Trump criticised for climate policy as William celebrates Earthshot finalists
William met the 2024 cohort of his environmental award during an event marking London Climate Action Week, and said governments, businesses and innovators needed to work together to 'fix' the problems affecting he globe.
He described how he was 'very excited' to be visiting to Rio de Janeiro in November, the host city for this year's Earthshot Prize, and praised the Brazilians, saying: 'I think they epitomise the approach to what we can do more sustainably – the vibrancy, the energy, the enthusiasm.'
Rio's mayor Eduardo Paes told guests, including William during a discussion with his London counterpart, Sir Sadiq Khan: 'Local governments are the ones that are going to deliver.
'I mean, I don't want to do any politics here but we saw what Donald Trump did in his first term. If it were not for the local governments, the mayors, the US would be in big trouble.'
Mr Trump announced his decision to withdraw America from the Paris climate agreement at the start of his first term in 2017, a move that was countered by some US mayors.
Los Angeles's then-mayor Eric Garcetti helped to rally a number of his counterparts across the US to commit to the agreement that saw world leaders pledge to try to prevent global temperatures rising by more than 1.5C above 'pre-industrial' levels.
The event was hosted by former New York Mayor and business news mogul Mike Bloomberg, a global advisor to Earthshot Prize winners, at his landmark offices in the City of London.
In his introductory speech, Mr Bloomberg also criticised the American administration but did not mention the president by name.
He said: 'There's a good reason to be optimistic, lots of problems around the world, America has not been doing its share lately to make things better, I don't think, nevertheless, I'm very optimistic about the future…'
Rio's mayor announced his city's Museum of Tomorrow, a science museum, would host the Earthshot awards ceremony and it was later confirmed it would be held on November 5.
Before the discussions the future king, Earthshot's founder and president, met some of the 2024 finalists and winners in the five categories, or Earthshots – Protect and restore nature; Clean our air, Revive our oceans; Build a waste-free world; and Fix our climate.
William chatted to Francis Nderitu, founder and managing director of Keep IT Cool, a Kenya-based company using solar-powered refrigeration to help cut harvest waste for farmers, which won the Build a waste-free world award.
When he asked the entrepreneur if he had 'noticed more visibility in your products (because) of Earthshot', Mr Nderitu replied 'of course!'
William took part in a group discussion with Dara Khosrowshahi, chief executive of Uber, which is an Earthshot supporter.
The prince told the guests: 'A lot of people think the Earthshot Prize is just about climate change, it really isn't.
'It's about waste, it's about plastic pollution, it's about the health of our oceans, about the air we breathe, it's all the things that we as human beings care about.'
He added: 'And I think I'm really proud of how the solutions have come together and the impact they've had.
'We've restored 170,000 square kilometres of land and ocean, we've sequestered 420,000 tons of CO2, and we've benefited 4.4 million people so far.'
Co-hosting the event was Earthshot ambassador Robert Irwin, the son of the late wildlife conservationist Steve Irwin, who later when asked about America's lack of leadership on the environment replied: 'At the end of the day, if you're in the environmental space politics is going to play a role, in fact, a very big role.
'And now more than ever before we need policymakers, we need governments to come on the journey with us, with the private sector, with technology, with transport, with businesses, with e-commerce, with individuals, with passionate advocates.
'They've got to come along on this journey with us and create incentives, create a reason, create a why for us all to buckle down and get the work done and face climate change.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
Kemi Badenoch's lack of empathy over Rachel Reeves's tears will come back to haunt her
The trouble with Kemi Badenoch is that if she sees someone lying on the ground, she can't resist the temptation to kick them. She lacks empathy, to put it politely. There she was at Prime Minister's Questions, facing an open goal for a change, and attacking the prime minister, who, even three days later, can look after himself. Then she spots the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, her lip quivering, seemingly on the brink of crying. Straight in goes the Badenoch boot – she said Reeves looked 'absolutely miserable' and described her as Starmer's 'human shield'. After Starmer failed to confirm Reeves in post for the rest of the parliament – a tall order for any appointee – Badenoch piled on the punishment: 'How awful for the chancellor that he did not confirm she would be in post.' Surely it might have crossed the mind of the Tory leader that the reason the chancellor was displaying unusual emotion might not have been all to do with politics. Most of us, I'm sure, wondered if there'd been some other explanation, some other bad news of a personal nature, as No 10 later disclosed. Even if it was all about the welfare reform fiasco, is it right to treat parliamentary exchanges as blood sports? To revel in the misery of an adversary? To mock them personally for a show of emotion? In fact, it's emerged that in the post-PMQs huddle with the press, Badenoch's spokesman seemingly urged the journalists to go after Reeves. Asked, 'So no matter what is going on in your personal life, you should disclose that to the public?' he replied: 'I think we should find out what's going on'. I was going to say, 'We're all human,' but, giving as good as Badenoch does, there are times one wonders if she is. Through the debates about disability benefits – we're talking about some people in deep despair here – Badenoch sounded arrogant and dismissive. She implied they're all lazy. This was her message to disabled people last week, on X: 'The world owes no one a living. Millions of people cannot just sit on welfare and expect to be paid to do so. And if they don't like it, that's their problem, not the state's.' It was Badenoch at her very worst. Yes, it could work, politically, because there is a callous, wilfully ignorant strand of public opinion that resents any kind of social security system, full stop. Well, excluding the bits they're likely to use, such as the state retirement pension, thoroughly inflation-proofed under its 'triple lock'. Badenoch bangs on about welfare reform, but the biggest element is the old age pension, at three times the spending on sickness and disability benefits. Taming the welfare bill is practically impossible without doing something that hurts pensioners. But does she ever mention that? No, because they're the only demographic voting for her. I'm not sure that either her party or the public likes the Badenoch style. It can misfire, causing sympathy for the victim of her scorn rather than support for her argument. It's possible her aggressive approach to Tuesday's vote reminded some Labour rebels just how dangerous she is, and persuaded them to back the government after all. When she senselessly slagged off Starmer after the last Nato summit, where he had helped keep Donald Trump onside, she sounded negative and, as the PM put it, 'unserious'. One of her own MPs mildly rebuked her for putting party first. Badenoch doesn't connect with the public in the way Nigel Farage does, or Boris Johnson in his heyday. Robert Jenrick, who's continuing with his informal leadership campaign, is better at campaigning and forcing change on the government. Mel Stride is better in the Commons. She was fortunate this week that the government had been so useless that she had no alternative but to succeed. When she stumbles again, as she will, her party might start kicking her when she's down.
Sky News
33 minutes ago
- Sky News
CBI kicks off search for successor to ‘saviour' Soames
The CBI has begun a search for a successor to Rupert Soames, its chairman, as it continues its recovery from the crisis which brought it to the brink of collapse in 2023. Sky News has learnt that the business lobbying group's nominations committee has engaged headhunters to assist with a hunt for its next corporate figurehead. Mr Soames, the grandson of Sir Winston Churchill, was recruited by the CBI in late 2023 with the organisation lurching towards insolvency after an exodus of members. The group's handling of a sexual misconduct scandal saw it forced to secure emergency funding from a group of banks, even as it was frozen out of meetings with government ministers. One prominent CBI member described Mr Soames on Thursday as the group's "saviour". "Without his ability to bring members back, the organisation wouldn't exist today," they claimed. Mr Soames and Rain Newton-Smith, the CBI chief executive, have partly restored its influence in Whitehall, although many doubt that it will ever be able to credibly reclaim its former status as 'the voice of British business'. Its next chair, who is also likely to be drawn from a leading listed company boardroom, will take over from Mr Soames early next year. Egon Zehnder International is handling the search for the CBI. "The CBI chair's term typically runs for two years and Rupert Soames will end his term in early 2026," a CBI spokesperson said. "In line with good governance, we have begun the search for a successor to ensure continuity and a smooth transition."
The Independent
44 minutes ago
- The Independent
Police accused of ‘assault on right to protest' after less than 3% of nuisance arrests result in charges
Less than three per cent of all protest arrests result in charges, according to new research, as campaigners are calling for an end to anti-protest measures. Data obtained by Greenpeace via Freedom of Information requests shows that only 18 arrests out of a total of 638 made by the Metropolitan Police for conspiracy to cause public nuisance over the last six years have resulted in charges. Their research also showed an almost tenfold rise in the number of arrests in the capital since 2019. There were 67 arrests and charges for conspiring to cause a public nuisance between 2012 and the end of 2018, compared with more than 600 arrests and 18 charges since 2019, as the rate of arrests resulting in charges dropped from 12 per cent to less than three per cent. Greenpeace UK's co-executive director, Areeba Hamid, accused police of 'routinely dragging protesters off the streets for a crime they almost always fail to charge them with', which she said 'amounts to an abuse of their powers and an assault on the right to protest'. She added: 'Arresting law-abiding people because they're politically inconvenient is a frightening development in any democracy, and is a direct result of the government's instinct to shut down free speech and prevent people from standing up for issues they care deeply about.' Campaigners noted that the sharp increase in arrests coincided with Extinction Rebellion and Fridays for Future bringing thousands more people onto the streets of London in calls for action to tackle climate change. The findings come as four leading environmental and human rights organisations - Amnesty International UK, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Liberty - are starting a nationwide campaign to stand up for the right to protest, as they call on the home secretary to restore people's right to express themselves by reversing anti-protest measures in two key pieces of legislation passed since 2022. Khalid Abdallah, an actor from The Crown, was interviewed under caution by police in March after his role in a pro-Palestinian protest in January. As part of the campaign to stand up for the right to protest, he said: 'I think a lot of people don't realise that the crackdown on protest isn't just about tougher laws on disruptive civil disobedience, it's about creating a climate of intimidation. The right to speak out against the actions of the government is an important test of whether you live in a free, democratic country. 'I have lived in countries where rights we hold dear in Britain do not exist, and my family has paid the price for speaking out. So I did not expect Britain to be the country where I would first be investigated by police for my participation in a public protest. For six months, I lived under the threat of being charged, until it was confirmed the police would not take further action. Clearly, these statistics show I'm not an isolated case.' A Met Police spokesperson said: 'We recognise the importance of the right to protest, however where protest crosses the line into criminality, we have a duty to intervene using the powers available to us. 'The threshold for arrest is reasonable suspicion that an offence has occurred. The threshold to charge someone is significantly higher, with officers needing to show that there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction at court. 'Proving that an individual has conspired with others to cause a public nuisance, to that standard, is particularly challenging. This is reflected in the limited number of charges for that offence.' Suspicion of conspiracy to cause nuisance is an offence under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which is used by police to arrest protesters. The bill caused controversy when it passed, with a number of 'Kill the Bill' rallies across the UK to fight against it. The campaigners have also asked ministers to strike out certain protest clauses in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is making its way through parliament. One clause that has caused particular concern is one which allows police to request that people remove items used to conceal their identity if certain authorisations are in place, which could incur a maximum penalty of one month in prison, a £1,000 fine, or both. Written evidence submitted by Big Brother Watch, Liberty, Privacy International, and Stop Watch called these new clauses 'unnecessary' and warned they could 'significantly threaten our right to protest safely and freely.'
