Tuesday
Oct162007
Why Al Gore deserves the Peace Prize
Tuesday, October 16, 2007 at 3:00AM
By Ellen Ratner
Getting up Friday morning, I immediately checked the Web to find out if former Vice President Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize. He did, and I was excited for him and for the country. As soon as I got on the radio, talk radio hosts started saying that the decision was political, that it was just another way to stick it to President Bush and that Al Gore's work on the environment would do nothing to promote peace. I could not disagree more.
Back in 1998, when Vice President Gore was developing his campaign for president, then adviser Dick Morris advised the vice president to go with the issue that he was most passionate about: the environment. Dick had done the research and found that this was an issue that resonated with many Americans, and Al Gore presented as very genuine on this issue. Given his reputation as "wooden" and "wonky," he needed the infusion of "genuine." Unfortunately, he did not take Dick Morris's advice, and depending on your perspective, he either won or lost the election by a hair.
As the contested election found its way to the Supreme Court, signs abounded from pro-Bush Republicans saying "Sore Loserman," a play on words for Gore's running mate. Gore was gracious, even presiding over the Electoral College count in the Senate. That alone is worth a Peace Prize in a modern democracy. Gore chose to sit out a rematch, telling people he did not want to put the country through a replay of 2000 election vitriol.
Now, fast forward to 2007 and the Nobel Peace Prize. Gore received the Prize underscoring that many citizens of the world believe global warming is man-made not God-made. In fact, he shared the Prize with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That group, known as the IPCC, studied climate change for more than five years, and presented its report in February 2007. The report studied the work of more than 2,000 scientists. It concluded, "the primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land use change providing another significant but smaller contribution." In addition the IPCC found that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal as is now evident from the observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea levels."
So, how is it that peace is related to global warming? Simple, a three letter word – oil. Oil is an easy-to-obtain fossil fuel in countries that have caused much destabilization in the world. The top 10 countries that hold the world's oil reserves are Saudi Arabia, Canada, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, the UAE, Venezuela, Russia, Libya and Nigeria. Need I say more? Alan Greenspan in his memoir said it best, "the Iraq War is largely about oil." If the United States was really concerned about a terrible dictator and genocide, it could have chosen multiple countries in Africa in which to make "regime change" take place. We chose to "intervene" in a country that had oil.
If the case for eliminating global warming from oil isn't enough, consider the Amazon. The destruction of the forest, an area the size of France, has caused murder, the loss of biodiversity and the end of peaceful lives for the indigenous people of the Amazon. The Amazon is just one small example of what we may be headed for. A report requested by the "Yoda" of the Pentagon, Andrew Marshall, and written by Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall, concludes that "In short, while the U.S. itself will be relatively better off and with more adaptive capacity, it will find itself in a world where Europe will be struggling internally, large number of refugees washing up on its shores and Asia in serious crisis over food and water. Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life." Well said, and not by liberals with a political investment in the crowning of Al Gore as peacemaker. The Pentagon said it; global warming must be addressed if we are to achive world peace. Al Gore was one of the first politicians to see it and promote the cause and for that he richly deserves the prize.
Getting up Friday morning, I immediately checked the Web to find out if former Vice President Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize. He did, and I was excited for him and for the country. As soon as I got on the radio, talk radio hosts started saying that the decision was political, that it was just another way to stick it to President Bush and that Al Gore's work on the environment would do nothing to promote peace. I could not disagree more.
Back in 1998, when Vice President Gore was developing his campaign for president, then adviser Dick Morris advised the vice president to go with the issue that he was most passionate about: the environment. Dick had done the research and found that this was an issue that resonated with many Americans, and Al Gore presented as very genuine on this issue. Given his reputation as "wooden" and "wonky," he needed the infusion of "genuine." Unfortunately, he did not take Dick Morris's advice, and depending on your perspective, he either won or lost the election by a hair.
As the contested election found its way to the Supreme Court, signs abounded from pro-Bush Republicans saying "Sore Loserman," a play on words for Gore's running mate. Gore was gracious, even presiding over the Electoral College count in the Senate. That alone is worth a Peace Prize in a modern democracy. Gore chose to sit out a rematch, telling people he did not want to put the country through a replay of 2000 election vitriol.
Now, fast forward to 2007 and the Nobel Peace Prize. Gore received the Prize underscoring that many citizens of the world believe global warming is man-made not God-made. In fact, he shared the Prize with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That group, known as the IPCC, studied climate change for more than five years, and presented its report in February 2007. The report studied the work of more than 2,000 scientists. It concluded, "the primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land use change providing another significant but smaller contribution." In addition the IPCC found that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal as is now evident from the observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea levels."
So, how is it that peace is related to global warming? Simple, a three letter word – oil. Oil is an easy-to-obtain fossil fuel in countries that have caused much destabilization in the world. The top 10 countries that hold the world's oil reserves are Saudi Arabia, Canada, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, the UAE, Venezuela, Russia, Libya and Nigeria. Need I say more? Alan Greenspan in his memoir said it best, "the Iraq War is largely about oil." If the United States was really concerned about a terrible dictator and genocide, it could have chosen multiple countries in Africa in which to make "regime change" take place. We chose to "intervene" in a country that had oil.
If the case for eliminating global warming from oil isn't enough, consider the Amazon. The destruction of the forest, an area the size of France, has caused murder, the loss of biodiversity and the end of peaceful lives for the indigenous people of the Amazon. The Amazon is just one small example of what we may be headed for. A report requested by the "Yoda" of the Pentagon, Andrew Marshall, and written by Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall, concludes that "In short, while the U.S. itself will be relatively better off and with more adaptive capacity, it will find itself in a world where Europe will be struggling internally, large number of refugees washing up on its shores and Asia in serious crisis over food and water. Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life." Well said, and not by liberals with a political investment in the crowning of Al Gore as peacemaker. The Pentagon said it; global warming must be addressed if we are to achive world peace. Al Gore was one of the first politicians to see it and promote the cause and for that he richly deserves the prize.
Reader Comments