Not looking to debate global warming, alleged hypocrisy of energy usage, or Al Gore’s personal merits.
The recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to be someone who has worked for brotherhood between nations, reduction of standing armies and peace conferences. In general, it has gone toward people whose efforts are directed at reducing human suffering at all (through relief of disease and hunger as well as through cessation of armed hostility), which I guess is a form of peace and certainly promotes brotherhood.
Does environmentalism fit any of those categories?
I guess it does, to the extent that envonmental destruction causes human suffering (through sea level rise, droughts, poor health from exposure to pollution, or what have you). So, fighting against such destruction or trying to prevent it from occuring would ease such suffering, and fit under that larger category you laid out.
In his efforts to move public opinion over AGW, Gore is working to (hopefully) contain what is likely to be a major cause of strife before it gets that far. As some areas dry up, and others get far more water (fresh or salt) than they know what to do with, there would almost inevitably be wars - or, even worse, the breakdown of civil order - due to diminished food resources.
It would seem to me that the above answers are assuming that the threat of global warming is real. That is all well and good (even if it isn’t it is important to protect our environment) however, his stand on environmental issues alone, in my opinion is not enough to qualify him for the award. Many others have done far more then he has to preserve/protect our environment. Additionally, most people I know, when asked about Gore really don’t know much about him (other then his strange obsession with examining “hanging chads”).
Let’s look at it this way: Mother Teresa, Dr. Martin Luther King, Albert Schweitzer and Al Gore!
Did you ever hear that kids song (I think from Sesame Street) that goes like this “One of these things, doesn’t belong here, one of these things just isn’t the same”
Gore is not an environmental scientist and does not claim to be. His accomplishment has been to publicize the issue of ACC more effectively than the scientists have – something Gore could do because he, as a former VPOTUS and presidential candidate, was already a household name worldwide. It was fitting for the committee to award him the prize – and also to make him share it with the IPCC, who are actual scientists.
I don’t think Al Gore deserved the Nobel. I don’t think he’s done anything worthwhile to raise awareness of global warming, even if I grant the silly notion that global warming is related to world peace.
The IPCC, which actually DID raise awareness of global warming, certainly deserves the award if we’re just handing it out to whoever had the biggest positive effect on whatever social issue we’re currently worried about. Al Gore might have done more damage to the cause of global warming awareness than good, because he’s personally responsible for politicizing the issue and polarizing people on the issue.
:dubious: Gore has done nothing to politicize/polarize the issue! It was like that when he found it! From the very start of the Bush Admin, in fact, if not earlier!
It seems like environmentalism is as valid as relief of disease or hunger. If the Nobel Committee is accepting AGW, then they are rightfully seeing that it can eventually cause massive human suffering.
I think by your own definition, it is valid and the debate lies in whether Al Gore was deserving of it for his environmental actions. As that thread is quite busy elsewhere. I will not comment one way or another on that part.
No, they just assume global warming is a serious issue - i.e. there is enough evidence to strongly suggest, if not prove, that global warming is a real threat.