Is that actually a criteria the Nobel Panel uses? It is not like this is something, you or I get a vote in. I seem to recall other Nobel Prizes going to people for the effort rather than the results.
The Wiki link shows plenty of awards going to people for the effort, rather than the results.
Jim
First, to all–I am not even criticizing Mr Gore’s personal consumption, much less condeming it. I will not cast that stone until I stop sinning, which is not anytime soon. I do think he represents exactly why not much will change anytime soon. I find it ironic that his personal behaviour does not seem to affect his public, or Nobel, admiration.
It’s not the private jets, although flying coach would be a possible alternative in many cases (and if you are actually concerned, coach and not first is what you need to do; public bus and not limo…etc etc).
How about just the CO2 contribution of just generally living rich? Everything we consume–every act we do–adds to the net net effect. Surely we must be the change we want to see in the world.
How about his home (at least one of them)?
"Armed with Gore’s utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president’s 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours…
Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the Center’s figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that “the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it.” "
20x a national average for the country already contributing the most to the problem? 20x the national average when you’ve been concerned about the problem for years? 20x the national average when you are the poster child?
To extend the wife-beating metaphor: that’s not berating your wife for burning the roast. That’s beating her senseless. It’s not a carbon footprint; it’s a carbon crater. That crater is of course, Mr Gore’s personal discretion to make.
But how then do you get the Nobel for telling everyone else to start tiptoeing?
What nonsense! This isn’t like Mother Theresa passing beggars in the street without a glance. Gore has to consume profligate amounts of energy to do what he does. It’s not a personal-lifestyle problem anyway. If we all adopted a “green” lifestyle, it wouldn’t scratch the surface of the AGW problem. Only government and industry can make any changes that will make a real difference.
The electricity consumption issue is an interesting side issue to me, but not terribly important in the scheme of things.
I do see a recent trend with the Nobel Peace Prize that the prize is not only politicized (which it has always been to a degree) but politicized in a way to explicitly sway American political opinion a certain direction. That doesn’t sit well with me.
He could spread his message using the Internet he invented.
In my mind a Peace prize should be about bringing peace. Kissinger, Sadat, Begin and Arafat received theirs for their efforts to resolve conflicts. OK, they weren’t angels but they tried to prevent other people dying in wars.
Gore has a media campaign that cobbled together information from various sources, puts it into a slick format and pushes him out on a PR tour. He is not the originator of the data, he is not the one who wrote the reports and he does not have the scientific training to interpret it without the assistance of specialized researchers. He is a figurehead, a spokesman. I accept the award going to the IPCC because they were the ones who did pull it together, but not to Gore.
What reason do you have to believe the committee was thinking of American reaction when they gave it to Mohammud Yunus or Wangari Maathai?
Don’t agree at all with the OP.
Gore’s personal activities may be hypocritical, or may not. It’s irrelevant – the Committee thought his contribution to awareness about global warming and his efforts to reverse that trend were award-wrothy. His personal activities are completely irrelevant to that question.
Well, for example, Ban Ki Moon has argued that the Darfur conflict is a result of drought caused by global warming. Here, he writes
One supposes that global warming, if unchecked, will lead to other such conflicts in the future.
Not to nitpick, but how does which seat he would hypothetically use in a public plane change anything?
As for the Snopes article on the Bush ranch that runs on mouse farts and used toilet paper, did Bush have the house specially made for him in that manner, with the environment in mind? If someone gives me a hybrid, I would drive it but that doesn’t mean I necessarily care about the environment.
I think that’s pretty vain to assume that American political opinion is of particular importance to the Nobel group.
Wouldn’t consuming less than others of his prominence set a good example? And since when does being “prominent” mean that one is any less responsible for the damage they do to the world?
This is true, but **Brain Glutton ** went off on a little side argument that has nothing to do with Gore deserving the NPP. If he is pro-Gore, he did him no favors with that argument.
Jim
I’ll take your word for that. Seems to make the prize of dubious value, then. None of the others are given for “effort”, else I’d have my Physics prize for all the effort I’ve put into formulating the Theory of Everything. Not much to show for in terms of results, but lots and lots of effort.
Granted, the recipients of this prize included the UN Panel as well, and perhaps together these guys have accomplished something.
John, they give out the Peace Prize every year. How much peace has the world truly known? I don’t know if anyone can ever claim great success in providing peace, but we can recognize those that give it the best shot.
I’m sorry, it is a side argument, but I just had to comment. I just absolutely despise the idea that if someone is rich and powerful, they are exempt from the little things we all are ethically bound to do, as long as they say all the right things.
I saw Amnesty International listed among others. They did not end torture, they did work hard to bring higher awareness to of it.
I saw Mother Teresa get an award as a Poverty awareness campaigner. Again, she did little to directly end poverty, but she did bring much attention to the issues of poverty worldwide.
There are others of a similar ilk, these two were easy and well known. (Also controversial in their own way.)
Gore has raised the awareness level by a large amount. It is also a shared award with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Apparently the Nobel Panel is accepting the idea the Global Warming is a major threat and recognize that Gore is the most successfully vocal proponent of change to combat it. His own personnel shortcomings on energy use, does not reduce the value of his efforts in this fight.
Jim
Yeah, well that’s pretty much what I said.
That’s something I didn’t say.
Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?
I don’t buy the “Gore shouldn’t get a Nobel because he has a bigger house than Chief Pedant” argument. (And the wife-beating analogies are horrible.) The award is supposed to be an honor for Gore’s work, not a validation of how he lives his life and what he’s like as a person.