Nobel Peace Prize Goes to Al Gore

The Nobel Peace prize has just been awarded to Al Gore for his work on Climate Change.

Do you think this will further help the global warming movement, or will it be dismissed by the US right-wing global warming deniers as 'politicisation' of a scientific issue?

I sincerely hope that Al Gore sticks to this global issue and does not use this to enter the Presidential race now. He will have more influence on this now than he could hope to have as President.


OSLO, Norway (AP) - Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Friday for their efforts to spread awareness of man-made climate change and lay the foundations for counteracting it.

"I am deeply honored to receive the Nobel Peace Prize," Gore said. "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."


Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth," a documentary on global warming, won an Academy Award this year and he had been widely expected to win the prize.


He said he would donate his share of the $1.5 million that accompanies the prize to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization devoted to conveying the urgency of solving the climate crisis.


"His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change," the Nobel citation said. "He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."

It cited Gore's awareness at an early stage "of the climatic challenges the world is facing.


Gore, 59, has said he does not plan to run for president next year, despite a national movement to draft him, and Peace Prize committee chairman Ole Danbolt Mjoes said a possible run was not his concern.


"I want this prize to have everyone ... every human being, asking what they should do," Mjoes said. "What he (Gore) decides to do from here is his personal decision."


However, when asked about the 2008 U.S. elections, he said: "I am very much in support for all who support changes."


The last American to win the prize, or share it, was former President Carter in 2002.

The committee cited the Panel on Climate Change for two decades of scientific reports that have "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming."


Members of the panel, a network of 2,000 scientists, were surprised that it was chosen to share the honor with Gore, a spokeswoman said.


"We would have been happy even if he had received it alone because it is a recognition of the importance of this issue," spokeswoman Carola Traverso Saibante said.

The panel forecast this year that all regions of the world will be affected by climate warming and that a third of the Earth's species will vanish if global temperatures continue to rise until they are 3.6 degrees above the average temperature in the 1980s and '90s.


"Decisive action in the next decade can still avoid some of the most catastrophic scenarios the IPCC has forecast," said Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate official.

He urged consensus among the United States and other countries on attacking the problem.

Climate change has moved high on the international agenda this year. The U.N. climate panel has been releasing reports, talks on a replacement for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate are set to resume and on Europe's northern fringe, where the awards committee works, there is growing concern about the melting Arctic.


The Norwegian Nobel Committee said global warming, "may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."

Jan Egeland, a Norwegian peace mediator and former U.N. undersecretary for humanitarian affairs, also called climate change more than an environmental issue.


"It is a question of war and peace," said Egeland, now Director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs in Oslo.

"We're already seeing the first climate wars, in the Sahel belt of Africa." He said nomads and herders are in conflict with farmers because the changing climate has brought drought and a shortage of fertile lands.
 

The committee often uses the coveted prize to cast the global spotlight on a relatively little-known person or cause. Since Gore already has a high profile some had doubted that the committee would bestow the prize on him "because he does not need it."


In recent years, the committee has broadened the interpretation of peacemaking and disarmament efforts outlined by Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel in creating the prize with his 1895 will. The prize now often also recognizes human rights, democracy, elimination of poverty, sharing resources and the environment.

Two of the past three prizes have been untraditional, with the 2004 award to Kenya environmentalist Wangari Maathai and last year's award to Bangladeshi economist Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank, which makes to micro-loans to the country's poor.


The prize also includes a gold medal and a diploma.



Display: Sort:

Re: Nobel Peace Price Goes to Al Gore (#1)

Nothing good ever comes of giving a Nobel Prize to a politician.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Goes to Al Gore (#2)

Unbeleveable!

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Goes to Al Gore (#3)

Never mind the thousands of brave burmese citizens who have stood up, and were beaten back in their democracy protests, we'll give it to Al Gore instead.

It really is a disgrace. What on earth this has to do with global peace if beyond me.

But then again, they gave it to Carter - a complete failure and also Araprat.

Oh well.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Goes to Al Gore (#4)

The Burmese have already been recognised. Aung San Suu Kyi is a winner of the Peace Prize in 1991. Since you are so quick to brand others 'failures' , would you put her in the same category since Burma is still a military dictatorship?

What climate change has to do with 'peace' is a lot. It's a Global Security issue, requiring international cooperation and action. Thats the future for many of the big issues facing us today. Failure to address the issues, will lead to instabilities...just look at Darfur for example.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Goes to Al Gore (#8)

Well shit the bed, 1991.

As for branding other failures - it is a complete insult to compare jimmy carter to Aung San Suu Kyi.

Climate change has nothing to do with peace - it requires peace for progress - and that has not been achieved and Al Gore while raising the issue - has not helped peace progress in this world.

Once again, these people had a perfectly good chance to shame china, russia and burma - and they voted gore in a pathetic attempt to push him into a campaign he would lose again.

Disgraceful.

If they'd have given him a science award - I might be able to understand it - but peace award? Nonsense.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Goes to Al Gore (#9)

Ole Danbolt Mjøs, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, said Gore  and the UN climate panel are working for peace by publicizing the threat of climate change, which in turn can lead to armed struggles over natural resources.

But I guess you know better than the Nobel Committee...

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Goes to Al Gore (#10)

We already have armed struggles over natural resources, oil and rare metals; perhaps some thought could be given to solving those first instead of worrying about water.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Goes to Al Gore (#14)

Actually, access to clean water is a source of conflict. eg Israel-Palastine and the countries along the Nile.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Goes to Al Gore (#11)

Me and a lot of other people. Anyone that would allow for a known terrorist, mr araprat to receive a peace award is clearly a moron.

As for wars over natural resources - we're not living in those times anymore, no wars are going to be fought over natural resources. Humanity is wiser than that - hence the investment in alternative energy sources.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Goes to Al Gore (#13)

Hang on; have you been absent from the planet for the past 4 yrs? What was Iraq all about. Or the crisis that  flared in Ukraine over natural gas, or the the decimation of the Congo that is still continuing. And we've got more trouble brewing over oil and gas deposits in the South Atlantic and Antartic Territories.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Goes to Al Gore (#15)

Iraq was not about oil - it is a nutty idiotic conspiracy - and shame on any Labour members that believe it.

As for Ukraine - there was no war there, if anything natural resources were being used by russia to punish Ukraine for political reasons.

I'm don't know a great deal about the Congo - so you'd have to fill me in there.

And trouble over natural resources and war over natural resources are too different things - there is no sign of any war being fought in the atlantic and antarctic.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Goes to Al Gore (#16)

What were the Falklands about? Anyone who thinks Iraq was not about oil needs their head examined. We'll wait and see about Ukraine, Georgia and the other breakaway republics, all unstable and all potentials for instability. The Congo has remained wartorn since the day of its independence, because of fighting over its rich mineral resources, sposored by Western cessionists.


Re: Nobel Peace Prize Goes to Al Gore (#17)

The Falklands conflict is pretty clear as it is to this day.

As for Iraq - again, just disgraceful lies by idiots. There is absolutely no evidence that this war is about oil.

As for the Congo - you might be right, but I'm talking more about the developed world.

In LEDCs and regions like Africa - it really isn't a surprise.

But in more socially and economically developed countries like ours, it simply isn't going to happen and all the evidence points to that.

Regardless of which, none of which shows Gore should have won this award - because by your reasoning these things are still happening - so he has achieved nothing on this absurd 'peace' bandwagon he has supposedly contribued toward.


Re: Nobel Peace Prize Goes to Al Gore (#5)

I think they also gave it to Trimball and Adams. It didn't help the NI peace process much. And similarly, awarding the Peace prize to Rabin and Arafat, did b***er all to move the peace process on. Carter was a complete washout, trying to make amends for a failed presidency by globetrotting. So why give it to Gore? all he has done is a PR job on the environment, and not actually achieved any concrete change.

Ang San Suii is different, like Mandela, they are both reluctant politicians and are deserving of recognition for the hardship they have gone through in their struggle for freedom.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Goes to Al Gore (#6)

The Prize needs in future to be awarded retrospectively like the other Nobel prizes in other fields, for actual concrete achievements, perhaps after a respectable interval of 10 years or more. John Nash got his in 1994 for Maths, for work done years ago, which influenced theories and developments from  economics to biology.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Goes to Al Gore (#7)

Yes, I think the Peace Prize has been awarded very differently than the other awards.

Thats why its important to note this was not an award for 'science' or the science behind global warming. People who critique on those grounds, have the wrong end of the stick.

The Peace Prize tends to have been awarded sometimes as much as an encouragement, rather than as an award for actual achievement. Look at 1976 , when mairead Corrigan and Betty Williams got it for their fledging Northern Ireland Peace Movement - way before the actual coming of peace which is very recent, and the Hume-Trimble award in 1998.

The Peace Prize will always be the most controversial and political, and its often used to shed light on issues and bring hope to those fighting a worthy cause (often paved with frustration) rather than as a recognition of a concrete achievement.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Goes to Al Gore (#12)

I think if Gore had the prize it should have been shared with the other humanitarian Tony Blair.


yes joking

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Goes to Al Gore (#18)

It should have been Daw Aung Sun Suu Kyi. If the plight of her, and her supporters, and her people, is going to be kept in the spotlight, then we need to recognise their bravery, and a Nobel Peace Prize for the Prime Minister of Burma would have been a start. Also, can people stop saying 'If I was there, I would be on the streets too'. Never answer hypothetical situations, you don't know until you're there. It just means those who don't protest, but want to, are open for criticism, while ignoring the fact that they'll get a bullet in the back of their head, but it makes the actions of the Buhddists and protesters even more brave.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Goes to Al Gore (#19)

I think it's great that Al Gore was awarded this prize. He has done a lot to deserve it and he's a good politician. It's a pity he didn't became the president of the US instead of Bush, the world would have looked a lot different today then.