The International Herald Tribune worries that Gore's receiving the Peace Prize is going to denigrate the award because it "strays from traditional Nobel definitions of peace work". Huh. As Tom Lehrer said, when Henry Kissinger can win the Peace Prize, the time for political satire is long past. If anything, this improves the standing of the prize.
What could be more concerning to the peace of the world than dealing with climate change? Gore's raising awareness and bringing climate change out of the Rethuglican spin cycle will do more to promote peace than any number of activists on particular issues. The award was justified, timely and important.
Of course, the MSM is also spinning in their mental graves on account of the fact that there were supposedly nine errors in An Inconvenient Truth, according to a British judge. James Hrynyshyn at Island of Doubt shows that there were two and a half errors, and all were justified at the time of the making of the film. But don't expect that to stop the slathering pitbulls of antiscience...
- Log in to post comments
Now will Al be flying in his private jet to collect the award?
Who gets the peace prize long ago became more a matter of politics than adhereing to Noble's will, but big Al strikes me as a tad hypocritical and not a great role model for the environmental movement.
Climate change is going to be, in this century, the single biggest economic, social and political challenge the world faces (unless the Peak Oil theory is true, in which case we'll have a not-so-delightful perfect storm).
Gore is a populizer, a man who is using his stature and influence to get the word it. All the climatologists in the world couldn't do in fifteen years what Gore did with a single film. Yes, it's entertainment, and yes it probably does exagerate at points, but you know what, it's raising the consciousness of this most important issue throughout the world.
People in the Industrialized World are beginning to ignore the oil industry shills and pseudo-scientists, and are recognizing that humanity's activites over the last few centuries have had a substantial influence on climate, and that those changes are going to become increasingly pronounced.
Gore is still a politician, and I'll wager you won't find a politician out there who isn't hypocritical to one degree or another, so if that's the standard, then we might as well simply forbid career politicians from winning Nobel Prizes. But he, despite whatever flaws and failings he has, is accomplishing something incredibly important, he's slowly but surely forcing the governments of the industrialized world to listen by the most fundemental kind of democratic communication; talking directly to the people.
The Peace Prize isn't a perfect fit for what Gore is doing (though when you start seeing wars over water and viable agricultural land as this century progresses, it will make more sense), but I think he does deserve recognition.
And of course all the deniers out there, having fixated on Gore as the symbol of climate change, are now going to go about trying to assassinate his character. Their attempts at casting dispersions on the science are failing, so they, like the anti-evolutionist forces and Darwin, believing it's all some sort of cult of personality, are going after Gore.
But I think the tide has turned, and that the politicians, even if they don't buy it, are faced with the reality that those that actually elect them are accepting the climatological realities. Yes, they're being dragged into all of this kicking and screaming, but the mood even in the United States is changing, and I think Al Gore deserves a significant amount of credit for that.
That strikes me as an excellent idea Aaron, I'ld go further and ban the non-career politicians as well.
As for the deniers going after Gore, perhaps he shouldn't make himself such an easy target :o) this is why I don't think that he is a good role model.
Do as I say not as I do doesn't work very well and, like security, I suspect that lots of politicos will be happy to use global warming as an excuse to raise taxes and keep the hoi polloi in their place.
As for raising consciouness, he may have done so in the USA but as for increasing peace. I think that the changes required worldwide will increase tensions between nations, especially those nations whose economies are booming and are amongst the worst polluters.
It isn't just global climate change that is a problem and focusing on it to the exclusion of the other pollutions may not be such a great idea.
Chris, if the GOP has taught me anything, EVERYONE is an easy target to those who are willing to lie, when filtered by a press willing to report lies and facts alike as "He Said, She Said".
It doesn't help that the political situation in the United States is heavily polarized between a political party of moderate compromisers, and a party long lost to fire-breathing radicals who seem to believe that any global warming is a myth, that evolution and intelligent design are equally valid theories, and that the Bill of Rights is for suckers.
LeftWingFox: as I don't live it that 'nation under Canada' I am just an outsider looking in; luckilly I know what GOP is, I suspect by "party of moderate compromisers" you mean the democrats.
As an outsider looking on with bemusement I see a different image. Both the elephants and donkeys are happy to lie and gild the truth to forward their agenda. This is what the medias love of soundbites and dissension has helped create and few politicians seem to object.
(applies as much to any politician in any country)
That said, when I hear big Al pontificate on how others have to sacrifice but it is ok for him to buy offsets I do worry. One law for the rich another for the poor?
Any how, just to be clear. I don't argue that climate change isn't occuring nor that humans should continue poisioning the planet; we should clean up our act a toute vitesse. Simply that Al isn't the best advocate and that the nobel peace prize is more politically based than on any actual enhancement of peace. Also politicians of all stripes will be tempted to claim that their proposals are green/anti-global warming whilst eroding our freedoms and increasing taxes.
He seems to be very much the best advocate of educating about climate change. Climatologists don't seem to be able to do it, because largely no one seems interested in what they have to say. Gore comes along with a film and a speel, and it works. And it's working beyond the US as well.
There are worse things in this world than increasing taxes. Targeted tax hikes, particularly when it comes to trying to wean industrialized economies off of wanton burning of fossil fuels to produce energy may very well be the only way. At the very least it's a club that governments do have to make people and industry behave. I simply do not buy into the notion that somehow or other the economy will just magically become more climate-friendly, and I do think the time has come to start forcing industry to become greener.
Back to Gore, he is no longer a politician. He's not a member of Congress, he's not a vice-president (save that I think he gets to keep the title). He's not running for public office. So what's the problem here?
#6 Aaron:
I disagree, for the point I made above he is or appears to be a big hypocrite. He clearly isn't going to change his proflugate ways so is ill placed to order others to do so.
How about just making some things illegal, thats how the Health & Safety Act in the UK managed to improve the conditions of workers in factories. Taxation on basic things such as power and transport hurts the poor far more than the rich.
Worse things than taxes! Of course there are, doesn't mean that they are good or an effective method of implementing policy. If goverments believe that some things shouldn't be done then, if they can get the majority, they should have the honesty to implement the changes into law.
I guess it is a choice between the politicians and apparatchick spending our money on what they deem good (1st class flights for them, no flights for us) or keeping taxes lower and having goverments spend taxes only on those things best supplied at a state/nation level.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then what do you call it?
Didn't he stop being an elected official because he failed to get elected?
Chris Willis wrote:
Oh come on, he's not as bad as that. I'm no big fan of Gore, I prefer my science from the scientists rather than from populizers, but this seems to me to be little more than shooting the messenger. Just how is Gore so hypocritical that he's harming the message, and do you think anyone else wouldn't be the object of serious attacks by climate change deniers? These people are intensely dishonest, quite willing to invent "facts", take scientists' words out of context and repeat discredited arguments. Please provide the person who has Gore's stature and communication abilities who will replace him and who won't be immediately attacked personally and professionally.
How do you propose to make the large-scale use of fossil fuels to produce energy illegal?
Perhaps you could explain this to me. I simply don't understand the statement. If one is not sitting in an elected position, then, by definition, one is not an elected official.
If Al Gore lived in a cave, depended on daylight, and walked everywhere he went, I doubt he would have made much impact on world awareness of climate change. You can't save the world without a carbon footprint.
Aaron:
Anyone who flies a personal jet rather than going economy or by train and then claims to be against pollution is a hypocrite. Anyone who lives in a mansion but tells others to be frugal with their energy and material consumption appears to be a hypocrite.
Someone who salves his conscience publicly by buying offsets rather than reducing his consumption is hypocritical. This option is only available for the rich, I don't like the concept of offsets in principle and I would think that any one wishing to effect change in others would change their own actions first to set a good example.
As for someone who could do a better job, perhaps not with democrats, and who has actually implemented some changes and is a US citizen. How about Arnie from California, manages to create unity between republicans and democrats and implements policy changes and communicates well.
As for the deniers, you are correct they will continue to deny but I don't think that Al Gore helps except amongst those inclined to his view already and then mostly on his side of the political fence or who can see ways to make political capital out of it.
It isn't the use of fossil fuels that is the problem it is the pollution they produce. So, require that utilities reduce their CO2 emmissions (worked for sulphur when we all worried about acid rain) per watt transmitted into peoples homes. How they do it is their problem, though upgrading the transmission grid would help a lot and it would be a good incentive to use waste as a fuel source (get rid of a lot of pollution from landfills) and invest in alternative energy sorces such as wave power. Require new homes to have insulation and double glazing to a minimum standard, require cars to be more fuel efficient i.e. better mpl (mpg for USAians) etc lots of things some small some large but imposed on all equally unlike road tolls and other taxes.
My point is he is a failed politician, when he was elected he was a succesful politician.
You may have guessed that I have a visceral reaction against big Al. I don't find him to be a good communicator (comes across as arrogant and condescending) and I don't like people who paint the lily.
Though as this post was originally about the peace prize, perhaps you could explain what he has done for peace? Has he organised peace conferences, reduced the size of any armies, negotiated any peace settlements?
Chris' Wills wrote:
So your big objection is that he's rich and uses his wealth. Playboy once asked John Lennon about the nature of being wealthy and wanting to change things:
PLAYBOY: John, do you really need all those houses around the country?
LENNON: They're good business.
PLAYBOY: Why does anyone need $150,000,000? Couldn't you be perfectly
content with $100,000,000? Or $1,000,000?
LENNON: What would you suggest I do? Give everything away and walk the streets? The Buddhist says, "Get rid of the possessions of the mind." Walking away from all the money would not accomplish that...
Now we're getting into subjective territory. You don't like him. You react with strong emotions against him.
I already said it wasn't a perfect fit, but I can guarantee that within the fifty to a hundred years, climate change is going to become a major factor, if not THE major factor in geopolitics. When rain belts change, and populations that once sat in reasonably arable land suddenly find themselves in deserts, we're going to see massive migrations, political instability and yes, wars. I think there's some argument to be made that it's already under way. As a Canadian (I'm one too, eh), you ought to know the intense interest the US is showing in the vast stores of fresh water sitting north of the 49th parallel.
With the way that governments, bought and owned by Big Oil and Big Industry, are dragging their feet and really moving forward only at a snail's pace, I think people like Gore are rather important in speaking directly to the consumer/voter, but if you can name somebody who can do it better, then by all means do so.
Aaron:
I've no problem with people being wealthy, seems like a good idea to me and I am trying to join them at the trough.
I did make the simple comment that if someone wants to effect change they should set a good example. Al Gore doesn't set a good example and so makes himself an easy target.
I am too young to remember much about John Lennon but I don't recollect him asking people to do things that he wouldn't or hadn't. He set a good example, so my elder sisters told me.
It isn't about how wealthy someone is, it is the example they set.
I react with strong emotions for the reasons I gave. To me he comes across as disingenuous.
I actually do want less pollution and more efficient use of resources, it is how that comes about that is my concern.
I did name someone I thought could do better and who is effecting real change. Hopefully his example will be followed.
Big Business can buy some goverments, this is true as money talks.
Water and food shortages have been a problem in this part of the world for a while now and have led to tension, also between India & Pakistan and between Russia & some former soviets; nothing new there.
Even if I disagreed with your prognosis about the future (which I don't, even without climate change it would be the probable scenario given human population growth) how would I collect if you are wrong :o)
Even though I'm not a Canadian I do know about the political turmoil going on about who owns what in the Artic and rights to use the NW passage, personally I think Canada has the better claims, especially vis-a-vis USA and Russia.
But the artic problem can't be blamed on climate change per se, the Russians are interested in possible oil deposits and Artic drilling had commenced, though was very expensive, many years ago; most notably by Canada & Norway. The melting of the ice just makes it less expensive.
I didn't know about the fresh water and US interest. I'll have to look that up.
Chris, I don't see how your complaints about Gore make a bit of sense. Hypocrisy? The challenges posed by global warming are not going to be addressed by saintly individuals voluntarily reducing their consumption of fossil fuels. Why would you hold it against Gore that he is not making enough pointless and counterproductive symbolic gestures?
Suggesting that individuals being virtuous will make a difference in global warming is to be dishonest. It's a global challenge that has to be met by international cooperation.
Daryl #13
If someone tells me to sacrifice for the common good I would expect them to be an exemplar.
I wouldn't listen to someone telling me to become a vegetarian for the common good whilst they continue eating steak and saying that it is OK for them to eat steak because they can afford to pay others to grow lots of vegetables as an offset.
You are incorrect, it is lots of people being "virtuous" that will make a difference ("many a mickle makes a muckle" as the saying goes), in fact nothing else will do unless you envision draconian laws and preventing the peasants from travelling.
People vote and politicians see votes, also what people buy affects the producers. But people are unlikley to be moved when one of the most visible proponents of a movement doesn't practice what they preach.
People have to be convinced not threatened and, in democracies, it should be clear that the actions are equitable.
It isn't hypocrisy on my part, I'm not telling people to cut back on their consumption whilst not reducing my own.
I'm not proposing to increase fuel/energy taxes claiming it is for the common good knowing perfectly well that it will hurt the poor more than me.
Chris writes:
I think that's nonsense. No amount of individual sacrifice will make any difference unless there is national and international cooperation.
You are incorrect, it is lots of people being "virtuous" that will make a difference.
I don't believe it. If half the population voluntarily cuts its consumption of fossil fuels drastically, the prices will drop, and the other half will increase its consumption. The only thing that will make a difference is coordinated effort.
Many people are unlikely to be moved, period. The hypocrisy issue is a convenient, but nonsensical, excuse. Those who are looking for an excuse to do nothing will find one.
Daryl #15
So according to your logic no individual needs to sacrifice anything just some nebulous things called national and international need to cooperate.
Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that you mean goverments (politicians & civil servants) need to cooperate, these are composed of people (well most of them appear human) so it is people who have to cooperate; even if only our betters. The great unwashed and unfed can go spin on it I suppose.
So you are writing that these politicians, freely cooperating, are the solution to the problem?
Will they be making the sacrifices? Methinks not, if given a free hand they will, spout hot air and whilst retaining their (politicians, their cronies etc) privileges force the peons to sacrifice on their behalf.
So!!
I did point out that there needs to be laws implemented to provide incentives for producers to reduce pollutants (carrot & stick approach) without any "Get out of Gaol card" such as offsets. One of the worst grenhouse gases is methane so, as is being trialed in Australia, reducing methane emission by sheep and hopefully larger ruminants could help a lot, not much goverment support for this as they can't think of a way to tax it and it's difficult to blame it on people.
The fact that you don't think people being "virtuous" is required smacks either of a desire to see the poor made poorer and their freedoms eroded or a general arrogance that people are too stupid to understand/learn why it is good for them and their children.
I realise that this is a general attitude of some on the right wing and many on the left wing of politics and among a lot of academics who've never broken sweat, this doesn't make it correct.
Overtaxing and preventing development in poor countries can only happen by force. Unless the people are shown that it is in their self interest all the politicions and their liggers can do is threaten and if pushed too far the electorate might not re-elect them or in authoritarian states there may need to be forcible repression of dissent.
Oh, you know how people react, psychic are you?
The hypocrisy issue wouldn't be so convenient if Al wasn't such an upfront and open hypocrite.
It is actually a very sensible position, as I said I and I suspect many others are more impressed and convinced by those who pratice what they preach. It is similar to trusting someone who appears honest.
I find it amazing that anyone believes that convincing people to change is impossible and that their prefered solution is draconian laws imposed on the inferior (I was going to say citizens, but by your comments the opinions of the people don't matter) by their superiors.
Chris writes:
No, I didn't say that. Everyone will need to sacrifice.
I didn't say that, either. How do you interpret what I said to mean that? As a matter of fact, I think that addressing the problem will involve massive projects to improve the lives of the poorest in the world. People won't take steps to address longterm problems if they are faced with the immediate problems of how to survive the next year. Long range thinking is only possible when there is as certain amount of security in the short run.
Doh! I really screwed up my blockquote tags!
Let me try again:
Chris writes:
No, I didn't say that. Everyone will need to sacrifice.
I didn't say that, either. How do you interpret what I said to mean that? As a matter of fact, I think that addressing the problem will involve massive projects to improve the lives of the poorest in the world. People won't take steps to address longterm problems if they are faced with the immediate problems of how to survive the next year. Long range thinking is only possible when there is as certain amount of security in the short run.
You don't need to be psychic, just observant.
I didn't say that, either. It's possible to convince people to change, but only if they believe that their being virtuous will make a difference. Only if they believe that we are all in it together.
Think about the Prisoner's Dilemma from game theory. There's a two player game, and each player has two options: the virtuous option, and the double-cross option. The rewards are rigged so that: (1) If one player is virtuous, the other player is better off double-crossing. (2) If one player double-crosses, the other player is better off double-crossing, as well. (3) If both players are virtuous, they are both better off than if they both double-cross.
The paradox is that if each player does what is best for himself in isolation, they will both double-cross, which is a worse outcome than if they both are virtuous.
The only way to achieve the globally optimal solution is for each player to have confidence that the other will be virtuous. How do you get to that point?
Well, if the players all know each other, then it is possible to enforce virtuous behavior through social pressure. You don't want to let your friends down, especially if you have to face them afterwards.
But if the players are complete strangers to each other, or even live on opposite ends of the globe, then you can't rely on social pressure.
You're arguing against stuff that I didn't say. I believe that we can address the challenges of global warming through citizens making informed decisions at the voting booth. What I don't believe is that we can address the challenges by relying on people to be virtuous.
Daryl #19
Hi, I thought why has he posted three times? Luckilly it wasn't three seperate posts:o)
You get people to be good (virtuous) by appearing good (virtuous) yourself. You don't actually have to be though that makes it simpler as you then don't have to dissemble.
This is my big gripe with the Gore and a lot of those who've jumped on the enviro' wagon. They make demands of others that they aren't willing to make on themselves.
To give an example from my life, don't worry no God involved.
Many moons ago the UK offshore Oil & Gas industry had an horrendous accident and death rate.
Wearing safety gear was seen as wimpy and real men didn't wear safety glasses or gloves. Now everyone wears all their PPE whenever they leave the accomodation block. What has happened, how did this massive social change occur? Now people who don't wear PPE are mocked and their co-workers cajole them into using PPE. This has spread into most Oil & Gas rigs/platforms/plants even into offshore Nigeria and darkest Aus'.
Yes, there are still incidents & accidents but less than before.
Was it goverment pressure? Well the goverment might claim in was extending HSE regulation offshore, but they came late to the party. That also doesn't explain why it has spread worldwide, even Exxon (Esso to Europeans) spends a lot of money on safety training for its workers all around the world.
It started with one companies management being convinced that they had to retain good workers and that a good safety record would help in this, they took cognoscence of what of studies in onshore industries. It took a while and others mocked but it worked. It also increased their profits.
The messages, in short: the safety officer isn't responsible for your safety, you are. You are your brothers keeper.
The same thing started with environmental issues, initially I suspected that it was a publicity gimmick but ISO 14000 is a lot more than that now and again it reduces costs whilst being less damaging to the environment.
People didn't believe that their little bit could do any good, now in safety and growing in environment they know it works. There thoughts were similar to yours, how does me being good help if everyone else is bad?
Are they virtuous now, well enlightened self interest might be more accurate.
Why do I mention this, because I know that it can be hard convincing people that their little bit will do any good, it is a struggle but once they are convinced it becomes the normal way of working.
If I was known as a messy, safety blind eejit then all my presentations would have been in vain. I was a presenter on safety and environmental issues for a while, it was worker talking to his fellow workers and that was more effective.
You know one thing that caused a lot of problems during my time trying to convert people? It was greenpeace lying about Brent Spar, try selling a product when those claiming to promote it are seen to have knowingly lied (they actually admitted it and said it served the greater good); egging the pudding can possibly be glossed over but not too often.
It took a while to get over that and it had nothing to do with what I was selling, but the message had gone out and so anyone putting forward environmental issues was tarred with the same brush.
How do you get out of the prisoners dilemma.
Well be honest about the science. Don't gild the rose or paint the lily. Practice what you preach. Share the burden equitably (i.e. no one buys their way out, that is always seen as very unfair). Trust the other normal people, their concerns are the same as yours. Be responsible for your own actions.
I don't need to know that others will be virtuous to be virtuous myself. We know from most studies that people punish cheats even if it costs them to do so.
Politicians seem to be exceptions to this generality.
Yes, there will always be thieves and reprobates, doesn't stop us having a working society.
There are also lots of things that have been done by those who set engineering standards.
For example; the CIBSE guides, a UK engineering institute, and the energy targets they set for their members when designing building services (the committee members writing these codes are institute members giving of their own time with no monetary reward) and the codes are normally taken to be what the HSE calls good practice. They don't make a big song and dance about it, they just do it.
There are lots of people doing lots of good things and I honestly don't think that Al and a lot of those claiming to speak for Gaia help the cause.
------------------------------
P.S. I sincerely apologise for misinterpreting your comments.