Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


One is cutting one's carbon footprint . . .

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 01 July 2008
FOR years he has expounded on the importance of saving the environment – while at the same time being attacked for driving a gas-guzzling Aston Martin.
But now new accounts have revealed that Prince Charles has answered his critics in style by converting his beloved 1970 Volante DB6 to run on wine.

The move, part of a drive to reduce his carbon footprint, emerged in an annual review of the prince's activities which showed that he has slashed his household's carbon emissions by almost 20 per cent and offset the remainder.

The prince has cut down on air and rail travel – saving the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds – and switched to green electricity supplies.

And as well as running the Aston Martin by converting surplus alcohol sourced from a Wiltshire vineyard into bioethanol, other innovative measures include running his Jaguars, Audi and Range Rover on biodiesel from used cooking oil.

Sir Michael Peat, the prince's chief aide, said: "Charles only travelled two or three hundred miles a year in the Aston but he wanted it to be environmentally friendly. It just happened our bioethanol supplier makes the fuel from surplus English wine."

Green campaigners welcomed the environmental efforts, but warned that the Royal footprint was still huge. It was revealed as part of the Clarence House accounts for 2007-8, which also show the prince's private income rose by 7 per cent to more than £16 million.

The money generated by the Duchy of Cornwall – the landed estate given to the heir to the throne – increased by just over £1 million to £16,273,000 during the last financial year.

Charles's official spending, including that which went on charitable work and official duties, was £10.4 million.

His personal spending, including the salaries of 30 full-time staff, was £2.2 million, down from £2.6 million.

Sir Michael said the accounts showed the prince had a "special knack" of "seeing beyond fashion and political correctness".

The amount of produced by Charles's household fell by 18 per cent or 630 tonnes to 2,795 tonnes during 2007-8, the accounts revealed.

The year-on-year success has prompted the household to raise its medium-term carbon reduction target, from a drop of 12.5 per cent between 2007 and 2012 to one of 25 per cent.

Launching the publication of Charles's annual financial review, Sir Michael said: "One of the main focuses of the year has been his intensifying and developing work in the battle against climate change. We in the household have reduced our emissions by just over 18 per cent during the year to the end of this March – which is not too bad."

He said the accounts were similar to previous years, because the Royals' duties had remained constant.

"I hope it shows a good picture," he said. "I don't want to sound complacent but I really do believe that the contribution their royal highnesses make to national life continues to develop and broaden and strengthen.

"The Prince of Wales has a special knack of putting his finger on issues of underlying and long-term importance and for seeing beyond fashion and political correctness and there are some good examples in the annual review."

But Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "Prince Charles has an enormous carbon footprint, and people in positions like his need to be setting a better example. However, it's great that he's shown the willingness to cut his emissions by such a large amount in one year, and we hope he continues to makes large cuts."

. . . but one's son is still flying all over the place

AS PRINCE Charles's accounts showed him to be intent on saving cash and the environment, it emerged that his eldest son had no such concerns.

Five helicopter flights by Prince William which attracted criticism as an alleged abuse of his RAF training cost the taxpayer more than £50,000, it was reported yesterday.

And a Ministry of Defence spokesman admitted there was some "naivety" involved.

A Chinook flight to attend a stag party on the Isle of Wight cost £8,716, according to figures gathered through Freedom of Information legislation.

He also used the military aircraft to fly over Highgrove and Sandringham to visit his girlfriend, and to join a wedding party in Northumberland.

The MoD spokesman said: "All flights undertaken by Flying Officer Wales were a legitimate part of his RAF training. In retrospect, there was a degree of naivety in the planning of training sorties that allowed Flying Officer Wales to attend private functions or land and take off from a privately-owned field."

FACT BOX

Green electricity supplies


The prince has installed wood-chip stoves at his country homes – the Highgrove estate, where he farms organically, and Birkhall in Scotland – and energy-efficient boilers at his Clarence House residence in London.

Air and rail travel

The cost of the prince's official travel by air and rail fell 22 per cent from £1.4 million to £1.1 million. The journeys by plane and train are paid for by the taxpayer through grants-in-aid. Charles and Camilla travelled 37,000 miles on official duties.

Environmentally-friendly cars

The Aston Martin, given to him by the Queen for his 21st birthday, now runs on surplus wine. His other cars – Jaguars, Audis and Range Rovers – run on biodiesel made from used cooking oil.

Sustainable consumption

The prince became patron of the Year of Food and Farming and in September 2007 launched the campaign, which aims to reconnect children with food and the countryside by encouraging them to grow their own food and visit local farms.

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 30 June 2008 11:37 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Prince of Wales
 
1

,

01/07/2008 00:07:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

Conan the Librarian™,

01/07/2008 00:43:23
Probably the best use for English wine.
3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 01/07/2008 01:16:16

Excuse Me For one moment please!

What the deal on showing off some Scottish foot ware in the articles picture,?

What is one implying!,??
4

walter,

01/07/2008 02:47:14
So what this article is saying is that the money Charles receives from the tax payers IE the treasury was 1.1 million, yet he will have paid 3.5 if not more million in tax himself.
Also these flights that William has meant to have used costing £50,000 would have cost that anyway except instead of going from A to B they went from A to C.
5

donald,

glasgow 01/07/2008 06:25:51
"Probably the best use for English wine."

Buckfast?

Why the ghillie fit and no' the Jackboot that destroyed Scotland?
6

Guga II,

Rockall 01/07/2008 06:51:58
I wonder if this parasite pays fuel duty on his bio-diesel and his bio-ethanol? Do his parasite sons use the fuel too, and do they pay fuel duty?

7

,

01/07/2008 07:03:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

Boy Wonder,

01/07/2008 07:10:27
May I echo my old buddy Chuckles in his question @ #4??

wtf is being said??
9

Guga II,

Rockall 01/07/2008 07:33:26
#10 Gruamach.

I see the wee dwarf has crawled out from under his stone again. Have you taken your medication today?
10

Guga II,

Rockall 01/07/2008 07:35:02
#12. If your lot want to keep the parasites after Scptland becomes and independent republic, you're welcome to them.
11

steve 1511,

aberdeen 01/07/2008 07:40:22
hiring a huge luxury yacht to swan about the caribean in with a staff of 60 at a cost of 380k a week is the way forward to control his carbon footprint,do these clowns who report this and those who speak for him believe we are all eejits
12

Sinead,

Tanunda 01/07/2008 07:46:46
#2 I agree!!
13

Helmut Smegma,

Edinburgh 01/07/2008 08:04:46
How about some Buckfast for that turbo-driven oomph?
14

Jaebee,

Peebles 01/07/2008 08:18:59
If you've got a lot, use a lot, spend a lot and save a little - it's good news?????
15

Unimpressed one,

01/07/2008 08:35:41
The family that has living costs of £40 million a year are doing their bit to 'save the planet'. What a load of sh*te!
16

scottish person,

paisley 01/07/2008 08:36:43
Who gives a t##s what that bunch of gas guzzlers do
17

Graeme M,

Australia 01/07/2008 08:52:10
Its hard to know if each and everyone of us would be different in Charles's position,lets face it!...We have to be honest about that. Its easy to be a 'royal family critic' and I know I am one, but there you are!...Live and let live!...
18

qohldr,

01/07/2008 09:46:53
Parasite-an animal or plant that lives in or on a host and obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host.
A follower who hangs around a host without benefit to the host in hope of gain or advantage.
When used in reference to the royals this is due to the money paid from the treasury to the royals.
Even though Charles and his family get the money they live off from the Duchy of Cornwall estates.
The £249,000, £141,000, £228,000 Andrew Edward and Ann receive is repaid to the treasury by the Queen.
The Queen receives the money she and her husband live off from the Duchy of Lancaster estates.
Crown estates generated £200 million for the treasury in 2007, the Queen received £40 million from the treasury.
Parasite is not a word that I would use for the royals considering that the treasury receives more from them than they pay to them.



19

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 01/07/2008 10:27:39
All very laudable. But in some ways laughable. Per-head the carbon footprint in the Royal family is enormous, even if they're adopting some token measures like running the Aston Martin (and Jaguars (plural), Audi and Range Rover) on wine. Not that I'm a carbon Green freak or anything in fact quite the opposite but I don't like nauseating reports like this purporting to be squeaky clean and Green. Anything but. Cue now the "It's only 60p per head of the Royal family per person in the UK, but I'd rather pay £1 to keep the Queen, Gord bless ye ma'am" brigade. Why don't they just own up and say "we're living in the most unparalleled luxury due to our genes, we don't have to do all these green measures but feel obliged to keep our environmental profile high and avoid criticism and anyway these measures are a mere bagatelle for us. Please don't ask any more awkward questions!".

"But ma'am the peasants cannot heat their houses or eat bread or run their cars".

"Well, let them use their Buckfast".
20

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 01/07/2008 11:01:13
We can reduce the royal family's carbon emissions by scrapping them altogether.

A republic has the benefit of one single president who's official expenses and travel costs should be paid for - but not his or her family's as well. This is completely different to our current extended royal family who now number dozens of spongers and hangers-on among them.
21

TheFife,

Beverly Hills 01/07/2008 11:06:52
Very well. Let’s get reasonable.

What is all this talk of “surplus English wine”? Surplus? From what?

It is surplus because the EU is so afraid that the English wine producers will swamp the EU market, they have put limits on the saleable output of English wine production and the rest is declared “excess”.

Not one word of this is mentioned in the article.

So you start out with a base of fermented grapes declared waste material by the EU and you somehow pass that effortlessly through a distillery at the cost of no appreciable energy, so it may seem. Then we ignore the greater volume of ethanol required per mile and that ethanol produces twice the CO2, etc., etc., etc.

It’s all rubbish.
22

Mise,

Borders 01/07/2008 12:00:37
I wonder how the wine gets converted to ethanol except via a distillery.
How much does it cost in money and fuel to transport the wine to the distillery ?
What quantity of ethanol gets produced from what quantity of wine ?
How much fuel does the distillery use to produce the ethanol and what does it charge ?
I'd love to be able to do this.
I had to give up making wine, the house is awash with it, and I'd love to be able to distil it into ethanol for the car (or even for another purpose).

23

Luke Skywalker,

United Kingdom 01/07/2008 12:42:58
23 Zimbabwe is a republic with a president.
24

AJ Fife,

01/07/2008 13:10:40
Charlie's carbon footprint would be seriusly reduced if he took to pinning back his giant lugs whilst oot motoring and reducing the effects of drag.

He's not universally known as 'CBL' for nothing!
25

Miss Pixie,

formerly of Dinleyhaughfoot Cottage, Roxburghshire 01/07/2008 13:13:56
PC's efforts to become part of the solution are a step in the right direction even it might be in a ghillie! I admire his efforts. He is setting a great example.

So, my question is; what have all the above numpties and moaners been doing to save the planet?
26

Schot,

01/07/2008 15:10:45
'm planting trees later so is it okay to slag off the greenwashing royals ?

Nine planet Earths would be required to absorb all the world's carbon if every poor person has the same energy wasteful lifestyle as an average American, it would take entire solar systems to live like the royal's do.
27

Douglas,

Bathgate 01/07/2008 15:56:01
Charles and Boy Wonder #4 & #9: Maybe rhyming slang, a highland dancer.
28

Billy Boy,

Sherman Oaks California 01/07/2008 16:16:37
#3 The implication is his heritage and love of Scotland. All Scots should be as proud! As for the Aston what a pity he isn't able to drive it more.
29

Thomas Campbell,

New York 01/07/2008 17:20:07
#21: You're right of course, but it won't do any good on this site- the whingers much prefer to jabber on about the "royal parasites". Would that members of the public actually read the reports themselves, and learn something. They prefer to live in ignorance.
And about eradicating the "whole parasitic lot"-one wonders what deep psychological dysfunction causes some Scots to want a whole family to be be murdered. Fortunately the condescending hangers-on, toadies and snobs (I'm talking about the posters here) don't have any power.
30

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 01/07/2008 17:39:02
The Royals once more are leading the way showing us what a bunch of parasites we have in parliament sucking up all that taxpayers money and not one good or original idea amongst them !

People talk of ridding us of the the Royal family and becoming a republic - I say get rid of the politicians and become a Kingdom! - just look at the recent track record >>>!!

Folk have been taking about William getting £50,000 flights in this thread - jaysus!; a) That figure is made up by an accountant and takes into account the cost of the aircraft, over all maintenance and other costs not specific to THAT flight - the real cost is probably nearer to £3000 if that -- b) ... A politician will blow £50,000 a week on embroidered bog roll given half a chance !!

The Royal family have stood by us for years and have been visionary in their outlook and unique in their criticism of political/social bandwagons which our politicians have gormlessly lead us unsuspecting public into. There are always those who are against this great old family but when compared with the current parliament and current style of government which wastes £Billions upon £Billions of pounds then I for one have answered the question 'Who would you rather have?'
31

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 01/07/2008 18:00:48
#34 I hope your pills start working soon. "This great old family" as you call this detached dysfunctional bunch of parasites whose number includes serious alcoholics, the young princes - particularly "war heroe" Harry (hah hah) - constantly photo'd completely blottoed and lying on the street outside London nightclubs - at tax payer expense and others like Edward who appear to have no purpose at all other than sponging off the rest of us.

Kick them all into a council flat and take their assets into public ownership via the National Trust etc.

No more do I want to pay for this appalling bunch of ungrateful good-for-nothing German playboys who just take money from us and laugh at our stupidity for giving them everything they want. I hear the queen wants a nice shiny new jet plane for one next. That's good for CO2 emissions.

The queen can wave at people and say "and what do you do?" all she likes but I don't want to pay for any of them.
32

Friar Tuck,

01/07/2008 18:42:05
I would love to be able to retrofit my house with all brand new energy saving appliances, furnaces, boilers etc. but I can't afford it because I'm paying too many taxes and utility bills!

I could borrow the money and pay it back from my savings but it would take about 50 years!

I bought a smart car to save fuel but it costs more to repair than I save in fuel!
33

zigzag,

Canada 01/07/2008 19:05:59
Looks like a SNP backlash here. So which one of you loves the Royals...no one?

One way to decrease one's carbon foor print is to stop breathing. Any takers or are you lot just whiners.

You should hear what RAMSAY will say aboot this when he reads the article.
34

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 01/07/2008 19:42:46
#37 His environmental credentials. Oh Pleeeezzzze. He is also the egit caught by the Irish Times on a mobile phone saying he wants to be Camila's Tampax. It was recorded and is a fact undisputed on record.

http://aca-vnt.mcc.ac.uk/ScrapBook/camillagate.htm

Just read the lot. Our future king. Yuck.
35

Indespair,

01/07/2008 19:43:30
I would rather pay my 60 odd pence a year for the royal family than the x hundred of pounds I have to pay for the non working, good for nothing subsidy junkies who seem to make up a disproportionately large proportion of the Scottish population.
36

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 01/07/2008 21:29:36
I also think the royal family are ok. Charles is a pretty sincere bloke and deserves a bit of a break.
It is a shame he can't possibly answer some of the "eejits" posts here.
37

Tris,

01/07/2008 21:57:49

~#21

And how do Big Ears and his mum come by the Duchies of Cornwall, and Lancaster......


....Oh yeah, we give them to them.... Just in the same way we give old people their pension to live on.

Fair yeah?

I suggest that those who get pleasure out of the royals should pay for them; the rest of us should get our money back.
38

British Military Vet Veritas,

Ecclelfecchan 01/07/2008 22:32:33
Scptland? Where's that?
39

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 01/07/2008 23:52:52
There's plenty of income from these big royal land-holdings but what you're working people wanting a house to live in say in Cornwall on in the Highlands of Scotland?
40

McHoot,

brisbane 02/07/2008 01:06:01
#23
Mikko, last time I counted - which is just before Oz rejected a republic - conservatively some 70% of republics were politically unstable while 90% of constitutional monarchies were pretty much stable. If that's still the case I don't like the odds much.
Put in a president and you have either et another politician or a creature of the current PM - which amounts to the same. Oz and now Scotland is already overgoverned often by bumbling incompetents and chancers. I'd dump our states as an anachronism and give their powers to the Federal and Local Governments. Scotland should probably either become independent - if it can afford to be (God, even Pringles are closing! It's the end of civilisation as we know it!)or dump the Scottish Parliament.
Remember you lot of whinging creepy-crawlies can safely make snide (and anonymous) remarks about the royals but they don't have the same right over you. What are you doing to save the planet? Not a lot I suspect. Producing too much hot air.
41

Billy Boy,

Sherman Oaks California 04/07/2008 19:49:04
The internet can be a wonderful thing, Unfortunately, in order to benefit from it we have to suffer the likes of MIKKO! Imagine, if we elected people as opposed to supporting the monarchy, he, MIKKO, would have a vote!! Down with democracy, it supports people like Bush & Netanyu.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.