Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

[Makalakumu]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21262661/

OSLO, Norway - Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Friday, and the former vice president used the attention to warn that global warming is "the greatest challenge we've ever faced."

World leaders, President Bush among them, congratulated the winners, while skeptics of man's contribution to warming criticized the choice of Gore.

Gore in a statement said he was " deeply honored ... We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."

Thoughts?

 

[Cruentus]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21262661/



Thoughts?

I thought the movie was a good job, and he has been doing a lot in regards to raising awareness about Climate change, sticking to his guns during a time when most scientests were naysayers (as opposed to now where scientests fundamentally agree that Global Warming is real, even if they cannot agree on the source).

So, good for him; I don't see why not.

 

[michaeledward]

A true leader being recognized for leadership. I think it is a rare event.

 

[sirdarksol]

I say good.
This is something that needs to be paid attention to, no matter if humans have anything to do with it or not, because it is going to impact us, and it is going to impact the world, and even if we can't make any changes to it (I don't believe that, but I'm trying to stay neutral here), we need to know just how large that impact is going to be.

 

[Gordon Nore]

I say good.
This is something that needs to be paid attention to, no matter if humans have anything to do with it or not, because it is going to impact us, and it is going to impact the world, and even if we can't make any changes to it (I don't believe that, but I'm trying to stay neutral here), we need to know just how large that impact is going to be.

I think this is a very important point. I've heard many Gore's detractors argue that global climate change is a natural occurrence, and therefore is a non-issue. I think Gore has probably contributed more after the White House than many.

 

[Blindside]

I don't think his work deserves a prize for promoting "peace." Sure, global warming if it happens and if its impacts are as bad as is being estimated, it will probably provide the impetuous for war/migration between countries. Why not award the peace prize to someone who came up with a cheap form of widely available birth control, that will solve alot of the future's problems as easily and far more predictably.

Lamont

 

[tellner]

Good on him. It's not like he's doing it for the money. He's doing something good that he won't profit from because it's the right thing to do for generations (we optimistically hope) as yet unborn. It's quite an accomplishment.

 

[Big Don]

Good on him. It's not like he's doing it for the money. He's doing something good that he won't profit from because it's the right thing to do for generations (we optimistically hope) as yet unborn. It's quite an accomplishment.

Well, except he will profit from it, he buys carbon offsets FROM HIMSELF.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=258075474834657

 

[Dave Leverich]

Great article Don, I wondered about that when I first read the original post.

 

[Cruentus]

Well, except he will profit from it, he buys carbon offsets FROM HIMSELF.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=258075474834657

Wow... that's.. um... interesting.

Bush's ranch by the way is pretty awesome. Systems like the ranch, and the hurst building to provide another example, are great examples of eco-friendly sub-enviornments. If you have the capital to do such a thing, those are great examples to follow.

As to Al Gore; I wouldn't think that his personal behavior should impact his recognition from his work on raising awareness of climate change. His work has been substantial and of good quality, so I see no reason why he shouldn't be recognized for it.

His personal behavor, however, is another story. I think that many people may have had good reasons to not trust him enough to vote for him in 2000.

 

[Cruentus]

Also, as to who is the hypocrite here:

I am not really a Bush or Gore basher or anything, but...

Which is more hypocritical? Bush has an eco-friendly home but has a history of implementing extremely poor environmental policy. Gores personal behavior seems to be very unfriendly to the environment, but has been a champion in regards to raising environmental awareness.

So who's worse? :idunno:

I think either case is kind of "F"ed.

 

[Andrew Green]

I'm all for giving him an award, but this is not the right one. And it should not be half given to him and half to a organization.

My understanding was the Nobel Peace prize was meant to go to a individual (not a organization) for work towards bringing peace. Things like getting treaties, getting missiles dissarmed, reducing standing armies... things that have to do with bringing peace. Climate change is important, but it's the wrong award IMO.

 

[michaeledward]

I believe it has already been publically announced by the Gore camp that all award money will be given to the Palo Alto based Alliance for Climate Protection.

I want to use the honor and recognition of this award as a way of speeding up the change in awareness of the emergency.

Awareness is at an all-time high. ... What's been missing is the sense of urgency. We're going to make sure people understand this is an urgent problem, and No. 2, we're going to go out there and say this is a solvable problem.

That fact, however, will not stop some people libeling him, though, eh?


And, Andrew Green, often in the past, the Peace Prize has been awarded to organizations. Two years ago, for instance, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from the United Nations received the award. And, as far back as 1904 (the fourth year of Nobel recognition, the Peace Prize was granted to the Institute of International Law.

Others can be found here:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/

 

[Cruentus]

That fact, however, will not stop some people libeling him, though, eh?

Is it libel if it is true?

I have heard what the linked news story has said regarding Gore's personal energy expendature on more than o0ne occasion.

I can't say with 100% certainty that it is true, but is there any info to counter these statements? :idunno:

 

[Ray]

Gore won? I demand a recount.

 

[Big Don]

That fact, however, will not stop some people libeling him, though, eh?
And, Andrew Green, often in the past, the Peace Prize has been awarded to organizations. Two years ago, for instance, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from the United Nations received the award. And, as far back as 1904 (the fourth year of Nobel recognition, the Peace Prize was granted to the Institute of International Law.

Others can be found here:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/

The fact that his movie depicted things totally unrelated to Global Warming as being caused by global warming is libel? Hardly.
The IAEA and Institute of International Law's winning was more appropriate as NUCLEAR WEAPONS are fairly horrific and a factor in both war and peace... Both fit with original intent, which apparently means nothing.
From Wikipedia: According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace
congresses". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_peace_prize
How does lying about global warming do that?
A British judge recently ruled that Schools must warn of the BIAS in the film. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=485336&in_page_id=1811

 

[michaeledward]

Is it libel if it is true?

The truth is never libel.

It is, however, completely disengenuous to ascribe global warming to the actions of any one individual.

Detractors make arguments like: Mr. Gore travelled the world promoting his slide show on airplanes, which have huge carbon footprints. An HONEST evaluation would ask: Is there an alternative mode of transportation that does not have a huge carbon footprint, that Mr. Gore refused to take.

Mr. Gore has a good deal of money. Most people with wealth live in larger more luxiourious homes. To demand that he live in poverty, to truthfully spread the message, is, again, disengenuous.


In another thread, there has been a recent discussion about 'attacking the messenger'. In this case, claims made about Mr. Gore's footprint fit fully into that meme: By attacking the messenger, and discrediting him, detractors are hoping to deflect the message.

And that is a lousy argueing tactic, and in some instances, libel.

EDIT
Some in our country, and some on this message board, just can't miss the opportunity to take a cheap shot at Mr. Gore....

And before some here start telling me to look in the mirror, I'll ask you to look at who posted the first thread when President Bush visited Iraq on Thanksgiving four years ago.
END EDIT

 

[Ray]

Mr. Gore has a good deal of money. Most people with wealth live in larger more luxiourious homes. To demand that he live in poverty, to truthfully spread the message, is, again, disengenuous.

Mike, I thought you were a socialist?

I had heard about a house on the Bush ranch in texas. I don't know if it's true or not, but supposedly very tree-hugging. Here's a little bit about it from another blog.

"Evidently his Crawford Winter White House has 25,000 gallons of rainwater storage, gray water collection from sinks and showers for irrigation, passive solar, geothermal heating and cooling. “By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small,” says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home. “Clients of similar ilk are building 16-to-20,000-square-foot houses.” Furthermore for thermal mass the walls are clad in "discards of a local stone called Leuders limestone, which is quarried in the area. The 12-to-18-inch-thick stone has a mix of colors on the top and bottom, with a cream- colored center that most people want. “They cut the top and bottom of it off because nobody really wants it,” Heymann says. “So we bought all this throwaway stone. It’s fabulous."

 

[michaeledward]

A couple of random thoughts ...

What does my political orientation have to do with the awarding of Nobel Prizes?

What does Mr. Bush's residence in Texas have to do with the awarding of Nobel prizes?

A couple of more thoughts.

When was President Bush's ranch built and compare that to when Mr. Gore's home was built.

What is the carbon footprint required to get Mr. Bush to his ranch?

 

[Cruentus]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

Things usually don't fall into either of the 2 extremes that either "side" presents. Apoligize in advance for using terms like "left" and "right" here, as I will overgeneralize simply for efficiency. My take:

Bush's house is a great example of an eco-friendly house. I find it interesting that "Bush-haters" don't seem to want to recognize this. "The left" complains that "the right" will use any excuse to jump all over guys like Al Gore to effectively ignore the real issue (climate change and environment) to focus on personal attacks. This may be true, however I am not seeing much different going on from the either side, as I rarely see "the left" give credit to President Bush where it is due when the discussion of how people set the example comes up, but are quick to give excuses as to why Al Gore expends so much energy. If it were the other way around, I wonder what the "left" or "right" would have to say then?

That said, Bush cannot be called a champion for the environment when his political record regarding these issues going all the way back to when he was Gov. in Texas sucks badly.

Gore and the organizations he works with has done quite a bit to raise environmental awareness, particularly after his vice-presidancy. And if there is an award to be given out for that, he should be able to recieve it for his work, regardless of how he lives at home. One doesn't equal the other.

That said, Gore doesn't get a pass for his energy expendature. Sure, there are some mitigating factors, and it is not as horrible as some would present. However, it is difficult to deny that it could definatily be improved greatly. I hope, as the article stated he would, that he does do more in the future to change his own lifestyle.

And why is this even a discussion?

Hypocracy is the issue here. Is it hypocritical for Gore to put out a movie, travel the world and speak, and accept an award for his work on raising environmental awareness if in his personal life his energy usage is out of control? In this case, as far as the award is concerned, I say no; the award is for work that was done, not how someone chooses to live at home. So to me, they are seperate issues.