even then, it is not much, i know many people doing a lot more. Obviously our efforts alone is not going to make any difference but it goes create a very heightened sense of awareness of what is required in order for this to become reality.
This is not a dig at H&M in particular but a reflection on the usefulness of celebrity advocates.
@MrsBump: 2030 is only 9 years away. That’s not a long time and while the call is for net zero by 2030 most countries have declared that they would be net zero by 2050 others, 2060. Aren’t celebrities part of human race as well so if they want to do something why condemn them? I think I know the answer but I’ll leave it there. It would be nice if the other Royals made a similar pledge.
9 years is a very long time. there is a huge difference in 9ys for a Country to reach net zero and nine years for a small company that has just started operations.
You have misunderstood my post if you feel this is condemnation, it is accountability, because they lead lives which in terms of carbon footprints far exceeds that of many, many families, the real crux here is that the level of sacrifice that they pledge to do is nowhere near that which will be required from ordinary people.
It’s tricky because wealthy people and celebrities are the people with the loudest voices, biggest audiences, and the most reach. Climate conservation is an important message that needs to be spread and heard, so I can see why these people would want to use their large platforms to do so. What would the alternative be for who is best suited to spread the message without seeming hypocritical? People who live off the grid or have extremely tiny carbon footprints? I feel like those are more “normal people” who might be able to get an article written about them in the features section of their local paper, but because they’re not popular celebrities or already well known names (like wealthy business leaders), 1) the media is less likely to give them a platform and 2) people are less likely to listen to them because they’re not invested in or already familiar with that person, which is such an annoying problem.
Why can’t we listen to experts? Why do we only give the people who already have the largest platforms a platform? Why are we more willing to listen to someone like Leo DiCaprio talk whose expertise is in a totally different field (Hollywood movie making)? Wouldn’t we get better information from someone who was actually an expert in the science of global warming and carbon emissions? But we don’t listen to those people, so the celebrities who do care about the earth use their platforms to amplify those expert’s ideas. And then we’re back to receiving the message from people that we feel are actually causing the problem, and the conversation becomes all about how we’re not contributing to global warming nearly as much as they are, so we don’t want to hear their hypocritical lecture. But we won’t listen to the non-hypocrites because we don’t know who they are and we don’t care about them, and the cycle continues.
@Amy Too, i fully agree with most of the second part of your post. However i feel like when it comes to carbon footprint, no one is really paying attention to what celebrities are saying. This subject has gained enough traction over the past 3-5 years that it doesnt need celebrity endorsement ( who today is listening to Leo on this matter??), and if anything, celebrity endorsement is counter productive in this particular instance, because the messaging ( certainly from climate deniers) is immediately highjacked by how incongruent their lives are with what they are preaching.
@Mrs. Bump: Nine years is not a lot of time. Human beings whether ordinary or celebrity should not be required to do more, it’s for the Government, the corporations and billionaires to shoulder the burden as they are ones who have caused the problem. They are the ones you should be calling for accountability not celebrities but if the celebrities want to do something then that’s great. That’s all.
Nine years is the deadline @MrsBump. They could achieve it next year or the year after who knows? I think you are being nitpicky about that. Also I agree with you @Amy Bee when you say ite the governments and corporations that are the real targets on this but if individuals start making and demanding changes it puts more pressure on them to follow suit.
It is not only government and cooperations that need to adapt, but regular people like you and me, who live in privileged first world countries. The time to offset responsability to others is past. I am talking about celebrities here, because they have chosen to involve themselves in this conversation, and the public pledges are being made not only to show their awareness but as a PR move to publicise their green credentials, as such criticism of their actions is not nitpicking but warranted. To me this is no different to public pressure to wear a mask or get vaccinated, we are all accountable but those with a higher footprint are more accountable than others.
You are nitpicky because the Sussexes and Archewell just said what they planned to do and set a timetable. They’re putting their names on the line and asking to be held accountable. What is it you want from them exactly? Announce that they are selling their home and moving into a trailer? Just like you mentioned what you are doing to be green I’m sure they are doing the same in addition to lobbying government and corporations for changes.
Sorry but this is a classic strawman argument, nobody is expecting them to go live in a trailer, however when 1/2 of the Archewell leadership proclaims himself to be an environmental activist, then much more than a 9 year timeline is expected.
I don’t know how much you take climate change and the actions required seriously but i do hope you are not so easily hoodwinked.
Well with all do respect, petty Betty would have sounded better if she pledged net zero by 2130. Instead she chose to be petty.. what are the palaces going to do, primp, and do sound bites?.
What are Betty, Charlie, and willy going to pledge, and be held accountable for?. Shut down Palaces when not in use?. Take fewer vacations, put in solar panels, give up their helicopters, or what?. Instead they pet EACH OTHER ON THE BACK. Just pathetic.
When William had those high hedges planted specifically so that the public couldn’t see who was using the helicopter and when, he probably convinced himself that the planting of the hedges offset the helicopter use.
The partnership with the two environmental orgs mentioned couldn’t have been dreamed up over night. This was clearly something they had been planning. There were many announcements made by many individuals/companies. The news cycle doesn’t belong to the royals. Nor are the Sussexes obliged to coordinate with them. The BRF has the full force of UK media to prop them up. All the Sussexes did was post on their website. How long are they supposed to wait. There was an announcement today that Harry is going to be doing a panel on the same day as Meghan. The Sussexes clearly don’t worry about all that BS overshadowing/news cycle stuff when it comes to each other. They know the work will speak for itself. This only comes up with the BRF because so much of what they do is about PR. At this point Harry is not expecting public support from the Queen. His work is respected by the people he works with and that carries more weight than being namechecked by the Queen. The Sussexes have events next week and Remembrance Sunday is upcoming. The timing was right for the occasion/event. As others have pointed out most of the media attention surrounding COP26 isn’t about anything related to the royals so they don’t have priority on the news cycle.
As already pointed out, Harry and Meghan are making a personal commitment, and obviously required planning and consultation beforehand. What exactly are the other royals doing as their own little bit to help? William could try to encourage the implementation of some of the ideas of the Earthshot winners in the UK where it is applicable. That would give them more publicity and effectiveness. Why isn’t William doing a tour “selling” their ideas? It would still give him the publicity and increase his “climate change profile.”
This.
It’s the equivalent of someone saying I’ll start healthy eating in a decade, but why not start now?
One does not see the RESULTS of a a SUSTAINED program the day after you start. Jesus Christ.
Thank you. Common sense seems to have escaped some folks especially if it concerns the Sussexes.
Also, I love the point that some commenters made about the the fact that the BM made Harry part of the news cycle by emphasizing that the Queen didn’t mention him. And before COP26 began there were article about the Sussexes not being there. So why would there be an expectation that the Sussexes would adhere to some arbitrary rule about when they can announce something when the BM drops their names to be shady. I actually think they should be grateful the Sussexes didn’t post on the first day.
Maybe I am just too pro-Sussex, but this does feel well strategized. They are lending their approval and support to the conference and by extension their “family”…something that the Windsors NEVER did for them. The only reason it seems like they are trying to one-up them is that they are defining clear actions to be held accountable for, not just saying how great going green is.
This is it exactly.
I dont think the average person understands the concepts: strategy; intentionality; and compassion as a business value. These are some of what define the Sussexes & Archewell.
Anyhoooo……we’ll all see the unfolding….
COP26 was a complete waste of time and money. Nobody takes seriously these “world leaders” and “working royals” when it comes to the environment, especially when they all arrive in jets , yachts and helicopters.
They should’ve done cop26 on zoom, therefore not polluting said environment with their jets, yachts and helicopters.
It did seem like a lot of patting each other on the back
To my way of thinking the only thing that should count as a carbon offset is the construction of NEW renewable energy production. If Archewell builds a bunch of solar and wind farms I’ll be delighted. I give them credit for lining up transparent audits by outside groups. We’ll see what actions are taken as a result.
Unfortunately, every flight taken is a choice to pollute. There are ZERO sustainable forms of air travel. Cleaning up SOME of the damage after the fact with offsets is still a net harm. Every single flight causes damage that will last beyond our lifetime. Frequent Flyer Miles should be a badge of shame. The aviation and tourism trades have just as much to answer for as the logging and agriculture industries.
Reality check here: global travel is gonna increase, not decrease. Countries around the world for which tourism is their #1 revenue earner, are counting on that. And the industry is gunning for that.
That’s why H, as an environmentalist (wth more than enough bona fides to back this up) spearheaded the formation of Travalyst. That’s why Google recently signed on as a major partner
Know-nothings will always squeak loudly.
Reality check for you: we need to start taking actions to decrease air travel WHEREVER possible by promoting more sustainable initiatives like trains or electrical cars.
Climate action will require sacrifice. Today only 1% of the population can afford to fly, let that sit with you for a moment.
Yeah, our sussexes stumbled here. They should have waited a whiiiile.
I think it was an appropriate time to coincide with COP26. Otherwise, the announcement would not relate to anything and seem to come out of nowhere.
I am not against what they the Sussexes are saying they plan to do-they are simply stating their plan of action of helping the environment-the queen did not need to mention Harry’s name-he is no longer a working royal and he lives in California-I really don’t think he’s worrying about being mentioned-this is the Sussex family’s way of doing something to help by their actions-Plain and simple-I hope his travelyst business takes off-this could really help with air travel-Continued blessings Sussex family.
Why wait till 2030? Why not net zero, now?
I’m sure the plan must have been in the works, you can’t make that kind of pledge out of nowhere.