Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiNobel Peace Prize Could Go to Climate Campaigner
OSLO - The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize could go to a climate campaigner such as ex-U.S. Vice-President Al Gore or Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier, reinforcing a view that global warming is a threat to world security, experts say.
The winner of the $1.5 million prize, perhaps the world's top accolade, will be announced in Oslo on October 12 from a field of 181 candidates. The prize can be split up to three ways.
"There are reasonably good chances that the peace prize will be awarded to someone working to stop the dramatic climate problems the world is facing," said Boerge Brende, a former Norwegian environment minister.
He noted that the U.N. Security Council, the top forum for debating war and peace, held a first debate in April about how far climate changes such as droughts, heatwaves or rising seas will be a spur to conflicts.
"We have many good candidates for the prize and we are approaching a decision," said Geir Lundestad, director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute where the five-member committee meets.
Kenya's Wangari Maathai won the 2004 peace prize for her campaign to plant 30 million trees across Africa, the first Nobel for an environmental campaigner. Lundestad declined to say whether fighting climate change could justify a peace prize.
Brende and another Norwegian parliamentarian nominated Gore for his Oscar-winning movie about climate change "An Inconvenient Truth" and Watt-Cloutier, who has highlighted the plight of indigenous cultures facing a quickening Arctic thaw.
Arctic sea ice has shrunk to record lows this year. The head of the Nobel committee, Ole Danbolt Mjoes, has praised Gore's movie and lives in the Norwegian Arctic city of Tromsoe.
PEOPLE TO BLAME
Others suggested candidates include the U.N. Climate Panel and its leader, Rajendra Pachauri. The panel said this year that it was more than 90 percent likely that mankind's activities were the main cause of warming in the past 50 years.
And Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate change official, said that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon could be a good candidate, or German Chancellor Angela Merkel for "her leadership role in Europe" in confronting climate change.
But there are objections to all of them.
"Since the 2004 Peace Prize was given to an environmentalist (Maathai) it may not be repeated this year," said Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian human rights lawyer who won the Nobel Prize in 2003.
"Unfortunately there are several other issues in the world that need to be addressed," she said. Non-environmental nominees range from former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari for peace-broking work to Bolivian President Evo Morales.
Others say climate change is an overwhelming issue in 2007.
"The greatest challenge in modern history for humankind may be climate change," said Norway's Jostein Gaarder, who funds an annual $100,000 environmental prize from sales of his 1990s best-selling philosophy guide "Sophie's World".
"It would be a very good initiative to give the Nobel Prize to a climate candidate," he said.
Among signs of growing concern, about 70 world leaders will meet on Monday at U.N. headquarters in New York for the largest meeting ever on climate change. President George W. Bush, often criticized even by his allies for doing too little, has invited major carbon emitters to talks in Washington on September 27-28.
A prize to Gore would make him the second Democrat laureate since ex-President Jimmy Carter in 2002 -- two Democrats during Bush's presidency might be too much of a slap to Republicans.
Canada's Watt-Cloutier, meanwhile, has stepped down from a former role as head of the main Inuit group. And one member of the Nobel Committee is from Norway's populist right-wing Progress Party that is highly skeptical about Gore.
Still, the Nobel committee often seeks to link prizes to current affairs. The world's environment ministers will meet in Bali, Indonesia, from December 3-14 to discuss ways to slow global warming. the Nobel Peace Prize is presented on December 10.
© 2007 Reuters
26 Comments so far
Show AllIt is interesting how the topic of the Nobel peace prize has morphed into a discussion about Al Gore and the rational presidential candidates. Mind you, I am always glad to see Kucinich mentioned, anywhere. Everyone who wants to reinstate the American Dream should display a Kucinich bumper sticker - and then help him fight the DLC.
You know, you really can't slap Republicans hard enough. Or shake them hard enough for that matter...
Gore is on record as repudiating NAFTA currently. I voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004 and will do so again if Gore does not run. Check out John Perkins new book The Secret History of Empire if you want to know who controls the country and it is not anyone in either the Republican or Democratic Party.
Perkins book is a wake up call.
RebelFarmer: Very well stated. "I have problems with Gore because he backed NAFTA. I could not vote for him unless/until I knew where he stands on "free" trade agreements, the WTO, IMF, and the rest of the alphabet soup related to the race to the bottom."
Couldn't have said it better myself. Personally, I do think that if pressed on the point of NAFTA and free trade in general, Gore would - unlike so many others - have the gumption to admit that the policy has basically failed and needs to be dramatically overhauled in the very least.
Also: DO EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID - VOTE KUCINICH IN THE PRIMARY!!!! Why? Because it will send the message that the American people want a real debate, that they want unions, that they want a not-for-profit health care system, that they want trade policies that reward work instead of penalize it, and so on. If he gets a solid showing in the primary, whoever does get the Democratic nomination is going to have to step up his/her game in order to keep the progressive vote in this country.
JOHN KERRY vs. JOHN F KENNEDY as a representative of democracy: How the democrat Congress is supporting fascism in Iraq and at home, including the Patriot act. They are doing nothing against it. That's how. Now you have a chance to get to know John F. Kennedy. And you will see that none of today's democrats are like John Kennedy or Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Go to youtube and watch this video of JFK to see how he handles a difficult question from a hostile reporter:
The Video can be found at youtube under this title:
John F. Kennedy 1960 WV Primary
The URL for the video is as follows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJyb9R_TL8M
Watch the whole video and you will see the difference between the Democratic Party represented by Kennedy, and what it has become today.
Kennedy wouldn't have missed his chance to answer the young student, Andrew Meyer, at the public forum in Florida. He would have made sure that the student got his chance to speak, and he would have had a brilliant, accurate and heartfelt response to give the world. Beyond that his words would have been more than just words, but indicators of his real positions and future policies.
Here now is the video of Kerry at the UF forum, where his questioner is attacked by police, wrestled to the ground and electro-schocked with a taser gun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgrFSHZfD1o
If Gore won't run, and he is as influential as people claim him to be, then why doesn't he throw his weight, his endorsement & word, behind someone who genuinely does care?
Let's see Gore endorse a Kucinich/Nader ticket, for instance.
Or is he trying to calculate otherwise, to raise environmental awareness strictly in a non-partisan way? The problem there is that ordinary people don't write policy. Until we have direct participatory democracy (Green and local consensus decision-making, anarchism in the pure sense, etc.) their primary means of engagement is by political proxy. Gore may have personal reasons for not running for office, but why isn't he throwing his weight at someone who is?
Al Gore is the logical choice for the Nobel Peace Prize. It is unfortunate that the rest of the world holds Mr. Gore in much higher esteem than does his own country.
No other President or candidate has been deserving of a peace prize. The implications of the honor are tremendous. Yet, Mr. Gore is subjected to more criticism, particulary on his environmental record, than any other candidate.
Al Gore raised the environmental consciousness of the world to an extent of which no one else is capable.
It is ludicrous to imply that he is motivated by greed. Clearly the environment is his passion, as he has spent decades trying to educate the world about its biggest threat.
It is very difficult to get far politically when your message threatens the most powerful entities in the world including such as oil companies. The fact that Al Gore has come so far is testament to his insight, intelligence and devotion.
No offense to Sheila Watt-Cloutier, but I'm sure anyone who promotes her over Mr. Gore does so because they are threatened by the prospect of environmental reform.
The difference between Gore and the other 3 pushed on us.
He has a redeeming feature or two that makes him more palatable--and a potentially broad appeal.
I would vote for Gore. I will not vote for Clinton. That's it in a nutshell.
Rebel Farmer,
"Picked" is the wrong word. "Tolerated" is more like it. Gore still had a number of options: (a) threaten to pull his candidacy, (b) actually do so, and run as an independent (or not at all), etc.
We learned with JFK/LBJ that the VP wasn't merely window-dressing...
We should give it to IRAN for trying to champion climate change with their use of nuclear energy and trying to be good doctors and helping to wean our dependence on foreign oil (by keeping it for themselves).
When you watch any american elections unfurl you will see the haze around the "loser" all through the process. They won't be as bright! The elections will prove me right. Tv hasn't changed that much since I killed mine.
Clearly, aquietman's brain is as washed of the past as all other Gore supporters. Only a fool would be blind to the enabling of Bush/Cheney by Clinton/Gore before them and the current crop of demoracts in congress on the subject of the Iraqi Holocaust and hosts of others. aquietman is a perfect example of those americans needing a deep look in the mirror.
Hey Paul,
Presidential candidates don't pick their running mates! The DLC/RNC does. And all they care about is an electable ticket. Example: Kennedy got stuck with Johnson. They hated each other.
Historically, VP's were just ceremonial window dressing. Cheney has changed all that.
I have problems with Gore because he backed NAFTA. I could not vote for him unless/until I knew where he stands on "free" trade agreements, the WTO, IMF, and the rest of the alphabet soup related to the race to the bottom.
Right now, I'm going to vote for Kucinich in the primaries. I have no clue what I will do when the election rolls around. If it rolls around.....
Anyone who'd run for office with Lieberman as a running mate either has a steel plate in his back to ward off a stabbing when its turned on the VP, or else he's fully on board.
If I were running for president, I'd pick someone who I agreed with ideologically. Perhaps Nader.
So which is it -- Gore was too weak to chose his own running mate? That is, he's completely beholden to string-pullers high up in the DLC (or perhaps the Republicrats in general). Or that Gore was indeed able to pick his own candidate and Lieberman seemed like a good ideological match.
Either way ought to raise one's eyebrows.
"It must be remembered that Clinton/GORE created the conditions for the "theft and murder" you refer to. Gore is every bit the war criminal that Cheney is. If Cheney is unsuitable to be president, then Gore is no better."
What a stupid statement.... Dumb..... Idiotic..... Asinine.. did I say stupid???
Good grief, grow a brain..
If experience in politics and public service (and I dont tie the two together) are requirements to hold the highest office, Gore would be the only logical choice. I hope he runs. Because right now, I cannot in good conscience vote for Clinton who I despise...
Anniesee: The Dimms didn't invite Kucinich to the Iowa Steak Fry. How in the hell is he going to be considered if the DLC has already rigged the primary?
Vote Kucinich in the primaries!!!!
"Why are there only 6 messages on this article? I am worried that people are giving up on Al Gore- DON'T"
But he has repeated over and over again that he has no plans to run - at this late stage we have to believe him and support the candidate who IS running, and who needs our support badly - and who can and will help the USA - Dennis Kucinich.
the nobel peace prize means nothing per se. Kissinger won, right? and you "draft Gore" people are nuts. Gore is an opportunist thru & thru; he raises awareness about the environment and then promotes a pro-corporate, pro-consumerist agenda to solve it. if gore is such a hero, why didn't he show some spine in the 2000 election theft? an election he won and knew he won? just goes to show gore is not gonna rock the boat one bit if it makes any waves to the corporate imperialist agenda.
"The Republican Party has committed theft and murder on a grand scale during the past seven years."
It must be remembered that Clinton/GORE created the conditions for the "theft and murder" you refer to. Gore is every bit the war criminal that Cheney is. If Cheney is unsuitable to be president, then Gore is no better. That so many groups exist to draft Gore proves the point I made in another thread that the american people need only look in the mirror for the root cause of the country's and world's problems.
I hear that Junior Bush has Karl Rove rigging the vote so that he wins instead.
my sisterm the professor predicted that Al Gore will save the day for the Democratic nomination. I hope she is right!!!!
GO AL RUN!!! You will have a million dollars to start with.
Why are there only 6 messages on this article? I am worried that people are giving up on Al Gore- DON'T
Dear Nobel Peace Prize Committee:
Before you bestow your hypocritical honor upon Mr. Albert Gore please read:
"Al Gore iPhoney" the inconvenient truth about Al Gore:
http://www.bananatreehotel.com/ramsay
Of course, coming from an organization that benefits, from the invention of a product that has killed hundreds of millions of humans, I wouldn't be suprised if you give him the prize.
If you are going to give your tainted money, to one of the people mentioned in the article, I would give it to Sheila. She's about to lose her home and livelihood. Al Gore sits on corporate boards, has a mansion in Tennessee and recently bought a bunch of Prius's.
Neither recycling your plastic evian bottles, driving hybrid cars, or Al Gore are going to save the planet. Al Gore has turned his back on the American People, and it seems, is only intersted in finding ways that he, and corporations can profit from global warming. Wake-up.
Ramsay
You sure as hell know that "W" will never get nominated for the peace prize, he will get the booby prize.
Al gore would be a great nominee for the peace prize.
All I can say is: RUN AL RUN !!!!
Too much of a slap to Republicans?
Hmmmmmmmm.....
Nah.
If the Nobel selection committee's criteria even considers that "Two Democrats during Bush's presidency might be too much of a slap to the Republicans", we need to question the intent and value of the Nobel Peace Prize !
The Republican Party has committed theft and murder on a grand scale during the past seven years, all the while pretending that problems such as climate change did not exist. If the Republicans want Nobel Peace Prizes they need to provide solutions to the world's most pressing problems.
The only problem that Republicans HAVE solved in seven years is how to make the rich richer, at the expense of everyone else. If six Democrats receive Nobel Peace Prizes during Bush's presidency, the Republicans still won't get the slap they deserve.
Since there are now more than 200 Draft Gore groups nationwide, with at least one in every state, a Nobel Peace Prize would be another strong reason for the Democratic party to choose Al Gore as its candidate for president in the 2008 election. That will give the American people a golden opportunity to say to the world that they are turning their back on the unilateral, dangerous and destructive policies of the Bush administration, and are emphatically ready to rejoin the world community to confront the greatest challenge the world has ever faced.