There’s nothing new about the idea that environmentalism can, in some of its forms, be a kind of religion. Indeed, I wrote just that back in . . . 2008. And climate fundamentalism is one of those forms, characterized as it is, among other peculiarities, by millenarian hysteria, iconoclasm and, of course, pointless asceticism.
And so, climate fundamentalists want to control (among many other things) what we drive, what we fly, what we eat, what our pets eat, and what we wear.
What we wear?
Zahra Hirji, writing in (of course) Bloomberg in August:
A small, simple and cheap way to prevent some future climate pollution is to wear the clothes already in your closet roughly twice as many times as you might have otherwise before tossing them.
People doing so could reduce the related emissions impact of clothing by 44%, according to a 2017 report from the charity Ellen MacArthur Foundation, later echoed by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Here’s why: Wearing the stuff you already own likely means that you will buy less in the future, thus preventing the greenhouse gas emissions generated during the production of new items.
If you’re someone who wears clothes until they fall apart, ripped and ragged [Full disclosure: I am one of those people], this hot climate tip is not for you. But skyrocketing clothing sales suggest many people worldwide are buying more than they used to just a couple decades ago — and also buying more than they can really use.
“The way that the sales were growing, people were starting to own more and more clothes,” said Laura Balmond, Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s Fashion Initiative lead.
The horror.
It’s no secret that the fashion industry has a pollution problem. Big fashion accounts for 2% to 8% of global carbon emissions…
“Big Fashion”.
Well, an annoying British prince (no, not that one) wants to put a stop to the plebs having “too many” clothes.
Kara Kennedy, writing in The Spectator:
At the recent Earthshot Awards in Boston, Catherine, Princess of Wales, wore a bright-green, rented Solace London dress. For the record, the dress was wonderful. Stylish, modern, and in no way an extension of the green carpet that was rolled out for the ceremony. Ahem. The Princess of Wales accompanied the rented dress with Diana’s famous emerald choker, and looked more princessey than ever. The problem wasn’t the dress – which she rented at a price of £74 a night — it was the message.
In fairness, Catherine was following the rules. All attendees of the Earthshot Awards were asked not to wear new clothing for the sake of sustainability. But a move that was no doubt supposed to present the princess as relatable has instead made her seem out of touch.
The Earthshot Prize (five are awarded each year) was established a year or two ago by TV naturalist David Attenborough and Prince William. It’s awarded for contributions to “repair[ing] our planet”.
Officially launching the prize, Prince William said he felt it was “my job and my responsibility” as the planet reached “tipping point” , and the next decade was “crucial”…
The Earthshot Prize is really about harnessing that optimism and that urgency to find solutions to some of the world’s greatest environmental problems. We believe this decade is one of the most crucial decades for the environment [..] We must have some hope, we must have some optimism, because if we don’t it is all too much, it is very apocalyptic about things. These are grave times for the environment. But I do believe in human ingenuity, and I do believe in the younger generations speaking up as they are now, that they will not stand for this lack of hope.
“It is very apocalyptic about things”.
Anyway, back to Kara Kennedy:
From King Charles III lecturing us about littering to Prince William scaremongering over ‘how long we have left to change’, the monarchy rambling about environmentalism has to be one of the most grating features of public life – and the one that opens up the royals to the most scrutiny.
As it should. The royal family are ‘living flags’, nothing more (other than in some very limited circumstances). Their job is to be symbols, nothing more. Above all, they should keep clear of expressing views that are even remotely political. The late (and much-missed) Queen understood this. Prince King Charles never has, and William seems set to follow his father’s dismal example. Whatever you think about it, environmentalism is, these days, profoundly political. No matter. William has his “job” to do.
Kennedy:
It’s patronising to suggest that, at a time when many are having to choose between full tummies and turning on the heat, the environment is the most pressing issue.
Call me old-fashioned, but if I’m forking out close to £100 for clothing, I’d like for it to stick around for longer than three days. Are we evil, greedy capitalists for wanting to own things? Eco-activism is a privileged worldview…
Indeed it is.
Kennedy:
It’s not just the royals who are virtue-signalling. Boris Johnson’s wife, Carrie, was once branded the ‘first wife of sustainability’ by one publication because she’d rented a few outfits, including her wedding dress. The couple’s wedding party, which was held in a country retreat, saw guests feast on ‘eco-friendly street food’, whatever that is.
Oh dear.