Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
United States Government Politics Science

Al Gore Shares Nobel Peace Prize with UN Panel 937

eldavojohn writes "Former US Vice President Al Gore has been announced as a co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on environmental awareness & climate change. He shares his award with the the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 'Speaking in Washington, Mr Gore praised the IPCC, "whose members have worked tirelessly and selflessly for many years". "We face a true planetary emergency," Mr Gore warned. "It is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity." He said he would donate his half of the $1.5m prize money to the Alliance for Climate Protection, reported the news agency Reuters.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Al Gore Shares Nobel Peace Prize with UN Panel

Comments Filter:
  • Congratulations (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mdsolar ( 1045926 )
    Congratulations to the recipients. They've earned it. As with all peace issues, there is much much more work to do.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rucs_hack ( 784150 )
      I think Al Gore did well. He was screwed on the election, and thus avoided being the president overseeing one of the worst periods in US history, and instead has been recognized in his efforts to raise awareness on an issue which goes far beyond the presidency. After all, what does the presidency matter if the world is fucked over by global warming?

      His stance goes in stark contrast to Bush's idea that carbon emission reductions should be pretty much be defined by the economic desire of the US, rather than l
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Al Gore certainly deserves this award, but I think I speak for all geeks when I say that I wish he would be a little more accurate. I have a hard time recommending his film An Inconvenient Truth due to his factual errors and exaggerated claims. Nonetheless, he has performed an invaluable service in bringing climate change to the center stage.
  • by sayfawa ( 1099071 )
    1. Deny you're running for president. Nobel prize committee wouldn't want to be seen as endorsing a particular front runner.

    2. Win Nobel Prize

    3. Announce candidacy for US presidency.

    4. Profit.
    • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Friday October 12, 2007 @09:23AM (#20952407)
      I guess Bono will just have to content himself with being number two.
    • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Friday October 12, 2007 @10:30AM (#20953519) Homepage Journal
      Actually, he's already doing financially pretty well for himself as a VC.

      He's got fame, fortune, influence, and more importantly the freedom to spend his time at whatever he finds interesting and fun. If a political enemy wants to stir up hatred of him, Al Gore has a better defense than Teflon: the problems of the world don't belong to him. If some but straps a bomb to himself and blows a bunch of innocent people up, nobody is demanding what Al Gore will do. Al Gore doesn't own the mortgage crisis. Al Gore doesn't have to fight the health care industry over the the way costs are bleeding US competitiveness.

      So if Gore wants to speak out on climate change, he's just a distinguished private citizen exercising his right to state his opinion. You have to be an accomplished hater to work up much resentment over that.

      Mr. Gore is pretty much in the catbird seat: beloved senior statesman, wealthy entrepreneur, admired environmental sage. Personally, I wouldn't dream give that up to jump into the shit pile of presidential politics, where your every utterance or sigh is twisted into a weapon of character assassination.

      The only personal reason he's got to throw his hat into the ring is to get the policies he wants enacted, and that only counts if he doesn't think the next president will agree with him.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by krnpimpsta ( 906084 )

        Mr. Gore is pretty much in the catbird seat: beloved senior statesman, wealthy entrepreneur, admired environmental sage.

        I think you mean the catbirdpig seat.
  • I thought GW Bush would be a shoe-in
  • by sayfawa ( 1099071 ) on Friday October 12, 2007 @08:51AM (#20951991)
    People that don't read (and digest) TFA will wonder what climate change has to do with peace.

    The committee said it wanted to bring the "increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states" posed by climate change into sharper focus.

    If climate change happens as some expect there will be mass migrations, and territorial and resource wars. Like now, but only more so.
  • Ought not a Nobel Peace Prize winner practice [] what he preaches?
    • by Peyna ( 14792 ) on Friday October 12, 2007 @09:06AM (#20952165) Homepage
      It's too bad the snopes article wasn't update when Al Gore spent a ton of money making his house greener and more energy efficient, including the addition of solar panels. For what it's worth, at the time the article came out, he was already participating in his power company's "green energy" plan, where you pay a little more for your electricity and the company then is able to get its energy from more planet-friendly sources.
  • I know there are going to be a tonne of "He should run" posts but think about it. It was no secret what Clinton was going to do in 2008. That would of divided the Clinton campaign funds and democrats in general. Gore knows he has one more good run in him. Gather your accolades (Nobel Prize, Oscar, etc) and wait till you're really needed. Hell, he has more sway as a campaigner than a candidate right now.
  • by centdollarman ( 1000644 ) on Friday October 12, 2007 @09:11AM (#20952243)
    ...happened! The USA didn't sign it. Yeah, he did pretend he was in favor, but... He should have done more when he was Vice-President!
    • ...but there's this great section in Wikipedia on this:

      "On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[65][66] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would resu
  • by ciaohound ( 118419 ) on Friday October 12, 2007 @09:13AM (#20952279)
    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

    I read "Earth in the Balance" in October before the 2000 presidential election just to get an idea of what Gore was like. Perhaps slashdotters might be better able than the average joe to appreciate what writing a book requires: thinking about something. Questions, hypotheses, research, thinking. The philosopher Ortega wrote that the act of thinking about things instantly puts you in the minority; most people don't do it. Well, Gore does it. Maybe his personality isn't suited to the job of presidency, although it's hard to imagine that he would have been worse than Bush. But just maybe this role suits him better. He deserves the recognition he is getting now. Bush vs Gore: I know whose legacy I'd rather claim.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12, 2007 @09:37AM (#20952625)
    Al Gore has done good, tireless work on an important issue for a long time. However, I don't think his merits were sufficient for the Nobel prize.

    Again, I think the Nobel prize committee wanted to send George Bush a message: "You are wreaking destruction and death; see how much better some other people are spending their energies." So this was as much an anti-war Nobel as it was a peace Nobel.

    We Finns have been wondering why our Martti Ahtisaari [] has not been considered worthy by the Scandinavians in the Nobel prize committee. Ahtisaari has been instrumental in the independence of Namibia, negotiating an end to the NATO-Serbia war and bringing peace to Aceh. He has also participated in other efforts like bringing Kuwait on its feet after the first Gulf war and trying to find a settlement between Serbia and Kosovo.
    • Look at the prize winners in other fields. There is no question as to their contribution to that specific discipline. Here, however, there is a very tenuous connection. They say that global warming will cause wars, and thus by preventing it will prevent wars. That relies off of a whole bunch of assumptions:

      1) That global warming is human caused. I'm not interested in debating this, but realise that it is an assumption.
      2) That Gore/the IPCC's proposals will cause it to be stopped. Just because they are propo
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Shadowlore ( 10860 )
      The NPP has not been about people working for actual peace for a long time. It's become a "we want to prop someone up but can't give them a science based prize", or perhaps as you intimate to poke at someone else.

      The NPP has been a political pop gun for a very long time. I've not considered it a true honor for over two decades.
  • by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Friday October 12, 2007 @09:51AM (#20952859)
    People joke about Al Gore creating the Internet. But it was his sponsorhip of the 1988(?) Information Superhighway Bill that changed computer networks from an academic toy into a world wide force. It encouraged several existing subnets to adopt national standards and financed a high speed backbone that universities, companies, and government could all share. Six years later the NSF Supercomputer Center freeware release of Mosaic jump-started the application software side of the Net. And the internet pretty much became self-financing and important economic engine.

    I think the Internet has had a more profound effect on human affairs than climatic change so far. And Al was an important contributer to the former. But there arent Nobel prizes for legislation.
  • by sherriw ( 794536 ) on Friday October 12, 2007 @10:53AM (#20953951)
    There will never be an end to the number of people who will fight any mention that humans are causing climate change. No one is saying we are the ONLY factor. But we are a big part of it, and we can control our actions, compared to trying to control other natural factors. Shouldn't we do so... just in case?

    I always notice that in my local paper, when they publish articles from global warming skeptics... these individuals are often the heads of various organizations and groups, professors, history buffs, basically anything but actual climatologists or environmental scientists. Not always, but often. I find that interesting.

    The MAJORITY of climate scientists agree that humans are contributing to warming. I'm going to go with that conclusion because it's better to be safe than sorry, and because I can see the proof with my own eyes.

    Climate Myths Examined: []

    As for Mr. Gore and the IPCC winning the peace prize... good for them. Someone is standing up and shouting about this. Yes, I feel Mr. Gore is a bit of a phony in his personal life, but his message isn't. If I had the choice I would have recognized Canada's Dr. David Suzuki ( [] ) for his work educating the public about all kinds of environmental issues... and he does so in a more science based rather than hollywood-dazzle kind of way. He recently toured across Canada giving talks and raising awareness in a very locally focused down to earth way and he's been doing this for DECADES. He deserves this prize as much if not more than Gore.

    Either way, I'm glad environmental issues get a nod of recognition here.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      No one is saying we are the ONLY factor. But we are a big part of it, and we can control our actions, compared to trying to control other natural factors. Shouldn't we do so... just in case?

      The MAJORITY of climate scientists agree that humans are contributing to warming. I'm going to go with that conclusion because it's better to be safe than sorry, and because I can see the proof with my own eyes.

      While your heart's in the right place, your argument simply doesn't cut the must

All Finagle Laws may be bypassed by learning the simple art of doing without thinking.