Nobel Fraud Prize

THE desire or need to control natural resources has been a source of conflict throughout human history. An example of this imperative may be found today in the Iraq war, where the prospect of an oil-based hegemony was among the major triggers. Not all battles, however, are motivated by greed, the profits of empire-building or the lure of loot and plunder. Sometimes they are based on basic needs such as water, grain, livestock and cultivable land. Such conflicts are nothing new but there is a fear they could escalate rapidly due to global warming, which is already threatening livelihood security in parts of the developing world. Margaret Beckett, who was the British foreign secretary at the time, warned in May this year that climate-driven conflicts are a reality even now in some African countries. A ?'struggle between nomadic and pastoral communities for resources made more scarce through a changing climate' is one of the underlying causes of the Darfur crisis in Sudan, she said. In Ghana, an expanding Sahara Desert is meanwhile fuelling animosity between Fulani herdsmen and local farmers. The evidence is in and mounting by the day: environmental degradation and shrinking resources lead to a loss of livelihood and increase the risk of conflict.

The link between a healthy environment and world harmony first received widespread attention in 2004 when the Nobel peace prize was awarded to Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai, founder of The Green Belt Movement which focuses on reforestation, sustainable sources of firewood and the creation of associated livelihood opportunities. This vital connection between human and planetary well-being was re-emphasised on Friday when the latest Nobel peace prize went to Al Gore, the former US vice-president turned environmental campaigner, and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Explaining its decision, the Nobel committee said it wanted to highlight the ?'increased danger [posed by climate change] of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states'. In Mr Gore's case, an Oscar-winning documentary and his sustained awareness campaign have popularised the science of global warming and helped take it to a worldwide audience. The IPCC's highly respected ?- and, importantly, neutral ?- scientists have been conducting research on climate change for almost two decades. The panel's February 2007 assessment report was hailed as a landmark document that confirmed that human activity is indeed responsible for global warming. The bad science, often sponsored by big business, stood rubbished once and for all.

The publicity generated by the peace prize is timely, coming as it does shortly before a key UN conference on climate change starting in Bali in the first week of December. Here, negotiations will begin to hammer out a post-Kyoto Protocol framework for capping emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that cause global warming. As always, bringing the US on board remains a major problem. Washington has not ratified Kyoto and continues to reject the mandatory emission caps accepted by most developed countries. Perhaps the snub delivered by the Nobel prize will help make the naysayers change their ways but that, sadly, remains a remote prospect.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/10/14/ed.htm#1

Let me repeat the last sentense from the above article

"Perhaps the snub delivered by the Nobel prize will help make the naysayers change their ways but that, sadly, remains a remote prospect."

Ottawa - "Planet Earth is a winner" of the Nobel peace prize too, alongside former US vice president Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said Inuit nominee Sheila Watt-Cloutier on Friday.

Canadian Watt-Cloutier, who was jointly nominated with Gore for the prestigious award and a favourite to win for her tireless defence of the Arctic and Inuit rights in the face of climate change, told public broadcaster CBC she was "very pleased that they won".

But, she conceded: "I was a little bit surprised to be honest because we had jointly been nominated... (and) it certainly would have helped to continue to put (Arctic) issues on the map and the human dimension to it."
"In that respect I have to admit I was a little bit disappointed (not to win)."

Still, "for me, the issue has won. And in fact, our own planet Earth is a winner in all of this", she said.
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=nw20071012161019907C849335

Friday's peace prize announcement should have added to the momentum.

"There is still much work to do and no time to waste," Eileen Claussen, of Washington's Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said afterward.

What's needed, say the Europeans, Japanese and most of the rest of the world, is agreement in Bali on fashioning a stronger, broader level of global cooperation to reduce greenhouse gases emitted by power plants, automobiles and other sources.

But prospects for an agreement dimmed in September when the Bush administration, at a 16-nation "major emitters" meeting in Washington, signaled it intends to stick with its opposition to any global treaty mandating reductions in the heat-trapping emissions.

For all this year's buildup, in other words, the real "year of climate" may have to wait for 2009, with a change at the White House.

The climate, meanwhile, won't wait.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gbklXE8dpmsh1FYXfd9SVVOkhC4QD8S8FS7O1

Among those crediting Mr. Gore for elevating the issue ?- if differing from him sharply on solutions ?- is former Speaker Newt Gingrich. Mr. Gingrich is a co-author of a new book, "A Contract With the Earth," that accepts the notion that human-caused warming poses serious risks and urges the United States to, among other efforts, aggressively develop nonpolluting energy technologies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/science/13climate.html?ref=us

US newspapers Saturday hailed Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize for his fight against climate change, saying it showed up failings of President George W. Bush in the seven years since he beat Gore to the White House.

"For more than 20 years, Mr. Gore persisted in the face of intense skepticism and criticism with his warnings about the impact of global warming on the planet," the Washington Post wrote, hailing the award as "vindication".

It interpreted Gore's honor -- awarded jointly to him and the some 3,000 scientists of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- as "yet another perceived rebuff to the unpopular president."

"Mr. Bush's inaction on climate change is one of the major failings of his presidency," it said.

Bush has consistently resisted joining other world powers in committing to concrete targets for reducing harmful carbon dioxide emissions, though he has bowed to acknowledge the threat they pose.

"It shouldn't have to be left to a private citizen -- even one so well known as Mr. Gore -- or a panel of scientists to raise that alarm ... or champion solutions to a problem that endangers the entire planet," the New York Times argued in Saturday's edition.

"That should be, and must be the job of governments. And governments -- above all the Bush administration -- have failed miserably."

The view was echoed in the Los Angeles Times, where opinion columnist Jonathan Chai wrote: "Gore's triumph is a measure of George W. Bush's disrepute."

The Dallas Morning News shared the view that the award vindicated Gore for skepticism expressed in the past at his expense, though the paper said he would still appear "as a stuffed shirt in the eyes of many Americans."

"He has long been ahead of his time," it said in an editorial. "In 1992, President George H.W. Bush made fun of Mr. Gore, then running for vice president, for his environmental enthusiasm. Far fewer people are laughing today."

The Wall Street Journal in its Nobel editorial meanwhile made no mention of Gore but gave a list of worthy non-winners, such as the monks who led recent pro-democracy protests in Myanmar, and people braving danger to rebuild Iraq.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gneAYXioufErSwFJQj9kOCYxspKA

In that case what are all these people doing spending all year having meetings to decide who has won for, and, one supposes, feasting and taking taxi rides and posing for the cameras. I read that there are thousands of nominations which take a whole raft of subordinate committees to sift and feast upon and take taxi rides to and fro. The management of a "foundation" of safe investment is notorious for feather bedding and posturing when the cameras are rolling.

I bet the prize generated a good dose of co2 for the poor of the world.

Where do I start? If there's "no time to waste" I had better be getting on with it hadn't I?

The statement takes about 5 seconds to spout which leaves 23 hours, 59 minutes and 55 seconds of the day left unaccounted for. What was Eileen doing in that time and on the other days when she allows her attention to wander.

And have you seen some of the names which grace that particular roll of honour? There are terrorists, war-mongers and torturers on it.

A pyramid of puffery.

I agree with you partially.
But this main subject( climate and environment has got the least attention with the American DREAM FAFRIC:

Today, the Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to Al Gore (and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - The IPCC).



We're very happy for him at RAN.



And we think he belongs in jail.



Specifically, he should go to jail with a lot of young activists on RAN's November 16-17 Day of Action Against Coal Finance.



As reported in Nicholas Kristof's NYT column on August 16, Al is on record as saying: "I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers … and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants."



So we're calling him out and asking him to put his peace prize where his mouth is. We're telling Al Gore that we want him to get arrested, Nobel prize around his neck, for blocking the construction of coal-fired power plants.



But we're telling him to do it strategically.



By the time the bulldozers are on the ground, it is already too late. We need to stop these projects before they start and the best way to do that is by preventing them from being financed in the first place. The coal industry depends on Wall Street. So we're going after the industry's biggest funders: Citi and Bank of America.



Rainforest Action Network, Coal River Mountain Watch, Appalachian Voices and thousands of supporters are mobilizing to stop Bank of America and Citi from financing coal extraction and the construction of those coal-fired power plants.



Coal is Over. Fund the Future.



If you, too, think Al should be arrested, go ahead and sign our petition asking him to be arrested with us. If Al is going in the slammer, we're going with him. Will you join us?



PS - you don't actually have to be arrested to be a part of the Day of Action - everything counts - from teach-ins to flyering to photo-ops and more!



PPS - After Thomas Friedman just wrote an arrogant column in the New York Times claiming that there is no Youth Activism anymore (whaaa?) he is invited to get arrested with us too…or he can keep writing articles about why young people don't do activism anymore, instead of actively participating in and supporting young people doing activism
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=1&ItemID=14034

You can get arrested for smoking in a pub now so it isn't that big a deal. Everybody should be in nick.

Does anybody know anybody who shouldn't be in the slammer for something or other? (Leaving out the babies I mean).

95 people and 20 organizations have been awarded the Nobel Prize since 1901.

Twelve women have received the Nobel Peace Prize so far.

The Red Cross is a three time recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

UNHCR has twice been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

In a community chat forum like A2k the author should air his/her views about the reactions of the participants.
Unfortunately the author of this thread had failed orcared a jot of other's view.

Nobody in the general public pays much attention to the Nobel Peace Prize, and if they do, most make it the butt of humor when its given to the likes of Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. The best that Gore can hope for is the history books will credit him, but by that time, most of his theories will probably be proven wrong. If by some miracle they are proven right, he will grow in popularity as some kind of a prophet, although a hypocritical prophet at that. So he will be remembered as a total loser or a tarnished winner. If he really believed the message he is preaching, he would be behaving differently, and most people know this.

So, okie, who do you think deserved to win the Nobel Peace Prize this time round?

Geeze, Okie. I like both of them better than the winner in 1994.

Okie
Thanks for your views.
In my above response I had begged the author of this thread to uphold his/her views.

ehBeth, before answering that, I thought the Peace Prize had something to do with Peace. What did Gore do that had anything to do with that?

You are welcome. I don't speak for Gungasnake, but I am going to guess he figures not much more needs to be said, that perhaps it is all pretty much summarized by his first post.

He had exposed the topic "Environmental damage" to the whole globe except of course some non-entities who distorts the image of our HOLY USA.
Moreover it is not the person or the messenger which is vital but the message.

Well I could agree on that. I forgot about Arafat. That was a total joke. That makes my post even more true about the prize winners being the butt of jokes.
It is getting to the point that the selection is so transparently phony and political, that winning the prize might start looking bad on your record.