[The new British monarch has not earned such a title, say climate
activists from colonized nations]
[[link removed]]

STOP CALLING CHARLES THE “CLIMATE KING”  
[[link removed]]


 

Emily Atkin
September 14, 2022
Heated
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The new British monarch has not earned such a title, say climate
activists from colonized nations _

,

 

In the wake of Queen Elizabeth II’s death, a new British monarch has
risen: King Charles III, the so-called “climate king.”

“The world has a climate king,” Politico’s E&E News declared on
Friday
[[link removed]] in
an article outlining Charles’s environmental bona fides. Vox called
Charles the “climate change king
[[link removed]]”
in a worth-reading piece analyzing how the new monarch might rule. VOA
called Charles "the green king
[[link removed]]"
in a similar article, as did… Women’s Wear Daily
[[link removed]],
for some reason. And in an interview with _The Guardian_, British
environmentalist Tony Juniper called Charles III "possibly the most
significant environmental figure of all time
[[link removed]]."

These articles of praise, however, are missing something: the opinions
of climate activists from nations colonized by the British, which
happen to be the nations most harmed by climate change. (Of the 10
most climate-vulnerable nations, eight are former British colonies,
according to the Global Climate Risk Index
[[link removed]]).

So in today’s issue, we’ll hear from climate justice advocates
with ancestral ties to current and former British colonies on whether
King Charles should be considered a “climate king”—and whether
it’s possible for a “climate king” to exist at all.

We’ll also discuss the inseparable link between British colonialism
and climate change
[[link removed]], and the
tragic irony of Charles’ ascension coinciding with climate
devastation in Pakistan, a former British colony.

Let’s make one thing clear from the beginning: No one is denying
Charles’s concern for the climate. The former Prince of Wales has
been outspoken
[[link removed]] about
biodiversity loss and global warming for decades. (Check out
this _Washington Post _piece
[[link removed]] for
a run-down of his resume).

Charles’ advocacy has also included raising awareness in vulnerable
British colonies
[[link removed]] in
the Caribbean, a feat for which TAMARA TOLES O'LAUGHLIN
[[link removed]],
president of the Environmental Grantmakers Association
[[link removed]], gives him props.

“[Charles] has successfully made issues of conservation, adaptation
and mitigation in the U.K. and it’s colonialist territories a focal
point,” she said. “This includes investing his time, his
ceremonial power and convening capacity to draw attention to
environment.”

But Charles has never acknowledged the monarchy’s full
responsibility for the climate crisis. Asked by the BBC last year
[[link removed]] if the U.K.
was doing enough to combat climate change, he replied:  "I
couldn't possibly comment." And while Charles has acknowledged the
general injustice
[[link removed]] of
the monarchy’s colonial legacy, he has not connected that legacy to
growing climate injustice around the world.

Climate justice activists from colonized nations say this connection
is important, because the very institution that gives Charles a
powerful platform to speak on climate change is responsible for
creating global crisis conditions in the first place. To truly be
considered a “climate king,” they say, Charles would have to not
only acknowledge the climate harm done by the monarchy, but take steps
to repair it.

“Most of the environmental initiatives of King Charles are small
symbolic actions and pretty words, nowhere near the scale of struggle
and sacrifice that the world needs at the present moment to save us
from ecological catastrophe,” said BASAV SEN
[[link removed]],
climate policy project director at the Institute for Policy Studies
[[link removed]].
“Regardless of what King Charles may have done for the environment
in his personal capacity, he is an inheritor of the legacy of the
British monarchy and the British empire.”

And if he doesn’t reckon with that legacy, at the very least, we
should.

THE INSEPARABILITY OF COLONIZATION AND CLIMATE CRISIS

The British monarchy’s climate legacy goes far beyond its own
historical carbon emissions, explains Sen, who was born and raised in
India and whose parents are from Bangladesh:

Not only was the British empire an oppressive colonial entity, it was
also quite literally the one political power that started the
fossil-fueled Industrial Revolution, the driving force behind climate
change.

The fact that the Industrial Revolution originated in Britain is not
merely an accident of circumstances, or because of some uniquely
British inventiveness. It was, above all, attributable to the colonial
plunder of other parts of the world, which provided much of the
capital investment for the large-scale buildout of manufacturing
facilities and machinery.

In other words, the only reason the monarchy had the money to kick off
the Industrial Revolution was because it took that money from other
countries through colonization. And while that revolution continued,
and carbon started pouring into the atmosphere, the monarchy grew its
wealth, while the countries it colonized were left destabilized.

The destabilization from colonization is a big reason why today, so
many current and former British colonies do not have the resources for
mitigating, adapting to, or recovering from the effects of climate
change, advocates say. The present-day apocalyptic flooding in
Pakistan
[[link removed]] is
a prime example, said KEYA CHATTERJEE
[[link removed]], executive director of U.S.
Climate Action Network [[link removed]]:

When people think of what the British took from the Indian
subcontinent, the most visible thing in people's minds is the gems.
Yes, they took gems—but they took so much more. It took a way of
living. It took a sense of harmony.

What they brought was almost constant war for multiple generations.
And that destabilized the entire region to the point where now, when
people are suffering, there aren't helicopters to go save people.
There aren’t roads to drive ambulances on. The basic infrastructure
isn't there.

Colonization, Sen said, is “also why many of these counties have to
borrow from institutions like the International Monetary Fund and
World Bank, and get stuck on a treadmill of debt.” Pakistan’s
debt currently exceeds $250 billion
[[link removed]].

Of course, there are multiple reasons for destabilization and poverty
in any country, and Chatterjee was quick to acknowledge that British
colonization cannot be completely blamed for Pakistan’s
vulnerability. But colonization “is an obvious piece that's
well-documented,” she said.

Indeed, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has explicitly
named colonialism
[[link removed]] as a
past and present driver of climate injustice. In its last report, the
international consortium of the world’s top climate scientists said
that high vulnerability
[[link removed]] is
driven by “historical and ongoing patterns of inequity such as
colonialism, especially for many Indigenous Peoples and local
communities.”

In addition, research
[[link removed]] published in the journal
PNAS in 2020 found that colonization “disrupted livelihoods,
reshaped land- and seascapes, threatened intergenerational ecological
knowledge transfer, and led to increased inequality and climate
vulnerability” on islands in the Caribbean and southwestern Indian
Ocean.

Parading stolen wealth while Pakistan drowns

While British colonization has left a legacy of massive climate
vulnerability
[[link removed]] for
nations like Pakistan, it has left the U.K.—and Charles—a legacy
of massive wealth with which to protect itself. Forbes estimates the
royal family holds $28 billion in assets, although no one truly knows
how much
[[link removed]] they
have.

Much of that wealth has been on full display this month, as the
world’s attention has been fixed on the monarchy. This doesn’t sit
right with Sen. “While Pakistan is drowning, much of the world media
is fixated on the new monarch of its former colonizer instead,” he
said. “This is historical amnesia, and fails to make the connections
between colonialism, poverty, and climate change.”

Pakistan has racked up $30 billion in damages
[[link removed]] from
this year’s flooding, prompting UN Secretary-General Antonio
Guterres
[[link removed]] to call
for “massive financial support” from the international community.
The U.K. responded to that call
[[link removed]] with
$1.7 million in aid.

To Chatterjee, whose parents were displaced by the partition of India
[[link removed]],
these displays of wealth paired with the paltry aid feel like a slap
in the face. “So much of Britain’s wealth was built stealing stuff
from the Indian subcontinent, and now that stolen stuff is on display
on TV every day, just as Pakistan is one third under water,” she
said. “When I see that, I think, ‘They need to give that stuff
back.”

Indeed, “giving stuff back” is essentially what climate activists
from colonized nations say is necessary if Charles truly wants to be
considered a “climate king.”

“The most dramatic and impactful action he could take now would be
to call for forgiveness of colonies debt, declare rights of managed
retreat for former colonies fleeing the climate crisis into the U.K.
without means testing or diplomatic isolation, and dissolution of
territorial subjugation and the empire—you know, climate
reparations,” Toles O’Laughlin said. “Or else it’s all an
illusion.”

Chatterjee also said Charles must support a U.N. agreement for loss
and damages
[[link removed]]—that is, a
process for establishing responsibility and compensation for the
unavoidable, irreversible harm that rich, high-polluting countries
have caused poor, low-polluting ones.

“If he truly understood what is required for us to survive in the
climate crisis, he would take all the resources at his disposal and
use them to take care of people,” she said. “All the resources
have to be shared for us to survive this mess that we made.”

The laughable idea of a “climate king”

It’s exceedingly unlikely that King Charles would ever take the
steps climate justice activists deem necessary to be considered a
“climate king.” Comb through his speeches on what must be done to
solve climate change
[[link removed]],
and you’ll see an obsession with harnessing markets and capital.
You’ll see little on the subject of accountability—and even less
on the subject of repairing harm done by the British Empire.

There’s also the fact that the King is traditionally a
non-political figure
[[link removed]].
The main purpose of his position is to defend and uphold the monarchy.
He’s now expected to bite his tongue far more than he did as Prince.
If he were ever going to criticize the monarchy—and, on top of that,
call for its partial dissolution—the time has probably passed.

But the biggest indicator that Charles will never earn the title of
“climate king” is the nature of monarchy itself. The fact is,
kings are not in the business of giving power back to the people they
rule over. The business of kings amounts to hoarding power; to
hoarding wealth; and to believing that you know what is best for the
poor. Monarchy itself is antithetical to climate justice, which calls
for giving power back to the people most harmed by the climate crisis.

ANTHONY ROGERS-WRIGHT
[[link removed]], a Sierra
Leonean
[[link removed]] and
environmental justice director at New York Lawyers for the Public
Interest [[link removed]], puts it this way:

The idea of a ‘climate king’ reinforces the idea that only people
with immense power can create change. And that’s just false. Greta
Thunberg was just a teenager, but she had more impact on the global
climate discussion than King Charles ever had. People have to know
they have that power too, and that this movement has to be grassroots,
and bottom-up. So I think it's harmful, actually, to continue this
narrative. Not only wealthy, rich white men can get us out of this
crisis.

_Emily Atkin Climate Journalist at Heated_

_Heated A newsletter for people who are pissed off about the climate
crisis._

* Climate Change
[[link removed]]
* Environmental Justice
[[link removed]]
* colonialism
[[link removed]]
* British Monarchy
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]