Here is the rationale:
"The Norwegian Nobel Committee said global warming, 'may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.'". . .
Jan Egeland, a Norwegian peace mediator and former U.N. undersecretary for humanitarian affairs, also called climate change more than an environmental issue.
"'It is a question of war and peace,' said Egeland, now director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs in Oslo. 'We're already seeing the first climate wars, in the Sahel belt of Africa.' He said nomads and herders are in conflict with farmers because the changing climate has brought drought and a shortage of fertile lands."
2007-10-12 03:58:32
·
answer #1
·
answered by jurydoc 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The first answer gives a rationale why he qualified for this distinction.
BUT, and there is a 'but', it is also one of the few political tools that the Nobel Foundation (and the greater majority of European intellectuals) have. This distinction was given to him in the hope that it will spark greater support for this cause amongst US-citizens.
It is a fact that the US is the largest polluter in the world, by far, although it only has 3/5 of the population of the EU. This can be seen in public data available from the OECD. Good indicators for this are the energy, and water consumed per capita, and CO_2 emissions. With my statement above, I do not refer to local pollution, which might be very well under control (such as the waste generated by a chemical plant in the US, which largely affects a small region around the plant), but to pollution which has an impact at a global level.
The hope is that we can also bring the US in this ship, and thus also Japan and China. At least, this is my hope as a European.
2007-10-12 04:30:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by Cristian M 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Look into past nobel peace prize winners and it conveys that these prizes are meaningless. Who hands these out anyway? So now Gore is in the company of Hitler, Sadaam, Carter and the likes of them. I don't think that is a compliment!
2007-10-12 04:21:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I must admit I was a bit confused by that too - it's a tenuous link. I also think the timing is quite funny considering that the High Court in the UK has just ruled that "An Inconvenient Truth" can only be shown educationally in schools on the proviso that its 9 inaccuracies are also highlighted.
2007-10-12 04:00:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by brownbug78 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Why? Because it is a political movement now. The guy has done nothing to deserve even a free hall pass.
2007-10-12 04:04:16
·
answer #5
·
answered by Boomrat 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
global warming certainly will effect poor people more than rich people, who can afford to leave the coasts. and if we don't do anything, many people will be killed. peace is more than just fighting against war.
2007-10-12 04:39:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
i think of he had to chop up the a million.5 million with the UN and no i do no longer think of he merits it. His movie replaced into organic propaganda. He needs to silence any dissenting voice. each time that occurs you will possibly desire to agonize approximately what they do no longer want others to pay attention.
2016-11-08 02:40:31
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Perhaps they could not find another prize to give him
2007-10-12 06:42:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by ginoguarino 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Maybe he deserves something after failing everything else in politics...
2007-10-12 04:06:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by toietmoi 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
read what the Nobel people said......................complain to them......................
2007-10-12 04:12:57
·
answer #10
·
answered by richard t 7
·
0⤊
0⤋