The reason why Al Gore's crusade against Global Warming qualifies for a Peace Prize is in my mind pretty simple. Even if we limit "peace" to the lack of armed conflict between people [an unnecesarily narrow definition] then there is ample evidence that climate change in the way predicted by the most modern climate models will lead to more global conflict and thus less peace. This is very thoroughly laid out for environmental degradation in general in Jared Diamond's Collapse and for GW in particular here and here, among other places. Especially interesting is this report by a group of retired US generals and admirals [not your typical extreme environmentalists]. They claim national and global security are seriously threatened by GW. Here's how they say it:
"Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the mostIn short, based on our best modern science combating GW will lead to fewer conflict fatalities in the future. Thus fighting GW is an act of peace.
volatile regions of the world."
It's not clear if the Nobel committee had this in mind when they awarded Al and the IPCC the award, but it makes a lot of sense to me.
4 comments:
Interesting comments. I think you make the best case that can be made, but I remain skeptical. Nobel's will, which established the Peace Prize, stated that it should go to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses." I think David Stern might fit that definition as well as Al Gore.
If there is indeed a nexus between climate change and volatility, that justifies consideration of abating or tempering global warming. However, the existence of a nexus should not be confounded with the strength of the nexus. I think what Jimmy Carter did to try to broker peace in the Middle East was much more closely causally linked to peace. In other words, I fail to see a strong causal link. But I'm no expert and I appreciate your showing a plausible nexus.
As a final comment, assuming that there is a causal link between global warming and peace, and assuming that the causal link is strong, we still need to see Al Gore as having advanced anti-global warming measures. Other than popularizing the matter to an immense degree, I'm not sure what he's done. I'm not pooh-poohing bringing subjects to the masses at all--education is important. I'm talking about showing any measurable advancement.
Finally, most of what I know about his efforts are through news sources and seeing his movie "An Inconvenient Truth." I was so annoyed with his fallacies that it almost overshadowed a message I couldn't agree more with--let's treat the planet better. The reasons I want to treat the planet better are primarily because I believe that constitutes ethical conduct, not because I believe that global warming is going to be abated through different treatment.
Thanks for the comments.
By Nobel's definition, then, the winners in 2006, 2004, 2003, 1999, 1997, 1993, and a comparable proportion of the ones previously cannot be considered worthy candidates. The list of people who won but don't qualify under that description includes Linus Pauling, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, Lech Walesa and Nelson Mandela. They all obviously deserve the prize but didn't "[do] the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses."
So in other words, you're right but precedent shows that the Nobel committee has been using other criteria for a long time.
No I'm not, YOU are.
I know you are, but what am I?
Post a Comment