Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Z-06

Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize

23 posts in this topic

Al Gore Wins 2007 Nobel Peace Prize

Linkity

By GERALD F. SEIB and JEFFREY BALL

October 12, 2007 2:31 p.m.

WASHINGTON -- Former Vice President Al Gore won a share of the Nobel Peace Prize for his work publicizing global warming, an honor that is sure to raise speculation anew about his presidential ambitions and makes it more difficult for other politicians to avoid the global-warming issue.

The former vice president shares the prize with the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Nobel Prize committee announced in Norway. The prize caps a remarkable stretch for Mr. Gore's effort to raise the profile of the climate-change debate; aside from producing a widely read book on the subject, he won an Academy Award earlier this year for his film on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth." The announcement immediately set off a flurry of debate about whether Mr. Gore will get into the 2008 presidential campaign. Even before the announcement, fans of Mr. Gore had launched petition drives urging him to run, and one group published an open letter to Mr. Gore with the same plea in the New York Times this week.

Still, it seems unlikely Mr. Gore will reverse his earlier and oft-repeated decision not to get into the race. Democrats seem generally satisfied with the field of candidates they have, and entering the race now wouldn't only involve catching up with candidates who have been working at the campaign for a year or more, but also would involve going head-to-head in a fight with front-runner Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, with whom Mr. Gore worked in the White House.

But the prize will have political ramifications even if he doesn't run. For one, it means the Democrats in the race will be coveting a Gore endorsement even more than they did before. As one sign of that, Democratic contender John Edwards almost instantly released a statement congratulating Mr. Gore and saying: "The Nobel Peace Prize rewards three decades of Vice President Gore's prescient and compelling -- and often lonely -- advocacy for the future of the Earth."

Barack Obama wasn't far behind with his own congratulatory statement: "By having the courage to challenge the skeptics in Washington and lead on the climate crisis facing our planet, Al Gore has advanced the cause of peace and richly deserves this reward."

One potential problem for Mrs. Clinton is the prospect that, at least briefly, the Gore prize could make Democrats who have grown comfortable with the field and her as its leader feel a bit of longing for the Gore alternative.

More broadly, the additional attention Mr. Gore has brought to his cause also will make it harder for other politicians, the Bush administration and skeptics in the business community to avoid the global-warming issue. In his own statement after the prize was announced, he said: "We face a true planetary emergency…The climate crisis is not a political issue ...''

The award's effect may prove more rhetorical than substantive. Mounting public attention on global warming already has led Washington and governments around the world to consider regulations to limit greenhouse-gas emissions. The European Union imposed greenhouse-gas caps in 2005 and is now considering toughening them; Congress is debating several proposals to impose emission constraints in the U.S. But those efforts are hugely controversial, pitting powerful industries against each other as each tries to shape a potential regulation to shift the bulk of the pain to someone else. The result of that fighting is that the caps imposed in Europe, and those given the greatest political chance in Washington, would curb emissions only mildly -- far less severely than Mr. Gore argues is needed.

The Nobel award doesn't change perhaps the biggest question in the geopolitical debate over what to do about global warming: How to fashion an international agreement to curb emissions after the caps outlined in the current treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, expire in 2012. Doing that will require bringing the U.S. and China -- the world's two biggest global-warming emitters -- into any agreement. How to do that is likely to be the big subject of discussion at an upcoming United Nations conference on global warming in Bali, Indonesia, in December.

Posted Image

Write to Gerald F. Seib at jerry.seib@wsj.com and Jeffrey Ball at jeffrey.ball@wsj.com

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of :bs:

They claim that because he raised awareness about global warming that he mitigated future conflict over global resources, thus creating peace... Wow, what a stretch.

I heard an interview today with the head of Green Peace who is apparently speaking out against Gore now.

He (the Green Peace dude) says that because Gore is forcing the argument down our throats it will in turn begin to create apathy about the environment in general. He supported this with research performed in Europe that shows people are "losing interest" in the issue because they now view it as "political" and simply another way for politicians to regulate our lives as opposed to reality.

He claims that Gore is "an alarmist"

I thought it was GREAT and I agree 100% because that is ultimately what it is going to come down to, and people in this country fail to realize that. Now that we've got the "vote getters" on board with this issue as front and center, they will begin to regulate the size of car we buy, the amount of energy we use and evntually the size of the house we buy. Of course, THEY, the elite, will be exempt from this... Just like they're exempt from public airliners and small personal vehicles.

Edited by FUTURE_OF_GM
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone please explain WTF activism on the climate has to do with PEACE!

Thats what I am wondering too. <_<

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you watch "An Inconvenient Truth" be sure to look for the part where Al is driving a late model Cadillac Escalade to his family's old tobacco farm. They only show the interior as part of the backdrop during the interview sequences.

Edited by BigPontiac
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't a judge in England find 9 factual errors reagarding his movie the night before he won this award? The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded for a variety of reasons. Theres a rather nice sum of cash that goes along with the honor as well.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy that travels by jet and Lincoln Town Cars to his speeches while spending $30,000 a month on utility bills for his massive home wins a Nobel Prize for global warming awareness.

I'm speechless.

We will look back on this decade with embarrassment.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone please explain WTF activism on the climate has to do with PEACE!

Do you think we would be in IRAQ, worried about IRAN, had most of the 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia (no matter what anyone says, the reason that BinLaden attacked us was to get US troops OUT OF THE MUSLIM HOLY LAND - Saudi Arabia, which Bush did a few years later) and really give a &#036;h&#33; about the MIddle East IF WE DIDN'T NEED THEIR OIL?

There may be peace in the US (and other countries) if we became energy independent.

Come on people. Direct your hate to people that are really doing harm to this country and the world and leave those that are trying to really make a difference alone. BTW Al Gore NEVER said he "created the internet". That was right-wing spin from the 2000 elections. He was a key Congressional leader that made sure the government agencies that were creating the internet had proper funding. So he was key to the creation of the internet because he supported it and saw the kind of positive changes it could make. You know, the kind of forward thinking (like energy conservation) that leaders are made of. But f@#k him, right.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are always going to find a reason to fight, it's in our nature, sad as it is.

Until Mr. Albert Gore walks the walk instead of just talking the talk, this seems like a purely political issue, especially with Mr. Gore's personal consumption tendencies.

NPR did an interesting piece on methane gas recently, a MAJOR, naturally-occuring source for greenhouse gases.

It had been unseasonably warm here recently, but we actually only broke a temperature record one day... and the previous record was set in 1946. Yes, I've seen the reports on the earth's general warming trend, the receding ice caps and all that... but I am not convinced we as humans can stop it, nor that we've been completely responsible for it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NPR did an interesting piece on methane gas recently, a MAJOR, naturally-occuring source for greenhouse gases.

That is one of the huge reasons I am working on becoming a vegetarian. Meat farming is one of the largest causes of greenhouse gases - methane is naturally occurring yes, but not very natural when you stick 1 million cows on a piece of recently cleared rainforest to farm them for meat.

We could argue if humans have something to do with Global Warming or not (I honestly can't see how anyone can deny AT LEAST a little bit with the amount of cars and coal burning plants belching crap into the air. How could that not be f@#king something up?) all year. Truth be told, we have no exacting proof how warm or cold the Earth would get without us here. The Earth will warm and cool naturally. It has for billions of years before humans evolved and it will continue after the Earth figures out how to get rid of us and start all over again with other organisms. The rational thing to do here is to think what harm could energy conservation do? Why are people against saving energy? Oil is a finite resource and at now $84 a barrel (the cheap oil is gone) and China and India coming onto the grid, causes a lot of strife. And it should start from the top down - from the corporations and government, those that have the money to throw into it. Every corporation and government building should have some source of alternative energy tied to it, wind, solar, geothermal, etc. As more and more gets built, the price will go down and efficiency will go up. Then, by the time it gets to us normal folks, we can afford it and it will be worth it.

Truth be told, I don't want a hybrid - but my carbon footprint is so small compared to the real offenders. Hybrids and electrics should be offered to those that want them. I consider myself to be pro-environment, but not a militant non-thinker. I think CAFE should go up very gradually and there should be allowances for work/towing trucks - you know, the vehicles that build this country. If I want to buy a 400hp Camaro, I will. And if someone else wants to buy a Volt, they will. I think the people that are rational about this understand that there should still be freedom of choice and manufactures will still build what the people want to buy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mainstay of the piece on NPR regarding methane was... rice patties. Rotting vegetation in the flooded rice fields is eaten by microorganisms that secrete methane... same as in non-cultivated swamps all over the planet. Yes, cow farts cause problems... COWS cause problems, but we cannot stop the natural processes that occur without us.

I am for market-based solutions, not stricter CAFE regulations, and I am for choice, not restriction. I want a diesel Aveo to be available, a Volt, AND a 400 hp Camaro. I want a diesel Silverado 1500... and a 500 hp Silverado SS. I want car buyers to tell the automakers what to build... NOT government.

I want continued, intensive research into alternative energy sources for homes, business and industry... but leave my automotive freedom alone!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mainstay of the piece on NPR regarding methane was... rice patties. Rotting vegetation in the flooded rice fields is eaten by microorganisms that secrete methane... same as in non-cultivated swamps all over the planet. Yes, cow farts cause problems... COWS cause problems, but we cannot stop the natural processes that occur without us.

I am for market-based solutions, not stricter CAFE regulations, and I am for choice, not restriction. I want a diesel Aveo to be available, a Volt, AND a 400 hp Camaro. I want a diesel Silverado 1500... and a 500 hp Silverado SS. I want car buyers to tell the automakers what to build... NOT government.

I want continued, intensive research into alternative energy sources for homes, business and industry... but leave my automotive freedom alone!

Very well said Blu. I love you! (Not like P-C-S does)

Nitrogen pollution caused by the Fertilizers is the second largest global warming phenomenon preceded by Natural forests. Electricity comes third and then the Automobiles.

Gore is just trying to play blame passing to the weakest. He cannot reduce Natural forest emission, by cutting trees, that will accelerate GW. He cannot ask people to stop producing crops, that will mean Global Starving. He cannot ask people to not use electricity, that will be Global Darkening. So blame the auto manufacturers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My original question still stands. The Nobel Peace Prize has been cheapened by this selection.

Forget for a minute about the climate and Al Gore and think what this prize is meant to represent. This prize stemmed from the guilt and horror of a man who became rich by providing the world with a weapon of mass-destruction. He was disgusted by the results of his own success and sought to promote peace as an alternative.

No amount of spin or extrapolation justifies awarding the peace prize to Al and company - no matter the (disputable) value of their "work" regarding the climate.

This prize is meant for folks who manage to bring wars and genocides to an end, or broker agreements between enemies.

To award the prize in this fashion is a travesty, and makes a mockery of Nobel's intent.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My original question still stands. The Nobel Peace Prize has been cheapened by this selection.

Forget for a minute about the climate and Al Gore and think what this prize is meant to represent. This prize stemmed from the guilt and horror of a man who became rich by providing the world with a weapon of mass-destruction. He was disgusted by the results of his own success and sought to promote peace as an alternative.

No amount of spin or extrapolation justifies awarding the peace prize to Al and company - no matter the (disputable) value of their "work" regarding the climate.

This prize is meant for folks who manage to bring wars and genocides to an end, or broker agreements between enemies.

To award the prize in this fashion is a travesty, and makes a mockery of Nobel's intent.

There is no Peace Al Gore made in the world. No tranquility was established by his so called "Landmark" award winning movie. All he created was Chaos. You are right, it was a hypocritic award.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think we would be in IRAQ, worried about IRAN, had most of the 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia (no matter what anyone says, the reason that BinLaden attacked us was to get US troops OUT OF THE MUSLIM HOLY LAND - Saudi Arabia, which Bush did a few years later) and really give a &#036;h&#33; about the MIddle East IF WE DIDN'T NEED THEIR OIL?

Yes, because the constant conflict + nuclear technology advances would've planted us right in the middle anyway.

Come on people. Direct your hate to people that are really doing harm to this country and the world and leave those that are trying to really make a difference alone.

As far as I'm concerned, Al Gore is severely threatening my freedom by selling everyone and every politician on regulating our lives.

You know, the kind of forward thinking (like energy conservation) that leaders are made of.

Ya know, sadly I voted for Gore way back in the day, but I guess I was young and dumb because I'm sure we'd 1) either not exist as a nation after 911 or 2) Be in twice as bad of shape as we are now, especially Detroit (It would be DOA)

Trust me, I'm no fan of Bush but Gore, like Hilary is too extreme to do any good for this country.

But f@#k him, right.

That's my general opinion, yes. (Of course, that's my general opinion of all politicians)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He cannot ask people to stop producing crops, that will mean Global Starving.

Actually he did in his first book...

The one where he bitches about erosion from 3rd world countries growing crops. Because you know, run off is obviously more important than starving people.

Seriously, I kinda wished this guy would've won the president seat, just so we wouldn't have to be subjected to this garbage.

THE SCORE: Ghandi -0- Al Gore -1-

LOL

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My original question still stands. The Nobel Peace Prize has been cheapened by this selection.

This prize is meant for folks who manage to bring wars and genocides to an end, or broker agreements between enemies.

To award the prize in this fashion is a travesty, and makes a mockery of Nobel's intent.

So you're saying that Al Gore cheapens the peace prize but that Yasser Arafat's selection adds to the prestige of the award?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying that Al Gore cheapens the peace prize but that Yasser Arafat's selection adds to the prestige of the award?

No, not at all.

If you re-read my post you will see that my objection isn't so much that Gore won, but that he won by doing nothing that has anything to do with creating peace.

Arafat was scum, but he was at least involved in peace negotiations and signed several accords to that affect.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it should start from the top down - from the corporations and government, those that have the money to throw into it.

Hmmm... seems like Gore fits the "top" and "those that have the money" categories... It doesn't take much paying attention to see that he's a politician through and through. Add hypocrisy on top of that, and I see no reason to believe a word he says. If he'll own up to his own actions and how they affect climate change, maybe I'd listen to what he says a little more...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0