Nobel Earth Prize?
October 22nd, 2007 by AndrewThis is, at the moment, a place-holder post because I’m too tired to do the topic justice at the moment. But Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize for his part in producing “An Inconvenient Truth,” (he shared the credit with the UN IPCC scientists who did the digging). For better or for worse, this is a big deal, and it has the potential for big ramifications.
I’ll get my thoughts up here on it eventually, but in the mean time, I’m curious to know what everyone else feels about the subject (meaning this will get precisely zero responses, I’m sure).
(The discussions page has some good stuff in it, along with my opinions, as promised. Chime in!)
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:22 pm
I’m responding here to prove you wrong. Can always count on your brother!
Overall, I think it’s a good thing that Mr. Gore won. And frankly, who else would have won it? No other single person has received as much worldwide press and attention for drawing attention to important global issues.
Having said that, Gore certainly isn’t perfect. He’s still wishy-washy compared to what I’d really like to see out of a so-called environmental crusader, but whatever. He praised Gordon Campbell (BC’s Premiere) on his advances in greenliness.. even though part of Campbell’s plan for the future involves a great deal of freeway expansion, which their own studies estimate will result in a 6% boost of emissions. The crazy thing is that David Suzuki was at the same event as Gore, and he said nothing. I’m a little confused by that one.
The other thing is the fact that Gore flies all over the place. Okay, fine, he buys carbon credits, but what does that really mean? Where do they go? Carbon credits seem like an easy way for people to sound like they’re making a difference without actually making any personal sacrifices.
Oh well. He won the prize, and more people know about Climate Change. Hurrah, hurrah.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:50 am
Man, you really think highly of pop culture’s ability to shape people, and yet it seems that just because it’s big, bad mainstream media or some shit you hate it at the same time. Your “for better or for worse” comment kinda threw me - I can’t see how this could possibly be for the worse. A panel composed of the world’s top scientists decided to bestow their highest honour on someone willing and able to use “mass media” to spread the word about one of the most pressing environmental issues of our day - to me, that is fucking sweet.
But while it is great (not really that surprising though, considering the consensus and consequences) that the Nobel went to environmentalists, I think you have unrealistically high hopes when it comes to the power of the media. Maybe I’m too much of a pessimist, but to me, the “potential for big ramifications” is virtually zero. By now, people have heard of global warming, but continue not to care. Gore’s Nobel will not change that. I don’t know what will.
Finally, props to Christopher for calling out carbon credits. Fuck that bullshit up its stupid fucking ass. What a crock of shit. That idea is almost as fucking ridiculous as the plan to use ethanol instead of gas.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:32 am
I think you’re drawing a bit too much from what I wrote, there. Frankly, I think it’s a great thing. It should be the nail in the coffin for the global warming debate in the public eye (which really, has been over in the scientific community for a while). If mass media spreads a positive message (which is rarely ever does), I’m all for it. I’m fully aware that the little independent guerrilla media out there will almost undoubtedly always remain trivially on the sidelines - they should view their role as a means to educate and shift prevailing ideologies, not as an end in themselves. Because really, they don’t have the means to affect change greater than that.
But I digress. The “for worse” thing was partly an attempt not to steer the discussion in one direction or another. But really, the worst thing that could come of it would be if people decided that accepting the idea of global warming was enough, unaware that some truly radical lifestyle shifts will probably be necessary to beat this. Gore was very optimistic at the end, alluding that a few trivial things (like fucking CF lightbulbs) would make the problem go away.
I have no idea what potential ramifications this may have. It might bolster Gore’s credentials in running for presidency. It might not. And continuing the big ifs, were Gore to win, he would likely be impotent on the issue anyway. It does give him some extra clout in dealing with the issue, however, and I think that working from the sidelines suits him best (after all, he did shit all when he was in office).
Carbon offsets definitely are lame, mostly because there’s no accountability. I don’t want to write it off completely, though, because I think carbon offsetting needs to become thoroughly integrated into the business model of any business that relies on polluting (airlines especially). If you buy renewable instead of coal power to compensate for the carbon you’re emitting, you’re undeniably improving the situation, so I think it’s ignorant to paint the whole industry with the same brush. The problems arise when the so-called offsets are not instantly and realistically accounted for (i.e. future potential offsets from new planted trees).
Also: cellulosic ethanol has real merit. Corn ethanol is worse than Hitler.
October 25th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Yeah, yeah. You’re right, it would be pretty bad if this was considered “the victory”, and lifestyle changes weren’t made. However, I do remain optimistic that these changes can happen, and without changing a whole lot of what people do.. just how they do it.
And I did mean corn ethanol. Thanks for the clarification. Fucking swampdonkey.
October 29th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
i thought ‘an inconvenient truth’ did a good job of presenting the problems of global warming to the masses, but there was one scene that made the movie lose a lot of credibility for me. did you notice in that one scene where he is sitting at his desk that he has a heinz ketchup, mustard and relish sitting in front of him even though he’s not eating? since he’s married into the heinz family and all…. i just thought it was such a cheap plug.
anyway, i dont think he deserved a nobel peace prize for the documentary.
October 31st, 2007 at 10:20 pm
He got the prize for his huge amounts of work publicizing the issue of climate change. The movie was just a part of his campaign.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:21 pm
And isn’t it Kerry, not Gore, that’s married into the Heinz family (as in Teresa Heinz-Kerry?).