Should King Charles speak his mind on climate action, or just ugly buildings?

King Charles III is quite likely the “greenest” monarch the UK has ever seen. As Prince of Wales he often spoke out against the impacts of pollution, the dumping of sewage in the North Sea, the “skeptics” he blamed for helping to kill a dying planet, and welcomed many climate leaders the UK government refused to see.

These were views – along with remarks about the design of some new buildings – that saw him being marked and labelled as a little bit “dotty”, a portrayal encouraged by the fossil fuel industry and its apologists, and the toxic capitalists who demand to go about their business unimpeded by what the Murdoch media now describes triumphantly as “woke” issues.

Charles would be no less frustrated by the state of play as King as he was when Prince of Wales. The impacts of climate change are increasingly evident, the warnings are accelerating with increasing alarm, and the UK has a new prime minister Liz Truss and energy minister Jacob Rees-Mogg who appear completely disinterested in doing anything about it.

Ree-Mogg is a climate skeptic, and neither he nor his new boss are fond of wind farms, or even solar farms. They have no interest in supporting renewables.

They do like gas, and the pair of them have just devised a plan to resume fracking in the UK, and to use hundred of billions of taxpayer funds to effectively subsidise what the UN chief describes as the “immoral” profits and “grotesque greed” of the fossil fuel industry.

The UK government has refused to impose a windfall tax on the fossil fuel industry to soften the blow to the hapless and increasingly desperate consumer, and instead decided to borrow against future budgets that might  otherwise be focused on essential services such as schools and hospitals.

Given this extraordinary situation, should Charles continue to speak out on the issue now he is King? His first address to the nation suggested he would not, and the received wisdom in some quarters is that he should not, because the head of state ought to restrict themselves to social issues and not interfere in “political” issues.

But is climate change a political issue or a social, environmental and humanitarian issue?

It was an issue that was put on centre stage by Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese on Sunday in an interview on the ABC “Insiders” program.

David Speers: How do you think Australians will approach King Charles?

PM: Well King Charles represents a new era, the second Elizabethan era has now passed. King Charles will need to forge his own path. King Charles of course has been very active and outspoken on issues such as the need for the world to challenge climate change and to act on climate change.

Speers: Should he continue that?

PM: In my view that would be appropriate. That’s a matter for him, of course. But he’s also been very outspoken in the areas of the urban environment and the built environment as well. Something that’s a passion of mine, as you know, David, as someone with an interest in urban economics and how that impacts on the natural environment and how that impacts on climate change.

Speers: So you won’t have a problem with the King speaking out on issues close to his heart, even if some might view it as moving away from political neutrality?

PM: That’s matter for him. I think dealing with the challenge of climate change shouldn’t be seen as a political issue, it should be seen as an issue that is about humanity and about our very quality of life and survival as a world. This is a big threat and King Charles has identified that for a long period of time. I think engagement in issues is very different from engagement in party political matters. That would be entirely inappropriate.

Albanese is not exactly the greenest finger in the Labor Party and that makes his observations doubly interesting. Perhaps he finds it more palatable for climate urging to come from the king, rather than from Adam Bandt or Zali Steggall.

But his description of climate change as an issue around humanity and quality of life and survival is absolutely right. It’s the fossil fuel industry and their spokespeople, in and out of parliament, that have made it about politics.

There is no doubt his son, the new Prince of Wales, will agitate for action more openly, but King Charles III ought not to keep mum about the issue. He may need to find cleverer and more subtle ways to do so, and his private conversations with Truss would be fascinating. But if she and Rees-Mogg play to type, Charles may just have to shout it out from the palace balcony.