The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded today to former Vice President Al Gore and to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for its work to alert the world to the threat of global waarming.
Nice goin’ Al.
Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize
Fri, October 12 2007, 8:59amBreaking news
‘Nuff said.
*Sniff*
For the sake of argument, let me stipulate that his science is correct (and let’s avoid a long walk in the weeds). Can anyone explain what Gore’s promotion of climate change awareness has done to promote peace? Shouldn’t it fall under the ’science’ umbrella? Or has this become a favorite politician award?
Peder:
I think the argument goes along the lines of
a- Global warming will cause shortages in resources
b- People will fight over the leftovers
c- People will die in the fighting
Fresh water and fish are the biggies. Fresh water is the really, really, really big one. This is an especially important issue here in Minnesota, being that we happen to live on the world’s second largest body of fresh aqua (which those grubby sun belters will be begging to get a piece of in about 20 years…regardless of global warming.) Also, the Nobel committee has expanded the prize’s scope to include resources and the environment (largely because of the basic argument listed above.)
This isn’t a wild lib’rul argument either (even though liberals have been right on this issue for a long time):
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/12/washington/12intel.html?n=Top/News/Science/Topics/Global%20Warming
WASHINGTON, May 11 — Stepping into the middle of a partisan debate on Capitol Hill, the United States’ top intelligence official has endorsed a comprehensive study by spy agencies about the impact of global warming on national security.
In a letter written earlier this week to the House Intelligence Committee, the official, Michael McConnell, director of national intelligence, said it was “entirely appropriate” that the intelligence community prepare an assessment of the “geopolitical and security implications of global climate change.”
Regardless of Gore’s science (his movie just lost in a British court), the scientific community is completely united in its conclusion that man made global warming is a reality. We even have a national climate estimate that says as much (a new one will come out next year.) Our military and our intel agencies all view this as a security issue. It’s blood and treasure.
One could argue that the previous winner, Muhammud Yunis’s–microfinance did not, technically, promote peace either–but both are about fighting for the health of the globe.
Oh, and as outraged as the Fox-News types are on the lib’rul bias of the Swedish Nobel Committee (such virtues as peace, helping the world’s poor, and planetary health being liberal, I guess) they have nothing on Harold Bloom today.
I was dismayed today by the concentration of attention on whether Al Gore will run for president in the wake of the prize announcement. The topic was pretty well explored within a half hour. The question as it relates to the presidential campaign really is this: What do the candidates who ARE running say about climate change, what emphasis would they put on it and what approach should be taken to address it?
There are plenty of debates and intelligent conversations to have about emissions, regulations, economic impact, cap and trade systems, carbon sequestration research. Let’s get some of those out in the public instead of working over Gore’s intentions all day long.
That, my friend, would involve a different media. Let’s talk about Hillary’s laugh some more….
I think the most disappointing thing about the entire Nobel Prize gala is that Philip Roth got ripped off once again. Show the man some love.
PS: you could tie your Gore and Turkish/Armenian posts together with last year’s lit winner Orhan Pamuk. I’ve never been a fan of the guy’s writing, but maybe someone here in the comment section can speak to his writing in a positive light.
It’s their bat and ball and they can select whomever they want. If they truly think that overcoming future ‘resource scarcity’ is the best work being done for peace then so be it. I think you could point to half a dozen things more pressing, FWIW.
Let’s hear them.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
I believe the Nobel voters wish to annoy the cult that runs this country.
Forgive the sports talk, but all of the counter-arguments for Gore’s award remind of when Justin Morneau won the MVP last year when everyone was expecting Derek Jeter to win. And on blogs and message boards and in the newspapers fans and commentators argued that Morneau could not possibly be the MVP when two other Twins finished in the top ten of voting, how could anyone be said to be “most valuable” when there were other “most valuable” players on the same team. And all the Yankee fans argued this point very rationally–they weren’t upset about Jeter losing, you see, it was simply not right–utterly ignoring the fact that the previous year, when Alex Rodriguez won, two other Yankees finished in the top ten in balloting. And John McCain and talking heads and blog commenters (the non-fire-breathing ones) now aren’t saying that they don’t like that Al Gore, and all he represents, won, but they argue very rationally that they just don’t feel global warming is IMPORTANT enough to merit this award, you see….
Gump–I’m a pretty big My Name is Red fan, but I can’t give you any more than that.
Whenever I read that a whole community — whether religious, scientific, medical, political or whatever — is “united” about anything, I tend to think of Galileo.
In connection with global warming, I am reminded of the “little red hen” as I contemplate the numbers of our country’s citizens whose idea of “history” reaches back all the way to the Beatles. They would be shocked to hear that Greenland and Europe were in recorded memory warmer than they are today.
I would love to be a fly on the wall a hundred years from now, to see how accurate those impressive models turn out to be: in my humble opinion the likelihood is they will be less accurate predictors than our sophisticated weather models which can’t predict next weeks temperature, let alone the next season’s or the next century’s.
In the meantime, as an older person who USED to welcome those brisk, cold Minnesota winter days, I think we could well afford to get a few degrees warmer here. I can see why those in the sun belt might be upset, though.
Ok, here’s a half dozen more productive ways to promote peace:
1. Seriously and completely oppose terrorism - think the decades long game of footsie that the international community played with Arafat. I’m speaking about groups that both intentionally target civilians and also hide amongst them in ways that encourage collateral damage. The world needs to treat those offenses as beyond the pale. No matter how just their cause may be, using terroristic tactics sullies them. How to combat? Cut off funding to groups and aid to countries that support them.
2. Track down black market nukes. The benefits are obvious as is the aid to peace. And yes, the Bush admin should be doing more about this.
3. Promote democracy. Democracy means many things but the most important part of this is the ability of opposition parties to campaign and win votes. This holds countries accountable in times of war. During an unpopular one, the public can vote in the people that will stop it. Democracies rarely go to war with each other. They compete in nonviolent ways.
4. Promote free speech and freedom of the press. Related to the previous point, this offers an alternative to government sponsored propaganda. Obvious benefits here. (A side note and unrelated to discussion of peace, I think this is one of the larger drivers of anti-Americanism abroad.)
5. Combat tribalism. This is one of the biggest drivers of warfare in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. Getting people past ethnic differences can only help this. Because this is a ’softer’ tactic, it will take much more subtle methods. This is probably the most important on the list but I don’t really know how to tackle it. Perhaps a series of movies from Hollywood that showed dictators playing tribes off against each other or something like that.
6. Promote prosperity. The World Bank has created a method of tracking a countries intangible wealth (see here- http://reason.com/news/show/122854.html). One of the biggest differences between the developing world and the developed is the quality of social institutions like education and the rule of law. There is a very real message to be told about how any country can be wealthy. That would undercut the dictatorial message that some other country is holding them down.
Petra, I understand what you’re saying but I don’t think I’m following the Yankees path here. You mentioned Yunis. I’d put him in the ‘prosperity’ point here. I just don’t see ‘resource scarcity’ being a big driver of war. Even scarcity of water can be solved as long as their isn’t a political actor using it to punish some group or other.