Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiClimate Activists Tipped For Peace Prize
OSLO - Former Vice President Al Gore and other campaigners against climate change lead experts' choices for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, an award once reserved for statesmen, peacemakers and human rights activists.
If a campaigner against global warming carries off the high world accolade later this month, it will accentuate a shift to reward work outside traditional peacekeeping and reinforce the link between peace and the environment.
The winner, who will take $1.5 million in prize money, will be announced in the Norwegian capital on October 12 from a field of 181 nominees.
Gore, who has raised awareness with his book and Oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth", and Canadian Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier, who has shed light on how global warming affects Arctic peoples, were nominated to share the prize by two Norwegian parliamentarians.
"I think they are likely winners this year," said Stein Toennesson, director of Oslo's International Peace Research Institute (PRIO) and a long-time Nobel Peace Prize watcher.
"It will certainly be tempting to the (Nobel) committee to have two North Americans -- one the activist that personifies the struggle against climate change, raising awareness, and the other who represents some of the victims of climate change."
Jan Egeland, head of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, agreed the award committee could establish the link between peace and the environment.
"I think the whole issue of climate change and the environment will come at some point and reflect in the prize," Egeland told reporters last week.
"There are already climate wars unfolding ... And the worst area for that is the Sahel belt in Africa."
There has been a shift to reward work away from the realm of conventional peacemaking and human rights work.
In 2004, Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai won for her campaign to get women to plant trees across Africa. Last year's prize went to Bangladeshi economist Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank for their efforts to lift millions out of poverty through a system of tiny loans.
IN WITH A CHANCE
Toennesson said others with a chance included former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari, a perennial nominee for decades of peace mediation work, and dissident Vietnamese monk Thich Quang Do for his pro-democracy efforts.
His shortlist also includes Russian human rights lawyer Lidia Yusupova, who has fought for victims of war in Chechnya, and Rebiya Kadeer, an advocate for China's Uighur minority.
The secretive five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee does not disclose the names of nominees, though some who make nominations go public with their candidates.
Toennesson said by giving the award to those fighting climate change, the committee would thrust itself into the public debate ahead of a key U.N. climate conference in Bali, Indonesia, in December.
If Gore is seen as too political, the committee could opt instead for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- the scientists who advise the United Nations and produce key reports on the climate problem, Toennesson said.
To give it a face, the prize could be shared by the IPCC's Indian chairman Rajendra Pachauri, experts said, though Pachauri told Reuters in London he did not think he stood a chance.
"I have a feeling it will go to Al Gore, and I think he deserves it. He certainly has done a remarkable job of creating awareness on the subject and has become a crusader," he said.
Watt-Cloutier told Reuters she was flattered to be mentioned as a possible winner but did not expect to win.
Toennesson said Ahtisaari deserves the prize most for helping to bring peace to the Aceh region of Indonesia in 2005.
(Additional reporting by Alister Doyle)
© 2007 Reuters
25 Comments so far
Show Alleraldo,
Wasn't it something like 87 million who voted for Bush in the last presidential election?
YES! You got my point exactly. The American people are incredibly ignorant. Just talk to some of them. And I'm not talking about the ones that write on this blog.
I am for Gore.
I will be ecstatic if he declares!
einstein,
C'mon, think abstractly here (funny to be saying that to someone with that user name)! Gore did speak out against the war in 2002, to which the media told him to piss off and not be a backseat-president.
Combatting climate change IS peace. Resources are peace. Water, soil, agriculture are all peace. Read Collapse by Jared Diamond, or a Green History of the World by Clive Ponting.
The war is exactly about these things. Most simply, the resource of oil, because our government-industrial-complex has zero concern with the environment nor sustainability. Carbon is not an economic factor... yet.
If only Gore announces his candidacy. He did say that no candidate is addressing climate change heavily enough in their platforms...
Oh, it's all clear to me now....
Bilderbergs, Tri-lateral Comm. were tipped on global warming early on,
BushI, and Clinton/Gore set up globalization and turned the jackels loose.
1999, peak oil was given the nod from the top of the pyramid. 2000, the supremes fit w on cheney's hand, Al folded for rights to '08 on his terms, dirty dick and saud cooked up a pearl harbor/bases swap, w figured it out into the camera in the kiddy chair reading happy goat on 9/11, OBL's contribution way way over the top; too bad, gotta go with it anyway, hold the king's hand, tell him it'll be OK, cashed the Powell chip at the UN, pitched the play for easy oil to congress, let it fall apart to triple the price of oil, bloody gore galore, proceeds to the 1/10th%, spilling the climate beans to the masses boosts Al to the fore to get the NPP, nomination and presidency, if he wants it, but also the booby prizes: mideast chaos, a looted treasury and vp hillary...
So who bats last in this HomoCleverUs Nightmare in Blunderland?
MOTHER NATURE!!
Go, Mom, go!
LaoTzu:
Those who would conquer the world and bend her to their will, never, I notice, succeed.
The earth is a vessel so sacred, so pure, that at the slightest approach of the profane...
October 13, 2007; Washington, DC.
The Supreme Court today voted 5-4 to void the Nobel selection committee's choice of Albert Gore, Jr. as 2007 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Writing for the majority, Guest Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that for Al Gore to win a Nobel at this time would be "a disaster" for the world economy, not to mention "a personal insult" to herself and all the people who think as she does. In a related decision, the same majority voted to retroactively nullify all of Al Gore's terms as Congressman, Senator, and Vice-President; every public statement he made before January 1, 2001 will be stricken from the record. Remarking on the Court's action, President Bush said, "If they know what's good for them -- heh-heh -- the Nobel people will give the award to someone who really deserves it -- somebody like Alberto Gonzales or Michael Chertoff. Otherwise, who knows? Some camel-jockey might just fly a 707 into their apartment building some morning."
My nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize: Sister Helen Prejean CSJ, for her work in ministering to condemned men and women on Death Rows in the USA, and for her work in helping to rid the World of Capital Punishment.
And who will the next prize winner be? And the next? And the next? All along, the boot of capital remains on the neck of the people.
ruthru,
I'm not sure what you mean by a "commentary on the american public"? Perhaps you're suggesting we're too dumb to elect the "correct" candidate?
Stolen? If anything, when push came to shove, Mr. Gore gave up. Not a characteristic of great leaders.
It seems to me that 50.5 vs 51 million is a pretty even split of the vote.
While I've enjoyed discussing this with you, you should refrain from the ad hominem attacks. Why, you hardly even know me.
eraldo,
So, what's your point?
The 2000 fiasco was more of a commentary on the American public than Gore winning the popular vote by a half million.
Anyone who's been conscious for, at least, the last two presidential elections knows they've been stolen.
Dead heat? I don't think so. Maybe you ought to spend some time reading instead of watching spin on MSM.
As you all know,
I hate to dissent.
But I feel Gore is nothing but another Polosi, an opportunist parroting what he thinks you want to hear for his own agenda. He had ample time to fight oil companies as vice president, but always cast the deciding votes as president of the Senate ties, IIRC, in the favor of big business and free trade (non-Union, non EPA industry.) As well he had a questionable tie to China fundraising (dirty industrial manufacturing.) His presidential campaign mentioned the environment but did not emphasize Global Warming. Like the internet, assumptions that he was part of these things from the beginning are not corrected by him. He reeks of the Fortune 500.
I applaud however his film, but still don't really trust him.
We need new blood, IMHO.
If I'm wrong about the above, please straighten me out.
pacplyer
Puh-Leeze!
Al Gore for president?
This is the same Al Gore that ran a campaign that ended up in a dead heat with an Idiot?
Zoya, I disagree with this: More attractive choices don`t happen to be available at the moment, nor are they electable, given the makeup of the current American electorate.
I don't think the makeup of the electorate is known at this point. The MSM is so busy fuckin' with our minds, we have no way of knowing truth from lies and more damn lies.
Until WE take charge of the information delivery system, we'll suffer from Brittany and The Hilton Princess and whatever crime made the Fox 1st for the day instead of what is happening in the World.
Who has any idea what the electorate is thinking, or even if they are capable of thought after the Bush 1, Clinton 1, and Bush 2 assault on the social fabric.
But, all is not lost: The US doesn't do Torture...
Why am I not reassured.
Gore would be a good choice for the prize to further repudiate Bu$h the inferior and counter some of his rotten decisions regarding energy, environment and climate change.
"There are already climate wars unfolding …" Someone above said the next wars will be over food and water. Those wars will be waged with clubs, rocks, and canabalized weapons.
The U.S. is fully prepared to put the world at war for oil, which, when you complete the thought is also a climate war.
A reality that has made me laugh (and cry) for countless years now is that our ovowed leaders claim we are the greatest nation ever, yet we are powerless (they claim) to innovate our way out of this oil lust/dependence. We are only powerless because the energy lobby money in the politico's pockets creates massive inertia.
Zoya - agreed. Gore links "global warming to world peace, terrorism, and genocide" and he's right. It's the most important issue on earth and is already causing wars, terrorism, and genocide, not to mention mass migrations of starving people and the extinctions of thousands of species. As to what happened in our past elections, lots of people on this blog seem unable to let go of the past and look at the future. I should say "try to hope for a future," because frankly, I'm really pessimistic about that. But it would be great if Gore won the prize - call attention to climate change and elevate it to a position of great importance. And he deserves it.
...and one more thing, einstein, have a look at ezeflyer`s options. They`re not bad. While I`m no particular fan of the politician Al Gore -- too socially conservative for me -- he is a reasonable and electable alternative to all of the current frontrunners -- the operative words here being ``reasonable`` and ``electable``. What`s currently needed is a transitional figure, someone who can execute an emergency course correction and possibly pave the way for a truly progressive American head of state. Gore could be that transitional figure. More attractive choices don`t happen to be available at the moment, nor are they electable, given the makeup of the current American electorate.
Gore has done as much as anyone on the planet to move awareness to sustainable outcomes for humanity. If he gets in, he gets my vote. Otherwise, I will be voting for Nader for the fourth time in sixteen years. He deserves the vote for the Nobel.
Hey, einstein--change meds.
Yes, einstein, zoya is precisely on the mark. In fact, the next time Mr. Gore comes to your city you should see his most recent presentation of "An Inconvenient Truth." He spends very little time on issues within the US compared with global issues of a changing climate. He links global warming to world peace, terrorism, and genocide.
Based on your "packaging" comment, you're no better than our illustrious media "packaging" the seriousness and gravity of the moral issues of global warming as hype and doubt.
To hell with Gore. He destroyed Nader's bid for the presidency in 2000, when he had no possible guts to win himself.
Why is it that the world's prophets always seem to run afoul of Corporate Profits?
Here are some more wise souls that will certainly be denied campus platforms. Especially schools run by Neo Nazis and by a Former Nazi...
I disagree, einstein. The global-warming issue has everything to do with peace. As Gwynne Dyer, among other military analyists and historians have noted with alarm, climate issues have already influenced the development of a whole new generation of American and British nuclear arms in preparation for mass migrations and population displacements due to drought and other climate disasters. The next major war will be fought over food, not oil. Get out of your Americocentric bubble and do a little global research on the issue.
The Clinton Global Initiative is a good thing. Or it could have been a way to keep Gore in the Clinton fold and out of the running. With the Nobel Peace Prize, President Gore will have earned more good will, improving his chances should he run. Who better to address global warming, todays most pressing issue? A Gore/Kucinch, Gore/RFK Jr., Gore/Nader, Gore/Redford, Gore/Robbins, Gore/Sarandon, Gore/? could be something we all could support. Even a Gore/Edwards or Obama at this point...
Ridiculous!
Gore has never done anything for world peace.
This is fakery.
Albert Schweitzer, I presume.
No, Albert Gore.
C'mon. This is packaging.
What it does show is that the economy of the USA is now completely unmoored from the production of useful goods.
Gore is a poster child for that.
If anyone deserves the Nobel Peace Prize in America it is Cindy Sheehan.
Gore hasn't done anything against the war.
And his work for Climate Change is just helping to warm the to the atmosphere.
He needed to run a second time for the Presidency, and a third time if neccessary.
I boycotted his film, though I voted for him earlier.
I didn't give one dollar to the campaign of Kerry.
Can you imagine, 250 million dollars for Kerry's campaign?!
And he voted for the Iraq war. And Gore didn't do a thing to speak out against the war.
Obviously, Cindy Sheehan needs to get A Peace Prize.
She would put the money and prestige to real use.