Alfred Nobel developed one of the most destructive things known to man so by way of an half-arsed attempt to balance out his karma, he dreamt up the peace prize.
This is to be awarded to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
Unless there is a hidden line about knocking out a film about global warming, i fail to see how Albert Arnold Gore Jnr is deemed a worthy recipient by those crazy Scandinavians.
The talk has been that when Al picked up the Award he would be persuaded to remove his hat and throw it into the ring as a Presidential candidate.
I could grudgingly swallow campaigning against global warming being equal to campaigns for human rights or mediating peace deals between warring factions if Gore makes his move and sets his sights on the White House.
8 comments:
I disagree. I think that peace and the environment are very much related, they are based on the same values, the plundering of one affects the existence of the other. He has contributed tremendously to raising environmental consciousness. I do agree he should run for president. If he were to enter US the presidential race, even at this late hour, I believe he would win.
I'd vote for him. He's a much better choice than the Dems running now.
Big Business with its money would make sure that Gore didn't get elected. They don't want anyone raining on their Greed Parade! Consume until Catastrophe is their motto. Cheers.
P.S. The reason Europe sees Israel differently to America is the strength of the Jewish Lobby in America. And their money!
I would vote for Gore, absolutely. However I think his running for President at this point may be viewed as something it's not. I want someone in office who encourages saving the earth rather than destroying it with war.
I very much agree with Lucy, the issue of war and the environment are two totally different issues. It's not entirely self-evident how the two issues are 'based on the same values'.
For example, Stephen argues that 'the plundering of one affects the existence of the other', sounds fair enough, but, what exactly does that mean? So, if for example, the Sudanese government controlled it's CO2 emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol. would it that mean peace would ensue in the Darfur region - of course not - because there is no real link between the two issues.
Or how about Iraq? If Iraqis recycled all it's waste, used solar panels to generate electricity, and curbed it's CO2 emissions, would this mean that peace would breakout on the streets of Basra and Baghdad?
If there is a link between environmentalism and the conduct of war - I'll be damned if I can see it...
Well, what is our current war about, and what would Gore have us using less of? Same answer to both questions.
Joe, you took the words out of my mouth.
Not to mention of the actual impact that the actions of war has on the environment. What are the environmental impacts of bombs, especially uranium bombs, to use an egregious example.?
Tagged.
Post a Comment