It seems to me that the natural world is the greatest source of excitement; the greatest source of visual beauty; the greatest source of intellectual interest. It is the greatest source of so much in life that makes life worth living.

It is that range of biodiversity that we must care for - the whole thing - rather than just one or two stars.

The only way to save a rhinoceros is to save the environment in which it lives, because there's a mutual dependency between it and millions of other species of both animals and plants.

I just wish the world was twice as big and half of it was still unexplored.

People must feel that the natural world is important and valuable and beautiful and wonderful and an amazement and a pleasure.

The question is, are we happy to suppose that our grandchildren may never be able to see an elephant except in a picture book?

I don't run a car, have never run a car. I could say that this is because I have this extremely tender environmentalist conscience, but the fact is I hate driving.

If I can bicycle, I bicycle.

An understanding of the natural world and what's in it is a source of not only a great curiosity but great fulfillment.

Everyone likes birds. What wild creature is more accessible to our eyes and ears, as close to us and everyone in the world, as universal as a bird?

Many individuals are doing what they can. But real success can only come if there is a change in our societies and in our economics and in our politics.

There is no question that climate change is happening; the only arguable point is what part humans are playing in it.

People are not going to care about animal conservation unless they think that animals are worthwhile.

It's a moral question about whether we have the right to exterminate species.

We really need to kick the carbon habit and stop making our energy from burning things. Climate change is also really important. You can wreck one rainforest then move, drain one area of resources and move onto another, but climate change is global.

I've been to Nepal, but I'd like to go to Tibet. It must be a wonderful place to go. I don't think there's anything there, but it would be a nice place to visit.

There are some four million different kinds of animals and plants in the world. Four million different solutions to the problems of staying alive.

I can mention many moments that were unforgettable and revelatory. But the most single revelatory three minutes was the first time I put on scuba gear and dived on a coral reef. It's just the unbelievable fact that you can move in three dimensions.

I'm against this huge globalisation on the basis of economic advantage.

People talk about doom-laden scenarios happening in the future: they are happening in Africa now. You can see it perfectly clearly. Periodic famines are due to too many people living on land that can't sustain them.

Being in touch with the natural world is crucial.

All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people and harder - and ultimately impossible to solve - with ever more people.

Well, I'm having a good time. Which makes me feel guilty too. How very English.

Dealing with global warming doesn't mean we have all got to suddenly stop breathing. Dealing with global warming means that we have to stop waste, and if you travel for no reason whatsoever, that is a waste.

I'm not an animal lover if that means you think things are nice if you can pat them, but I am intoxicated by animals.

I'm swanning round the world looking at the most fabulously interesting things. Such good fortune.

Steve Irwin did wonderful conservation work but I was uncomfortable about some of his stunts. Even if animals aren't aware that you are not treating them with respect, the viewers are.

I don't think we are going to become extinct. We're very clever and extremely resourceful - and we will find ways of preserving ourselves, of that I'm sure. But whether our lives will be as rich as they are now is another question.

The whole of science, and one is tempted to think the whole of the life of any thinking man, is trying to come to terms with the relationship between yourself and the natural world. Why are you here, and how do you fit in, and what's it all about.

Nature isn't positive in that way. It doesn't aim itself at you. It's not being unkind to you.

We are a plague on the Earth.

If you watch animals objectively for any length of time, you're driven to the conclusion that their main aim in life is to pass on their genes to the next generation.

Getting to places like Bangkok or Singapore was a hell of a sweat. But when you got there it was the back of beyond. It was just a series of small tin sheds.

I'm luckier than my grandfather, who didn't move more than five miles from the village in which he was born.

It's coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It's not just climate change; it's sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now.

You have to steer a course between not appalling people, but at the same time not misleading them.

I like animals. I like natural history. The travel bit is not the important bit. The travel bit is what you have to do in order to go and look at animals.

I don't like rats, but there's not much else I don't like. The problem with rats is they have no fear of human beings, they're loaded with foul diseases, they would run the place given half the chance, and I've had them leap out of a lavatory while I've been sitting on it.

As far as I'm concerned, if there is a supreme being then He chose organic evolution as a way of bringing into existence the natural world... which doesn't seem to me to be necessarily blasphemous at all.

Natural history is not about producing fables.

The fundamental issue is the moral issue.

If my grandchildren were to look at me and say, 'You were aware species were disappearing and you did nothing, you said nothing', that I think is culpable. I don't know how much more they expect me to be doing, I'd better ask them.

I had a huge advantage when I started 50 years ago - my job was secure. I didn't have to promote myself. These days there's far more pressure to make a mark, so the temptation is to make adventure television or personality shows. I hope the more didactic approach won't be lost.

I'm not a propagandist, I'm not a polemicist; my primary interest is just looking at and trying to understand how animals work.

You know, it is a terrible thing to appear on television, because people think that you actually know what you're talking about.

To suggest that God specifically created a worm to torture small African children is blasphemy as far as I can see. The Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't believe that.

It is vital that there is a narrator figure whom people believe. That's why I never do commercials. If I started saying that margarine was the same as motherhood, people would think I was a liar.

Television of course actually started in Britain in 1936, and it was a monopoly, and there was only one broadcaster and it operated on a license which is not the same as a government grant.

Birds are the most popular group in the animal kingdom. We feed them and tame them and think we know them. And yet they inhabit a world which is really rather mysterious.

In the old days... it was a basic, cardinal fact that producers didn't have opinions. When I was producing natural history programmes, I didn't use them as vehicles for my own opinion. They were factual programmes.