Gore unlikely peace hero
'...the motivation behind the committee handing the award to Gore and the IPCC, is less about future gazing and more about wanting to make a clear and unequivocal statement ahead of the UN climate change conference in Bali this December'
Studiously trying to avoid any actual comment in any way (the MMGW optimist/pessimist keyboards are being sharpened as a write, I'm sure), I get a bit concerned reading such analysis of such 'awards' if/when it may be seen that they are being used more to send messages and/or plug future events.
That can result in consequences that often cause more problems down the line than they solve.
Guardian - Gore and peace - Unless the the BOFDis are better organised than I give them credit for, bearing in mind this is The Guardian the blog posts tell a tale
Guardian - The truth will out - Trouble with a headline like that is when what comes out isn't true. And while a person's background does not always have any bearing on what they have to say or how they say it, I seem to recall this chap calling the cancellation on Planet Relief 'a right-wing conspiracy when the truth was the BBC sensed no one fancied another Live Earth.
'That's not a game I want to play with my kids. Do you?'
No.
But then again, I'd prefer messengers whose message doesn't immediately leave itself open to the absolutist 'tis/tisn't, all-or-nothing MMCC exchanges that inevitably ensue. See above.
There are a lot of folk DOING a lot more that may not be as sexy as celeb-fuelled 'awareness' talkfests, but might achieve more. And with luck are not over-egging the case to the point a lot of good gets compromised by trivia or, worse, inaccuracies. Or sulking and making wild accusations when the majority of the public show resistance to fondly cherished notions, such as Planet Relief.
And messengers are as important, if not more so, as message these days. Choose them with care.
The headlines reporting this are really as polarised as any discussing the causes of climate change. There's also the small matter of how thew facts of the award get reported. As with teh Oscar, it often seems Mr. Gore alone won it. This from Science Daily is perhaps a more appropriate summary:
Climate Change Research Recognized - In 2007 Nobel Peace Prize - The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.
As to whether using Mr. Gore's efforts... and views... were the best way to 'send a message', especially via a Peace prize, and it seems targeted rather unsubtly at the US, remains to be seen.
LA Times - Gore's Nobel win stirs hope — and speculation - It seems odd to see this being projected to a potential presidential effort. Especially like this.
BBC - Indian's surprise at Nobel award - Interesting back story
BBC - Gore says prize must spur action
1 comment:
Having recently been 'moderated' off the BBC is Biased site for posting what was deemed a controversial article (by Real Climate?!!!) to make the point that the whole debate on anything Climate Change has been hijacked, I rather felt my point was made. But only on my blog, as of course I was not to be seen (other than being 'told off') on theirs.
It seems that there are two very strong and vocal sets of extremes dominating, and worse editing like fury to support their preconceived notions, which makes it hard to find and/or achieve anything like balance almost anywhere.
And as with MMGW (or not - my preferred version being MWorsenedGW), we have the reactions to Mr. Gore being so honoured by the Nobel Committee. It seems fairly clear that this issue has also been hijacked by each side to either endorse or further undermine the entrenched views held.
So, despite the rather extreme language on the blog you link to (caps are shouting, you know) I'll moderate this in and let other readers make their own minds up.
But I have decided to avoid spending too much time on this subject as it is obvious it is only going to be a pointless 'tis't'sint' fest as well.
Though no longer in the mood to participate, I would still recommend BBC is Biased for reading (with a massive eyebrow ready to raise – they can lead to interesting points of view but are now seriously compromised at editorial level on objectivity as far as I am concerned, at least when it comes to matters enviro. I fear their in many ways justified distaste for the BBC’s rather overt machinations has made them equally as bad) as there are links to some potentially significant matters of 'fact', if proven.
One is a post linking to a site that lists the extent of Mr. Gore’s holdings in efforts that are profiting massively from any green moves. Nothing wrong with that, as in many ways I am hoping to do the same with Junkk.com, but there is the not so small matter of enviROI+.
There are also his words vs. his deeds, and those of all he surrounds himself with. Message vs. messenger. It's getting pretty ugly out there, and I don't think the BOFDIs are solely to blame.
And I must confess to being very concerned about an alleged internal memo within the BBC to 'explain' how issues of climate, and Mr. Gore in particular at this juncture, are to be conveyed to viewers. When allied to YouTube postings of news coverage as a consequence, I could not help but feel uneasy on how my views are being steered by the selective way information is being shared.
Do I think he deserves a Nobel Prize for Peace on the bases I have managed to assess? No.
Hence do I think the prize has been devalued as a consequence? Yes.
So I agree with you, but I'm not sure I can endorse all your reasoning or the way you share it.
And that on this two such diverse viewpoints can find themselves on common ground makes me wonder if this is the result those seeking to further the cause of practical restraint and mitigation would be happy.
I'd prefer those who would lead me to a better future proved catalysts for bringing people together.
So far I have been editted out by a set of 'optimists' who don't see my trying to look at other viable views as suitable for theirs. And I have ben screamed at by 'pessimists' who see any critique of their mantra and messiah as betrayal of theirs.
God help the planet.
Post a Comment