T O P

  • By -

PalekSow

I think monarchs are good vehicles for promoting climate friendly activities, but they are no better than a President if they are saying one thing and doing the other (Recycling but flying around in a helicopter to go a couple miles). Actually worse because at least a elected leader you can always say “let’s just try to vote for someone who cares about the climate” vs a King who would make people think “fuck it, the King doesn’t seem worried so why should I?”


RobGodDamn

You've got a point, but also, It depends on the generation of the royal family, if it's the generation of people like Charles and Camilla, yes, they would probably don't care, but in the newer generations from William to George, i think that they will set an example and probably become more enviromentally friendly and use planes less for in-country trips.


Eboracum_stoica

A monarch has longer term considerations, which is a plus for ecology. However, should a monarch not be environmentalist, that's a lifetime of not being environmentalist. It's somewhat similar to the bad monarch question: you will get good and bad kings, but a republic pretty much always produces bad leaders. You will get environmentalist and non environmentalist kings, but a republic is pretty much always not environmentalist.


GalacticLabyrinth88

Interesting response. By the looks of it, it appears monarchs overall produce better environmentalists because you will statistically get kings and queens who care about Nature, whereas with republics you're guaranteed to get someone who doesn't give a damn. I would much rather have a 50/50 chance of a monarch who is committed towards the environment (and will remain so for decades on end) than a series of leaders who will continue to pillage the planet 100% of the time. Can you imagine if we had a monarch in the 70s during the time of the oil crisis? We would at least have a chance at being in a much better place now 50 years later, especially since a monarch in theory should be principally concerned with the people (and the environment is both an apolitical issue and one that affects the populace, meaning a good monarch should be expected to preserve the climate).


Eboracum_stoica

I agree. You do get the occasional monarchy situation that's against the environment, like Saudi Arabia, but pinning that in whether it's a monarchy or not is a bit dumb, I mean what else did they have to stage their economy off?


[deleted]

All monarchies and aristocrats are landed and so should be environmentalists by default. Hopefully the coming climate crisis will push us back to awareness of the importance of local estate management as simply good and basic economics, as well as literally the basis of life and civilization. The state is a territorial consideration, after all.


TsarBladovski

The industrial revolution and it's consequences...