Nobel Peace Prize just lost 90% of its credibility

[Dr Mordrid]

Al Gore?

He of the discredited fakeumentary?

Granted he's sharing it with the IPCC, but 'cmon....

I thought they hit rock bottom after Jimmy Carter, but this is ridiculous.

I guess now someone will give him the $80m he said he needs to run for the '08 nomination and we'll have to go through his Frankenstein act again

[cjolley]

[Brian Ellis]

The IPCC certainly deserves the prize.

Al Gore does not.

I have worked for decades on environmental matters with Governments and the UNEP, so consider I have reasonable credentials.

I believe that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee has just lost all credibility in naming a political opportunist who is not ashamed to bend the truth to further his erroneous claims. If he had an ounce of integrity, he would renounce his share - but he won't!

[cjolley]

The Peace Prize is not an award for scientific work.
Throughout the history of science an idea has not only had to be good and correct, it has also needed to fall on fertile ground culturally.
Without Gore the IPCC report would be gathering dust in a filing cabinet somewhere unobserved by human eyes for all eternity.
What good would it have done anybody then?

[Brian Ellis]

I can't agree with you. The IPCC Report is referred to by those that matter. Al Gore's romances are not.

I would say he has done a great disservice towards resolving Climate Change problems because, by attempting to popularise something he does not understand, he has caused a lot of "media fatigue" (where people become sick and tired of reading/hearing about it) and implantation of misconceptions, not to mention exaggeration of the effects.

Why the Peace Prize? I presume it is because 190 nations are able to sit down and discuss things without a great deal of acrimony (impossible with more political subjects!).

[cjolley]

...The IPCC Report is referred to by those that matter...

The people that matter, if anything is going to change, are the American voters.
They, meaning we, create most of the pollution and will need to make the most changes.

Why the Peace Prize?

Mostly to stick a finger in the eye of Bush and his policies.

[Brian Ellis]

The people that matter, if anything is going to change, are the American voters.

Don't you think that is arrogant? If that were the case, why have they done nothing up to now? Why did they not react when GWB reneged on the commitments signed by his own father? Why have only a minority proactively acted so far in the right direction?

They, meaning we, create most of the pollution and will need to make the most changes.

They do not create the most pollution. They account for about 25% of it. Proportionally to the size of the population, perhaps, but not in absolute figures, which are just about level-pegging with China.

Mostly to stick a finger in the eye of Bush and his policies.

I'm sure if they wanted to do that, they could have found some much more effective persons than Al Gore who can cause him no more irritation than a mosquito bite. Chavez, Kim or Ahminedjad (sp?), for example.

[rylan]

The "Peace Prize" was becoming more and more of a joke in recent years, and this puts it over the edge.

[cjolley]

Don't you think that is arrogant? If that were the case, why have they done nothing up to now? Why did they not react when GWB reneged on the commitments signed by his own father? Why have only a minority proactively acted so far in the right direction?



They do not create the most pollution. They account for about 25% of it. Proportionally to the size of the population, perhaps, but not in absolute figures, which are just about level-pegging with China.



I'm sure if they wanted to do that, they could have found some much more effective persons than Al Gore who can cause him no more irritation than a mosquito bite. Chavez, Kim or Ahminedjad (sp?), for example.

1, Why indeed.
2, Each American accounts for approximately 5 times as much pollution as each Chinese. It's completely ridiculous to think that the Chinese are going to do much about it until we do.
3, The IPCC and Chavez, Kim or Ahminedjad? That would be silly. And I'm sure thats not what you meant. But if the Prize this year was going to be about Pollution/Global Warming then Gore is a natural fit and sends a pointed message to Bush. Is he technically correct? I have no idea or even an opinion on the matter. I've never seen his movie or read any of his books.

[RC Agent]

So, when does George W. Bush get this award??

[Brian Ellis]

The IPCC and Chavez, Kim or Ahminedjad? That would be silly. And I'm sure thats not what you meant. But if the Prize this year was going to be about Pollution/Global Warming then Gore is a natural fit and sends a pointed message to Bush. Is he technically correct? I have no idea or even an opinion on the matter. I've never seen his movie or read any of his books.

No, I didn't mean the IPCC AND one of them. In reality, the IPCC alone would have been better, but even that is hair-splitting with Peace. I meant one of them alone, such as Kim for renouncing on nuclear development. In fact, Morales is a thorn in Bush's side and has done a lot to promote peace and stability in his region.

I have seen "An Inconvenient Truth" and it upset me, not because of his message, but because of the way he twisted facts and exaggerated the consequences. I think he has done untold harm, world-wide, by pretending to be a know-all, quite apart from giving ammunition for the naysayers..

[cjolley]

So, when does George W. Bush get this award??

When he crosses the trap door in front of the Pearly Gates.

...
I have seen "An Inconvenient Truth" and it upset me, not because of his message, but because of the way he twisted facts and exaggerated the consequences. I think he has done untold harm, world-wide, by pretending to be a know-all, quite apart from giving ammunition for the naysayers..

Now I'll have to watch it just to see what all the hubbub is about.

[ND66]

....Each American accounts for approximately 5 times as much pollution as each Chinese...

Just like it states here:

BEIJING (XFN-ASIA) - More than 60 people had to be treated in hospital for a severe skin reaction after coming into contact with a polluted Chinese river, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

The victims, who had collected dead fish or washed their clothes in the Jindong River in eastern Anhui province on Tuesday, felt a burning sensation on their skin a few hours later,

The report, citing the local government, said an oily substance could be seen on the river, but the cause of the pollution was not yet known.

and here:

Yangtze river 'cancerous' with pollution
(Reuters/Xinhua)
Updated: 2006-05-30 15:17

China's longest river is "cancerous" with pollution and rapidly dying, threatening drinking water supplies in 186 cities along its banks, including Shanghai, experts warned on Monday.

Chinese environmental experts fear worsening pollution could kill the Yangtze river within five years, Xinhua news agency said, calling for an urgent clean-up.

"Many officials think the pollution is nothing for the Yangtze," Xinhua quoted Yuan Aiguo, a professor with the China University of Geosciences, as saying.

"But the pollution is actually very serious," it added, warning that experts considered it "cancerous.""

Just 31 percent of the water is of first or second class quality, with 35 percent under the third class. Yuan warned that with no measures taken to curb pollution it was possible the river would have 70 percent water below the third class in three to five years.

Liu Guangzhao, a Chinese-Australia scientist, said that if 70 percent of water dropped to the fourth or fifth class, many hydrophytic plant species would disappear and the river would become a dead river.

Industrial waste and sewage, agricultural pollution and shipping discharges were to blame for the river's declining health, experts said.

and here:

Polluted river water heads towards Chinese city

(Reuters)HARBIN, China (Reuters) - A toxic slick of polluted river water reached the outskirts of one of China's biggest cities on Thursday after an explosion at a petrochemical plant nearly two weeks ago.

China said the blast had caused "major pollution", spilling benzene compounds into the Songhua River from which Harbin, capital of the northeastern province of Heilongjiang and home to nine million people, draws its drinking water.

Local officials warned residents on Thursday to be on the look out for symptoms of benzene poisoning, which in heavy doses can cause anaemia and other blood disorders, as well as kidney and liver damage.

And the governor of Heilongjiang, Zhang Zuoji, ordered hospitals to brace for possible cases of poisoning.

[cjolley]

I think we are talking about climate related pollution, not general chemical pollution in this thread.

As far as chemical pollution goes, China is about where the US was in the 50's for controls but with 10 times as many people and an even higher multiple of industrial output

There are localized incentives, obvious ones, for countries to clean up chemical pollution. But there are no localized incentives inherent in climate affecting pollution.
That's why Bush's proposed "voluntary" controls are so empty headed. What is the reward for being a bad actor when there are no localized costs? Profit. Any costs due to the adverse effects of what they do is shared by the good actors.

[ND66]

I think we are talking about climate related pollution, not general chemical pollution in this thread.

IMO, there isn't one without the other.

As far as chemical pollution goes, China is about where the US was in the 50's for controls but with 10 times as many people and an even higher multiple of industrial output

I assume the pollution in China would be greater if they didn't get rid of it all over the world by including some of it in the final products being recalled left and right.....

.