As resources become more scarce, in a large part due to climate change (thing clean fresh water, for example), people will go to war over them.
Focusing on healthy planetary resource stewartship should help maintain peace simply by helping to prevent the scarcification of essential resources.
Now, does Gore deserve it? I really have no idea. I haven't seen his movie, he only "greened" his house after intense media scrutiny, and truthfully, I have a hard time taking omnivore environmentalists seriously (see Livestock's Long Shadow for more if you are curious).
Maybe it is just because I am Canadian, but I think that David Suzuki has done far more than Al Gore on the subject.
This wouldn't be the first time that the connection to peace has been less than direct. In 1970, Norman Borlaug won the Peace Prize for his work within the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre.
In both this case and Gore's, the connection to peace can be made, but I think the Prize committee was also simply acknowledging the nature of Gore's efforts regarding climate change. There is a connection in the altruism shown by the winner. He's working selflessly in the interest of mankind, just as people like Mother Theresa and Desmond Tutu were. (This really paints a far more saintly portrait of Al Gore than I care for, I'd favour David Suzuki to win the prize, even if his influence has been less international)
Perhaps I should clarify what I'm leading toward: in this case, the prize is less about peace, and more about one man's struggle to save mankind (I should really write those notes on the back of DVDs and Harlequin Romances). There's no Nobel Prize for Altruism, so this is the next best thing.
I'd say they are all Nobel Prizes for altruism, they're supposed to be for work in promoting the development of human-kind. Still the point you are making is a good one. Perhaps there needs to be something more like 'improving the human condition' or the like, except one word, obviously.
As for the indirectness, I think last year's micro-payments dude was similar, a roundabout way to peace but one that I was more comfortable with than Gore.
I remain of the opinion that like the physics, chem, etc prizes, Peace should be given after a number of years have passed so as to properly gauge the impact of the persons' efforts.
I think Gore's a hypocrite. He'll lecture on and on about carbon emissions and then use his private jet consuming massive amounts of oil to carry his ass to another seminar where he'll get paid thousands to speak. I like David Suzuki more with his practice-what-you-preach ways.
Well if planes and expensive talks are your problem David Suzuki has the same issues, if admittedly on a more Canadian scale. He's apparently quite a pricey speaker and the following link should take you to a humourous discussion of Suzuki's footprint.
Let me be clear though that I don't think that his large carbon footprint nullifies his work, just as it doesn't Gore's, how responsibly they manage it however... That is a point we agree on.
Yes he does. So along comes my point, you don't have to be carbon neutral to preach carbon neutrality, but you do have to be making an effort. I don't know if Gore is veggie or not, though I suspect you could find out. 'Greening' your home out of media pressure is less commendable than beating the press to the punch, but he did do it and deserves some credit for that. As for how you fly, I suspect having been the vice president affects that somewhat...
I agree that Suzuki is the better enviromentalist, and likely the better educator, but Gore has more reach and is more visible because of name, politics or what have you.
Apparently that is what is necessary to win the Nobel Prize, and though that doesn't thrill me either, it is in keeping with the Prize's history.
Comments 38
As resources become more scarce, in a large part due to climate change (thing clean fresh water, for example), people will go to war over them.
Focusing on healthy planetary resource stewartship should help maintain peace simply by helping to prevent the scarcification of essential resources.
Now, does Gore deserve it? I really have no idea. I haven't seen his movie, he only "greened" his house after intense media scrutiny, and truthfully, I have a hard time taking omnivore environmentalists seriously (see Livestock's Long Shadow for more if you are curious).
Maybe it is just because I am Canadian, but I think that David Suzuki has done far more than Al Gore on the subject.
Reply
Reply
I have the feeling that this was a very US centric move. Or is Gore really that big outside of the USA?
Reply
Reply
In both this case and Gore's, the connection to peace can be made, but I think the Prize committee was also simply acknowledging the nature of Gore's efforts regarding climate change. There is a connection in the altruism shown by the winner. He's working selflessly in the interest of mankind, just as people like Mother Theresa and Desmond Tutu were. (This really paints a far more saintly portrait of Al Gore than I care for, I'd favour David Suzuki to win the prize, even if his influence has been less international)
Reply
Reply
As for the indirectness, I think last year's micro-payments dude was similar, a roundabout way to peace but one that I was more comfortable with than Gore.
I remain of the opinion that like the physics, chem, etc prizes, Peace should be given after a number of years have passed so as to properly gauge the impact of the persons' efforts.
Reply
Reply
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1308
Let me be clear though that I don't think that his large carbon footprint nullifies his work, just as it doesn't Gore's, how responsibly they manage it however... That is a point we agree on.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I agree that Suzuki is the better enviromentalist, and likely the better educator, but Gore has more reach and is more visible because of name, politics or what have you.
Apparently that is what is necessary to win the Nobel Prize, and though that doesn't thrill me either, it is in keeping with the Prize's history.
Reply
Canadian Sheila Watt-Cloutier will learn Friday if she has won the Nobel Peace Prize, but the Iqaluit-based environmental activist said she's already inundated by worldwide attention leading up to the big decision.
I had no idea that she was nominated. A shame that she didn't win, she has been doing some fantastic work.
Interesting to see that there were two environmentalists nominated for this award though.
Reply
Leave a comment