Gore and UN panel win Nobel prize

BBC
Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth was an unlikely box office hit
Climate change campaigner Al Gore and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have been jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Mr Gore, 59, was vice-president under Bill Clinton and has since devoted his efforts to environmental campaigning.

The UN's IPCC, comprising 3,000 leading climate scientists, is the world's top authority on global warming.

The Nobel committee said it wanted to help the world focus on the threat it faced from climate change.

Announcing the winners, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Ole Danbolt Mjoes, said they had been chosen "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change".

The Nobel committee closely guards the names of nominees, but this year speculation was high that the recipient would be linked to climate change campaigns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYuqoKxRhMg

Agonist 2008 Elections Forum thread on Al Gore

TIME
Friday, Oct. 12, 2007
By Eric Pooley

For the past year, Al Gore has gone about his considerable business without showing much interest in running for president. While picking up an Oscar and an Emmy, publishing a very smart book and playing host at a global concert for the planet, he's never done more than tease the idea. And yet all that time, the leaders of the Draft Gore movement have been clinging to a single fervid dream: that Gore would win the Nobel Peace Prize and use it to catapult himself to an eleventh-hour bid for the presidency.

Now the Nobel Committee has done its part, awarding Gore the Peace Prize for being "probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted" to combat climate change, according to his citation. (The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was also a joint winner of the prize.) And so, after the obligatory spasms of celebration and the equally obligatory gnashing of Rush Limbaugh's teeth, will Americans finally get to enjoy one of the great spectacles in political history, as Gore's ultimate honor levitates him beyond his leading rival, Hillary Clinton, and into the Oval Office?

Nope.

Let me be clear. If Al Gore gets into the presidential race, I'll eat my copy of An Inconvenient Truth. (The paperback, not the DVD.) I've spent a good deal of time with Gore this year, while writing a TIME cover story about him. I think he's staying out of the race — and I think I know why. But before I get into that, let me offer a few thoughts about what's not keeping him on the sidelines. I don't think Gore is staying out because of all the logistical difficulties that running would entail. Sure, it would be challenging to staff up a national organization and build the county-by-county teams he'd need to compete in the early states. True, he has no shadow campaign lurking in the background and waiting to be deployed. But he could hire one, recruiting first-rate people from other campaigns as they fade; and he could enlist his vast army of grassroots followers as well as his Silicon Valley friends in a rainmaking operation mighty enough to compete against the fundraising prowess of Clinton and Barack Obama. So the logistics, though daunting, aren't what's keeping Gore out.

Nor do I believe that Hillary Clinton is keeping Gore from running. It's true that Gore's late-entry presidential calculus always required Hillary to stumble, and it's true she has not done so — to the contrary, she has extended her lead nationally, edged ahead in Iowa, and taken on an aura of invincibility that has brought the Democratic power structure into line behind her. One hundred and thirty-six thousand people may have signed Draft Gore petitions, but most Dems seem pleased with their current candidates — and especially with the frontrunner. To borrow a phrase from Barack Obama, the Clinton machine is fired up and ready to go, and Gore doesn't relish the idea of being caught beneath its wheels.

But that's not the nub of it either. Hillary is just a sideshow; the main event is unfolding deep inside Gore. Consider: He put himself in position to win the Nobel by committing to an issue bigger than himself — the fight to save the planet. If he runs for president now, he'll be hauling himself back up onto that dusty old pedestal, signaling that he is, after all, the most important thing in his world. Sure, he'd say he was doing it because he feels a moral obligation to intervene in a time of unparalleled crisis. But running for president is by definition an act of hubris, and Gore has spent the past couple of years defying his ego and sublimating himself to a larger goal. Running for president would mean returning to a role he'd already transcended. He'd turn into — again — just another politician, when a lot of people thought he might be something better than that.

And he'd be risking a hard-won happiness. Gore is happier these days because he is living the kind of life he always wanted to lead. He's happier these days because he is free from the excruciating requirements of electoral politics, the glad-handing and the money-grubbing that drove him deeper into himself the more he was forced to reach out. And, finally, he's happier now because he has been vindicated. The Nobel is an acknowledgment that Gore was right about the greatest global threat we face (and that this is the year when most everyone else finally figured out he was right). Winning the Peace Prize may not place Gore among the global saints, the Nelson Mandelas of the world; but it does place him among the laureates who are beloved in some quarters and loathed in others — those highly charged Prizewinners like Jimmy Carter.

That's not a bad place to be, but you won't find Gore gloating about it. This Prize, after all, is a recognition that Gore has done more than anyone else (excepting Mother Nature) to bring about a sea change in public opinion. An overwhelming majority of Americans — 90% of Democrats, 80% of independents, 60% of Republicans — now say they favor "immediate action" to confront the climate crisis. Gore helped make that happen, but he can't take too much satisfaction in it. As he told me last spring, "Time is running out, and we still haven't done anything."

Chose Al Gore as a running mate? Is there a statute forbidding a VP to serve more than 2 mandates. That could be the ticket.

Oslo, October 12

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.

Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They 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.

Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming. Whereas in the 1980s global warming seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent.

Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.

By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control.

Peace prizes should not just be about ending wars of one people against another. So-called humanity would fight fewer wars over resources if we quit making war against earth.

take the money and pay for his electric bill.

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

on CNN this AM they had to give time to the guy that wrote the book debunking Al Gore's. He appeared to be a shill for the corporations. I'm getting really tired of hearing opinion pass itself off as fact. This evening our library will show a film "Crude Awakening"..about Peak Oil. And there will be a discussion. At least one person I know has said "all the scientists I know are liberals...therefore, the issue is political". Arghhhhh...

that Mr. Bush can forget about the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize? I guess he'll just have to content himself with his $75,000 speaking engagements (he's already set his price) and his Freedom Foundation.

drive themselves mad trying to pretend that a Nobel Peace Prize is a phony award or is now worthless. You know they're going to. Just because Al Gore got one.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119217994461357186.html

I'm going to try once again the reasons why I will forever condemn this global warming concept. My objections lie in the totalitarianism of it all. We are just replacing the war on terra meme with a war on the enviornment meme. A war is still a war.
The same people who rally on about the neo-cons and their war on terra also tell me with the very same dedication of Faux News viewers that my conversion from $600 every ten days for oil to a pellet stove is just not good enough? WTF? I was told wood pellets rely on machinery?

For most this is the only green solution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States

Big Al Gore with his massive compassion for humanity could have rallied himself with thousands of other completely worthwile causes. Depleted uranium is one of them. Perhaps a real investigation solving the questions more and more people have about 911. How about why media has supressed information about a simple drug that kills multiple versions of cancer.

Simply not, the establishment must remain the establishment and carbon trading as the new Wall Street will be justification for the massive repossetion of the western world's modern lifesyle.

Meanwhile carbon exempt China and the gold rush of western financed factory building continues to churn out contaminated dog food, lead laced childrens toys and lipstick.

Blow me Big Al!

The Globe and Mail, By Kofi Annan, October 15

In recent months, global awareness on the risks associated with climate change has shifted drastically. Few would now dare to argue against the view that climate change does and will present an enormous humanitarian challenge. Even if progress was made in reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, we should not forget that weather patterns have already changed, global temperatures have already risen and, above all, climate change is already taking a heavy human toll around the globe.

For far too long, climate change has been seen as a problem of the future, one that only a limited range of ministries and institutions should manage. This must change now. Climate change requires broader engagement.

We need to build up knowledge on how the most vulnerable communities can protect and adapt themselves and what types of global support systems are needed. How will millions of people in Africa and Asia be affected by changing monsoon seasons? How will the poor cope with more frequent and intense droughts and floods? How will the weakest survive more agonizing heat waves and violent tropical storms? How can we diffuse the tensions that are likely to erupt as food and water shortages worsen? What are the security implications of the mass migrations predicated by many experts? Should we start identifying safe land for coastal and insular populations? How can the latest advances in agriculture and water harvesting be made available to those most in need? How can the humanitarian community enlist the help of all sectors to face those challenges? And who will pay the bills? These are just few of the many questions that come to mind.

Adapting to the adverse effects of climate change also means increasing the resilience of the communities at risk. Achieving this objective involves efforts and expertise in areas ranging from economic development to risk reduction, from disaster relief to private investment. Co-ordinated work at the global, regional and local levels will be required in order to find practical solutions. These efforts will carry a cost. Thus, there is also a major need for the international community to mobilize the necessary human and financial resources.

October 15, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Gore Derangement Syndrome
By PAUL KRUGMAN

On the day after Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize, The Wall Street Journal’s editors couldn’t even bring themselves to mention Mr. Gore’s name. Instead, they devoted their editorial to a long list of people they thought deserved the prize more.

And at National Review Online, Iain Murray suggested that the prize should have been shared with “that well-known peace campaigner Osama bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore’s stance.” You see, bin Laden once said something about climate change — therefore, anyone who talks about climate change is a friend of the terrorists.

What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?

Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration.

And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job — to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda’s recruiters could have hoped for — the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme.

The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.” And so it has proved.

But Gore hatred is more than personal. When National Review decided to name its anti-environmental blog Planet Gore, it was trying to discredit the message as well as the messenger. For the truth Mr. Gore has been telling about how human activities are changing the climate isn’t just inconvenient. For conservatives, it’s deeply threatening.

Consider the policy implications of taking climate change seriously.

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals,” said F.D.R. “We know now that it is bad economics.” These words apply perfectly to climate change. It’s in the interest of most people (and especially their descendants) that somebody do something to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but each individual would like that somebody to be somebody else. Leave it up to the free market, and in a few generations Florida will be underwater.

The solution to such conflicts between self-interest and the common good is to provide individuals with an incentive to do the right thing. In this case, people have to be given a reason to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, either by requiring that they pay a tax on emissions or by requiring that they buy emission permits, which has pretty much the same effects as an emissions tax. We know that such policies work: the U.S. “cap and trade” system of emission permits on sulfur dioxide has been highly successful at reducing acid rain.

Climate change is, however, harder to deal with than acid rain, because the causes are global. The sulfuric acid in America’s lakes mainly comes from coal burned in U.S. power plants, but the carbon dioxide in America’s air comes from coal and oil burned around the planet — and a ton of coal burned in China has the same effect on the future climate as a ton of coal burned here. So dealing with climate change not only requires new taxes or their equivalent; it also requires international negotiations in which the United States will have to give as well as get.

Everything I’ve just said should be uncontroversial — but imagine the reception a Republican candidate for president would receive if he acknowledged these truths at the next debate. Today, being a good Republican means believing that taxes should always be cut, never raised. It also means believing that we should bomb and bully foreigners, not negotiate with them.

So if science says that we have a big problem that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed. For example, Investor’s Business Daily recently declared that the prominence of James Hansen, the NASA researcher who first made climate change a national issue two decades ago, is actually due to the nefarious schemes of — who else? — George Soros.

Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He’s taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.