Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Harry hypocrisy

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Harry hypocrisy

Old 23rd Aug 2021, 11:44
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 447
Harry hypocrisy

Here he is again, telling us all how vital it is that we cut our own travel and emissions to save the planet, but he's somehow different and can carry on taking private jets just as it suits him.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...polo-trip.html

Prince Harry has landed in Santa Barbara after taking his millionaire friend's private jet home just months after lecturing about climate change.

The campaigning royal, 36, boarded the 20-seater £45million plane from a polo match in Aspen, Colorado, to his home in Santa Barbara, California, on Thursday.

He took the two-hour flight, which could have emitted as much as ten tonnes of CO2, shortly after he was pictured on horseback at the polo.


I mentioned this sickening hypocrisy before almost 2 years ago in October 2019:

Remind me of the dictionary definition of hypocrisy.

Remind me of the dictionary definition of hypocrisy
That would be HRH The Duke of Sussex lecturing us on the 'terrifying' effects of climate change, whilst using private jets to whizz him about the planet.
pilotmike is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2021, 11:52
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 57
Posts: 3,236
Perhaps he's well aware that aviation is a very minor contributor to global CO2 emissions and like the rest of us would wish the green lobby to shut up about it and concentrate on the real problem such as coal fired power stations and surface transport.
TURIN is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2021, 11:58
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 447
Originally Posted by TURIN View Post
Perhaps he's well aware that aviation is a very minor contributor to global CO2 emissions and like the rest of us would wish the green lobby to shut up about it and concentrate on the real problem such as coal fired power stations and surface transport.
It appears you missed the point, which was the hypocrisy of Harry lecturing us on how WE must change our ways by travelling less and by less polluting means, but then doing the complete opposite himself, just because he is.... well.... , Harry!

It wasn't a judgement of the merits of air travel by various means, per se. Rather the sickening hypocrisy of being lectured by him about carbon emissions and how WE must be the ones to take action, not him.

Oh! And hoping we'll believe him when he assured us previously:
When asked about his own use of private jets, Harry said: “I came here by commercial. I spend 99 per cent of my life travelling the world by commercial.
pilotmike is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2021, 12:01
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 57
Posts: 3,236
Is he telling us all to fly less? Its a Daily Heil article which I flatly refuse to read so having done a quick Google search I haven't found anything from him specifically saying that.
TURIN is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2021, 12:14
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 447
OK, Turin, I'll have to help you.. Do your reading standards and limits allow you to consider articles from The Independent?https://www.independent.co.uk/climat...-b1906737.html

In May, the duke warned that mental health and climate change were linked and told Oprah Winfrey: “I know lots of people out there are doing as best they can to try and fix these issues, but that whole sort of analogy of walking into the bathroom with a mop when the bath is over-flooding, rather than just turning the tap off.

“Are we supposed to accept that these problems are just going to grow and grow and grow, and then we’re going to have to adapt to them and build resilience amongst the next generation and the next generation and the next generation?

“Or is there really a moment, a reckoning moment, post-Covid, where we can actually look at each other, look at ourselves and go, ‘We need to do better about stopping or allowing the things that are causing so much harm to so many of us at the source, rather than being distracted by the symptom.”
That seems a fairly convincing lecture from him about how we must stop climate change "at the source", which obviously covers carbon footprint from flying. But obviously it doesn't appear to extend to his private use of private jets for his own personal convenience, for which different rules seem to apply.

In his own words "We need to do better about stopping or allowing the things that are causing so much harm to so many of us at the source", but its more a sort of 'them but not me' requirement for changes that are needed.

Glad I could help you find it.
pilotmike is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2021, 12:39
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lemonia. Best Greek in the world
Posts: 1,733
Poor lad just has not had a real life.

Sue Townsend and "The Queen and I" comes to mind.

Put him n Meghan in a 3 bed semi in Stockton on Tees.?
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2021, 12:52
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Nah - Just ignore him now.
He is an irrelevance.
Spunky Monkey is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2021, 14:07
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 454
Originally Posted by Spunky Monkey View Post
Nah - Just ignore him now.
He is an irrelevance.
Get the Daily Mail to ignore him. That would be a big help.
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2021, 14:07
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Kristiansand
Posts: 51
Probably learnt his hypocrisy from his father. Charlie has the choice of a fleet of cars but tells us all to ‘save the planet’ and is laughingly president of the WWF whose mission statement is:

“our belief in the importance of safeguarding the natural world so that future generations can thrive.“

But doesn’t have a problem with blasting wild animals with a shotgun for ‘sport’

https://www.wwf.org.uk/who-we-are/ou...prince-charles


annakm is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2021, 15:33
  #10 (permalink)  

PPRuNe Handmaiden
 
Join Date: Feb 1997
Location: Duit On Mon Dei
Posts: 4,468
Could have emitted 10 tonnes of CO2? If he was flying what I think he was flying (G550, the max fuel load is about 20 tonnes, so I doubt it could have emitted 10 tonnes of CO2 in 2 hours.
redsnail is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2021, 15:45
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 61
Posts: 969
Redsnail
I think the amount is immaterial, it is the do as I say not as I do that really gets to people.
Cheers
Mr Mac
Mr Mac is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2021, 16:00
  #12 (permalink)  

PPRuNe Handmaiden
 
Join Date: Feb 1997
Location: Duit On Mon Dei
Posts: 4,468
Fair enough, but I'd happily jump into a G550 versus an Airbus or Boeing.
And yes, he's not the only one guilty of that...
redsnail is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2021, 16:38
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 57
Posts: 3,236
Originally Posted by pilotmike View Post
OK, Turin, I'll have to help you.. Do your reading standards and limits allow you to consider articles from The Independent?https://www.independent.co.uk/climat...-b1906737.html


That seems a fairly convincing lecture from him about how we must stop climate change "at the source", which obviously covers carbon footprint from flying. But obviously it doesn't appear to extend to his private use of private jets for his own personal convenience, for which different rules seem to apply.

In his own words "We need to do better about stopping or allowing the things that are causing so much harm to so many of us at the source", but its more a sort of 'them but not me' requirement for changes that are needed.

Glad I could help you find it.
Its a shame your debating skills aren't as good as your search skills.
Please try and debate the point instead of making condescending remarks. Play the ball etc...

So, back to the topic.
There is nothing in the Indy article you have quoted that says he is telling us we must stop flying.

I am happy to support the argument for man made climate change, the evidence seems to be solid. I vote Green whenever I can, but I still drive a car, fly (occasionally), I've got a gas boiler and I'm connected to the national grid. So, yeah I'm a hypocrite too.
What I despise is the constant prods at aviation when we all know it's contribution to global CO2 is miniscule. I suspect Harry is educated enough to know this too.
I am also no fan of the royals, they're an anachronism as far as I'm concerned.
However, my disdain for the royals is nothing compared to my hatred of click bait 'news' articles with an agenda. Especially hypocritical hack rags like the Wail!
TURIN is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2021, 18:54
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 23,412
It looks like gob on a stick and her pet husband are about to get a taste of their own medicine.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...ex-memoir-book
NutLoose is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2021, 19:08
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,322
Originally Posted by redsnail View Post
Could have emitted 10 tonnes of CO2? If he was flying what I think he was flying (G550, the max fuel load is about 20 tonnes, so I doubt it could have emitted 10 tonnes of CO2 in 2 hours.
Most sources online have that burning a unit mass of fuel produces just over three times that mass of CO2….so I guess if the burn for the two’ish hour sector was around three tonnes then a figure of 10 tonnes of CO2 for the whole sector sounds credible.

Just need someone to come along who can say what the burn was actually likely to have been.


wiggy is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2021, 19:33
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Station 42
Age: 67
Posts: 961
He's changed from being a likeable young man into a complete a*se in my opinion. The polar opposite to Prince William (and the ultra-refined Sophie). He's globally cheapened the royal image and sold himself out to the very media he claimed he was escaping from.
stevef is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2021, 19:50
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 454
Originally Posted by stevef View Post
He's changed from being a likeable young man into a complete a*se in my opinion. The polar opposite to Prince William (and the ultra-refined Sophie). He's globally cheapened the royal image and sold himself out to the very media he claimed he was escaping from.
I think you have that just about right.
Harry had earned a lot of respect, but has now chucked it all away. He'll never get it back.
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2021, 19:52
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: heathrow
Posts: 53
Originally Posted by TURIN View Post
So, back to the topic.
There is nothing in the Indy article you have quoted that says he is telling us we must stop flying.
True, but H&M also stated the following:
With nearly 7.7 billion people inhabiting this Earth, every choice, every footprint, every action makes a difference.
and :
we are jeopardizing this beautiful place we call home - for ourselves and for future generations. Let’s save it. Let’s do our part.

By flying private rather than commercial, Harry isn't exactly "doing his part" and wouldn't you agree that it's a tad hypocritical for him to make a choice and action doing something that creates far more emissions per person rather than opting to fly commercial after making the quoted comments?
747 jock is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2021, 20:00
  #19 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 447
Originally Posted by wiggy View Post
Most sources online have that burning a unit mass of fuel produces just over three times that mass of CO2….so I guess if the burn for the two’ish hour sector was around three tonnes then a figure of 10 tonnes of CO2 for the whole sector sounds credible.

Just need someone to come along who can say what the burn was actually likely to have been.
A G550 burning around 400 Gal(US) per hour creates around 3,750 Kg (3.7 tonnes) per hour, so around 7 tonnes on a 2 hour sector. Then of course there's the return trip.

That seems considerably worse than the same individual using a gas boiler, voting Green, driving a car, or being connected to the grid. So if he led by example and stopped using private jets, that would seem to be a whole lot more effective at achieving the goal he's challenging us all to, "where we can actually look at each other, look at ourselves and go, ‘We need to do better about stopping or allowing the things that are causing so much harm to so many of us at the source", rather than lecturing us about our own individual excesses. And a whole lot more palatable too.
pilotmike is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2021, 20:51
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 61
Posts: 969
Originally Posted by redsnail View Post
Fair enough, but I'd happily jump into a G550 versus an Airbus or Boeing.
And yes, he's not the only one guilty of that...
redsnail
I get to turn left on long haul on business, and privately, and I, and my company get charged for the privilege's. I also have access to a Gulfstream which I have used 3 times in 8 years with the business, as it always seems to be somewhere else when I need it Anyway bottom line I do not lecture about global warming from a position of privilege, (though I agree better use of resources and a smaller pop would help) and he should not either, the optics look really bad, which if he was as media savvy as he makes out I am surprised at.
Kind regards
Mr Mac
Mr Mac is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.