Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Missing the Real Message in Nobel Prize?
The big story today is that the Nobel Peace Prize recognizes the climate crisis as a genuine threat to humanity. It now has official standing along with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, conflict in the Middle East, landmines, and poverty as something that causes harm to people within and beyond conflict zones.
This story, that the climate crisis poses a threat and humankind is struggling to address it, is presented effectively on the BBC website.
Wait a minute. Isn't the "real" story about what winning this prize means for Al Gore? Shouldn't we be talking about his prospects for the '08 Presidency? A quick scan of major news sources shows that this is the main focus of discourse here in the U.S.
The New York Times has a lead story titled Gore and U.N. Panel Win Peace Prize for Climate Work, that weaves life histories of Gore's climate activism and the superb research of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). While these are laudable stories to tell, the New York Times neglects to tell the real story - that the climate crisis is a genuine threat.
CNN International opens their story, Gore Shares Prize with U.N. Panel , by acknowledging the work Gore has done. Then it quickly digresses into a discussion of a campaign urging him to run for president. The Washington Post parrots this message in their cover story, Gore, U.N. Body Win Nobel Peace Prize , giving prominence to the person of Gore by quoting the Norwegian Nobel Committee that he is "the single individual who has done most."
The Fox News article, With Nobel in Tow, Will Gore Run?, skips past the climate crisis entirely. Many progressive bloggers, in a rare moment of harmony with Fox News, are also focusing directly on the campaign bid. It is as if the most important news were the horse race for the presidency.
Al Gore and the IPCC winning the Nobel Prize is important news. The problem is that these reports do not go on to talk about the significance of the climate crisis, opting instead to shift the discussion toward Gore's political life.
Personally, I am glad to see the climate crisis getting the recognition it deserves. Having studied climate science, I have known about the dire consequences of inaction for several years. In many ways, it is the ultimate security threat we face. It is global in scale. People everywhere will face greater risk as global warming goes on unchecked. And it exacerbates the problems that arise with poverty, regional conflicts, terrorism, and international trade.
In my article, Shifting the Climate of Security , I argued that the climate crisis requires us to reconsider the meaning of security in light of the new kinds of threats that emerge in this web of threats. (Sign up to keep informed about our work at the Rockridge Institute on framing the climate crisis.) With the climate crisis having official standing as a global threat, we should take this opportunity to urge our leaders once again to grant the climate crisis the seriousness it deserves.
Joe Brewer is a fellow at the Rockridge Institute.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
8 Comments so far
Show AllMr Brewer - I'm guilty of this myself.
My reason/excuse is that I feel that having Al Gore run in and win the 2008 presidential election is key to getting anything significant done to counter climate change in the USA. None of the current candidates is giving it the priority it deserves. The current administration will never give it the priority it deserves.
2008 is our best hope.
Maybe current candidates will change their tunes now - but I somehow doubt it. The eventual Democratic nominee may offer Al some position or other, with some power attached, but I suspect it would have serious limitations.
I was watching the European Journal on Link TV and their take on the Gore Nobel Prize was quite different: They discussed the climate crisis as a security threat and a threat to peace and that is why Gore qualified for the peace prize. They also discussed what other what they called "activists" have done with their peace noble prize and they featered the Iranian lawyer woman who had gotten the prize in 2003 for her work to improve the legal standing of women. The prize enableed her to be more powerful as a agent of peace for women. How will Gore use the prize for peace?
Instead of debating whether or not Gore should run, and whether or not global warming has anything to do with the "peace" in the term Nobel Peace Prize, Americans might focus on how Bush is preparing for the predicted wars that will be triggered by climate change. Instead of setting caps on carbon emissions, he's creating a new generation of nuclear weapons. How else to stop the migrations of starving people?
Wake up, America!
Just as reports from climatologists indicate that the models for environmental impact prediction have lacked full appreciation for feed back loop repercussions, our models for the feedback resonance in social climates are equally dispondent.
Where we tend to view 'apathy' as a negative, perhaps we should begin to consider it in terms of documenting this as tacit domestic social 'moratoria'.
Democracy IS 'of the people, by the people, for the people'. Rather that adopting the lens of 'big brother'media statistical analysis, perhaps we need surveys that valorize democracy in action. People are not apathetic, they are doing the best they can and awaiting the lexical infrastructure to lend it voice.
Who cares about the Nobel Peace Prize? They gave the damn thing to Henry Kissinger.
this is from congressperson dingell's (chair of energy committee) newsletter:
Fighting Global Warming
As part of continuing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 60-80 percent by 2050 and limit the damaging effects of global warming, I have developed a legislative proposal that would place a fee on carbon. A summary of the draft legislation has been posted on my Congressional website along with a form that allows reviewers to offer opinions and suggestions on the carbon fee proposal – and thousands of you have responded. Thank you for your suggestions.
Also recently added to the website is the first in a series of climate change white papers. The purpose of this effort is to focus the discussion in Congress as we move towards the development and eventual passage of comprehensive climate change legislation. This first white paper includes a look at the overall scope of a cap-and-trade system.
These two proposals are just part of my efforts to limit the effects of global climate change. Earlier this year, I spearheaded the development of an energy-efficiency bill that was approved by the full House of Representatives in July. This legislation includes efficiency provisions that will reduce energy costs to consumers and remove 10.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by 2030, an amount equal to five times the annual emissions of all of the cars on the road in America today. I am also a co-sponsor of H.R. 2927, the Hill-Terry fuel economy bill, which would mandate an increase in automobile fuel economy standards by nearly 40 percent by 2022, while also protecting American jobs and creating incentives for new breakthrough fuel efficient technology.
To look for yourself and share your thoughts on the carbon fee, go to: www.house.gov/dingell/carbonTaxSummary.shtml. The cap-and-trade white paper can be found at http://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/
JDDBoucher.100307.Memo.WhitePapers.pdf.
I think that Mr. Gore will always be known as the Winner of the Noble Peace Prize with an *asterisk* after it signifying that the selection committee didn't really feel that Gore deserved it. Hopefully the issue of Global Warming is the real winner.
This is a very interesting story, because it points out the logical extreme of the "hero" mythology that runs right through Western culture. When the idea of a global problem that can only be solved by the collective action of everyone on the planet is instead projected onto a single "hero" who will somehow save us, things are out of hand.
I like Gore and think he has done a very good job in education and advocacy on Global Warming. I just don't think he will turn out to be able to create the change so many people seem to think he will. It's more like the old Pogo comic: I've seen the enemy and it is us.
The reason nobody wants to talk about global warming is because very few people want to part with their SUVs and the "American way of life," which remember, is non-negotiable. In that context, there is a direct line from Iraq to the SUV driver to global warming, so I can see why people are focusing on the Gore "candidacy." But what can Al Gore do? He's just one guy, and sticking to the SUV theme, a whole lot of people are going to have to give those things up, and soon, if there is any chance of averting major global changes. I don't think Al will be able to convince them to give them up, and even if he did, there are many other sources that contribute to global warming.
The weirdest part for me was (as an American) explaining to several foreign-born people at work why Al Gore won the peace prize. They were truly amazed that a rapidly changing environment might actually have security implications and could find no relation between environmental change and war. They were of the opinion that this was more of a popularity contest, and that it was a prelude to a run for the whitehouse which might explain the overemphasis on politics. I can't say I exactly follow (or agree with) their reasoning, but I thought I'd pass it along.