Al Gore tipped to win Nobel

[Pangloss]

So unless your position is that helping poor people help themselves is bad for humanity

 

That isn't my opinion, and it isn't necessary for you to demonize me -- we simply disagree on the issue.

 

 

The problem is that it's something to do with factual events, so you really can't have an opinion about that.

 

Sure I can. Just as you do.

[swansont]

That isn't my opinion, and it isn't necessary for you to demonize me -- we simply disagree on the issue.

 

No need for an ad hom. I have done nothing of the sort.

 

You made a claim and didn't do anything to back it up.

 

 

Sure I can. Just as you do.

 

No, not really. Thinking a particular band is good/sucks is an opinion. But whether they played a concert at a certain time and place is not.

 

You can believe that something is true, but you can then go looking for evidence to confirm or disprove it. And if the facts disprove it but you go on thinking it's true, well, that's just intellectually dishonest.

[CDarwin]

Pretty obviously politically correct, matching the group's far-left ideology -- something that in my opinion is more important to them than whether it's good for humanity.

 

Oh, the day we live in when calling something "politically correct" is an argument against it in and of itself. You haven't established that the fact that helping people is "politically correct" was a more important reason that Yunus (and the others) won the prize than the fact that they were helping people.

[PhDP]

Oh, the day we live in when calling something "politically correct" is an argument against it in and of itself.

 

"Politically correct" & "Common sense" = the point of both expressions is that you don't need any kind of evidences.

[Severian]

He got it:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/

[iNow]

Damn those PC left leaning liberally biased axe grinding fools on the Nobel committee.

 

 

http://nobelpeaceprize.org/eng_com_mem.html

 

The Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of five, appointed by the Storting (the Norwegain parliament). According to rules laid down by the Storting, election to the committee is for a six-year term, and members can be re-elected. The committee's composition reflect the relative strengths of the political parties in the Storting. Although this is not a requirement, all committee members have been Norwegian nationals. The committee elects its own chairman and deputy chairman. The Director of the Nobel Institute serves as secretary to the committee.

 

In 1936, in connection with the award of the Peace Prize to Carl von Ossietzky, there was a change of practice: since then, no members of the government have served on the committee. In 1977 a rule was adopted barring members of the Storting from election to the Nobel Committee, the name of which was changed from the Nobel Committee of the Norwegian Storting to the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

 

The Nobel Committee is completely independent. In its assessment of nominations for awards, it receives no instructions or directives. According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, there must be no mention in the minutes of any Nobel Committee meetings of the contents of discussions relating to choices of candidates for the various awards, nor must any differences of opinion in committees be divulged in other ways. For that reason, committee members take no part in the public debates which follow the announcement of decisions.

 

All meetings of the Nobel Committee are held in a special conference room in the Nobel Institute, under an array of pictures of all individual Peace Prize Laureates.

 

 

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/14324170/detail.html?rss=bos&psp=news

The panel forecast this year that all regions of the world will be affected by climate warming and that a third of the Earth's species will vanish if global temperatures continue to rise until they are 3.6 degrees above the average temperature in the 1980s and '90s.

 

"Decisive action in the next decade can still avoid some of the most catastrophic scenarios the IPCC has forecast," said Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate official.

 

He urged consensus among the United States and other countries on attacking the problem.

 

Climate change has moved high on the international agenda this year. The U.N. climate panel has been releasing reports, talks on a replacement for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate are set to resume and on Europe's northern fringe, where the awards committee works, there is growing concern about the melting Arctic.

 

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.

[Martin]

Damn those PC left leaning liberally biased axe grinding fools on the Nobel committee.

 

Yes aren't they awful, those liberally biased fools!

 

I think it is a key extension of Nobel's will, that brings it up to date. Here's a possible rationale for interpreting work to save the planet as included in working for peace.

 

wrecking the planet has a lot in common with war

 

climate havoc can do a lot of the same things as war:

spread disease

cause famine

trigger mass migration---provoke genocide

destabilize societies/degrade cultures

and climate shock can make it more likely that resource wars will break out

 

A lot of this was mentioned in the material you quoted, iNow.

I applaud the Peace Prize committee's interpretive extension. It recognizes something very important. I hope they continue to put saving the planet on the same plane as peace (both critically involve international trust and cooperation for common goals, and restraint of aggressive greed). Hope they make it a Peace and Planet prize and continue awarding it to other leaders like IPCC and Gore in the future.

[iNow]

I applaud the Peace Prize committee's interpretive extension. It recognizes something very important. I hope they continue to put saving the planet on the same plane as peace (both critically involve international trust and cooperation for common goals, and restraint of aggressive greed). Hope they make it a Peace and Planet prize and continue awarding it to other leaders like IPCC and Gore in the future.

 

Absolutely. This is the next great challenge of our generation, and we need to recognize and applaud efforts of those who seek to adequately mitigate the risk in a cohesive and colateral way. It really is a shame that political disagreements will likely serve to infect discussions of this topic in a manner which only distracts from the core issues of concern.

[MangoChutney]

Al Gore is chairman and co-founder of a company (Generation Investment Management) that is making millions of dollars out of investing in "green" technology

[iNow]

Al Gore is chairman and co-founder of a company (Generation Investment Management) that is making millions of dollars out of investing in "green" technology

 

Care to support that claim with something more than OpEd? They are investment firm, investing the money of others into companies that are doing positive environmental work. They do the research for these other companies, and help them make money while doing what's right for the environment.

 

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e89d5134-f6b6-11db-9812-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=b2e7f792-b6a6-11db-8bc2-0000779e2340.html

Generation Investment Management, a long-only investment firm whose mission is to deliver long-term superior returns. The research-intensive process, however, is guided by the principles of sustainability.

 

"We're all about picking great companies at the right price," says Colin le Duc, head of research and a partner of the firm. By that he means finding stocks of public companies in which to invest, stocks that Generation believes will outperform because they themselves are viable, long-term franchises, due in part to their incorporation of sustainable business practices.

 

Unlike most traditional socially responsible investing (SRI) approaches, Generation is not willing to sacrifice returns to save the world. Rather, it uses sustainability research to form views on the quality of a company, its management, and ultimately its valuation.

 

 

 

As I said, it's too bad we'll be continually distracted from the core issue due to political disagreement.

[Martin]

As I said, it's too bad we'll be continually distracted from the core issue due to political disagreement.

 

Another way to phrase this is that we need to define the meaning of politically correct---in a way that is constructive and traditional so that people want to be politically correct and to label themselves as such, by their committment.

 

This means getting clear about priorities. And also being clear about the areas where the state should interfere in social and cultural behavior.

 

oops, have to go, back later.

[DrDNA]

I'm not so upset about this that I'm contemplating flinging myself from a bridge or anything, but I must say that the committee's decision regarding this years Nobel Peace Prize is a disappointment.

 

The Academy award was baffeling, and I laughed out loud when I heard it. But so what, its Hollywood......

 

But the Nobel Peace Prize...?? Give me a break.

 

I don't get it.

 

Care to support that claim with something more than OpEd? They are investment firm, investing the money of others into companies that are doing positive environmental work. They do the research for these other companies, and help them make money while doing what's right for the environment.

(

 

What part of the carbon tax credits is positive environmental work? The part about we can afford to pollute and abuse the environment/natural resources, so we can and will.......so here's a few bucks (to our own company) to alleviate our consicience. Now, let's leave our 50,000 sq ft mansion, drive to the private jet in the suburban, spew an amount of global warming gases similar to used by a fully loaded passanger jet as we fly across the country to give a self serving talk about global warming.

 

 

I'm all for saving the planet, but come on. If it looks like a scam, walks like a scam, and quacks like a scam, it's probably a scam.

[MangoChutney]

What part of the carbon tax credits is positive environmental work? The part about we can afford to pollute and abuse the environment/natural resources, so we can and will.......so here's a few bucks (to our own company) to alleviate our consicience. Now, let's leave our 50,000 sq ft mansion, drive to the private jet in the suburban, spew an amount of global warming gases similar to used by a fully loaded passanger jet as we fly across the country to give a self serving talk about global warming.

 

I'm all for saving the planet, but come on. If it looks like a scam, walks like a scam, and quacks like a scam, it's probably a scam.

 

Exactly.

 

I just want the man to declare a vested interest in promoting MMGW

[Pangloss]

Awesome, now he can wear his ideology around his neck as well as on his sleeve!

[iNow]

Awesome, now he can wear his ideology around his neck as well as on his sleeve!

 

Seriously, can't you see how you're the one grinding the axe here?

[Pangloss]

That was a joke, iNow. I'm sorry you don't like my opinion but I'm not going to be heckled for it. If the Nobel committee's word that they're non-partisan is good enough for you, well hey, more power to you. I don't publically smirk and rib Phi for All or YT when you say something I don't like. MoveOn already!

 

(Yeah, that was another joke, just meant in respectful good humor. If you want to make one comparing me to Rush Limbaugh I promise I won't be offended!)

[CDarwin]

What part of the carbon tax credits is positive environmental work? The part about we can afford to pollute and abuse the environment/natural resources, so we can and will.......so here's a few bucks (to our own company) to alleviate our consicience. Now, let's leave our 50,000 sq ft mansion, drive to the private jet in the suburban, spew an amount of global warming gases similar to used by a fully loaded passanger jet as we fly across the country to give a self serving talk about global warming.

 

 

I'm all for saving the planet, but come on. If it looks like a scam, walks like a scam, and quacks like a scam, it's probably a scam.

 

The point isn't allowing rich companies to get away with polluting more; it's rewarding the good companies.

That was a joke, iNow. I'm sorry you don't like my opinion but I'm not going to be heckled for it. If the Nobel committee's word that they're non-partisan is good enough for you, well hey, more power to you. I don't publically smirk and rib Phi for All or YT when you say something I don't like. MoveOn already!

 

As opposed to your word that it is partisan?

 

Anyway, I'm especially glad to see the IPCC won it. Al Gore... eh.

[Saryctos]

Well, there goes my respect for the nobel peace prize. Although I can't say I cared much before, since Carter has one aswell.

[DrDNA]

The point isn't allowing rich companies to get away with polluting more; it's rewarding the good companies.

 

It isn't?

 

Exactly how does Al, Al's company or any such carbon credit scheme reduce pollution overall? Al (or anyone else) can pollute all he wants because he (they) gave his own (Al's) company a few bucks which is supposed to be used to plant a tree?

 

I may not be smart enough to comprehend Al's point, but it looks like dog shite, smells like dog shite, and tastes like dog shite, so I certainly don't want to get any of it on my shoes.

[CDarwin]

It isn't? Exactly how does Al, Al's company or any such carbon credit scheme reduce pollution overall? Al (or anyone else) can pollute all he wants because he (they) gave his own (Al's) company a few bucks which is supposed to be used to plant a tree?

 

Because over time governments lower the cap on carbon credits.

 

What you're talking about is carbon-offset company schemes specifically, and I must say I share your skepticism a bit. It is better than nothing, though.

[DrDNA]

What you're talking about is carbon-offset company schemes specifically, and I must say I share your skepticism a bit. It is better than nothing, though.

 

You are correct. That is what I am refering to.

 

How is it better than nothing? In the end, what is (practically) accomplished? I'm serious in that I don't see ANY overall benefit (except tot he company).

[iNow]

It isn't?

 

Exactly how does Al, Al's company or any such carbon credit scheme reduce pollution overall? Al (or anyone else) can pollute all he wants because he (they) gave his own (Al's) company a few bucks which is supposed to be used to plant a tree?

 

I may not be smart enough to comprehend Al's point, but it looks like dog shite, smells like dog shite, and tastes like dog shite, so I certainly don't want to get any of it on my shoes.

 

Well, my friend, I offered an answer to this for you last night which was clear and, in no way, attacking, but since this response was a post which was automatically merged with a response I made to Pangloss, it was my third post to be deleted in this thread...

 

It would seem that what Pangloss is doing is fine, but what I'm doing is flaming akin to revprez/pcollins. This is just super. I surrender. He's not full of it, and every response I've made about him being the only one grinding axes in this issue was nonsense. Happy now Politics forum mods? Now I'm grinding axes... son of a b%^tch.

 

 

Let me see if I can recall...

 

 

Edit by dak: inserted from the deleted post.

 

The world is driven by economics. The approach being taken by Gore and the investment firm of which he's a part provides a way for individuals and companies to make money by finding ways to improve the environment. If big powerful companies can see significant profits by doing something good, then they will do more good. Companies go where the money is.

 

My own company is a key example. For years we've built the machines that build computer chips. We then got into LCD and flat panel technology. We're now also building machines that build solar panels and our stock has soared. Our technology and engineering advances are going to significantly reduce the cost per watt of solar.

 

Does the above real-world example help your understanding? I really empathize with not seeing it, but once you've looked at it more closely, Gore's approach becomes abundantly clear. The world is driven by money, so we need to drive the ways people make money toward work which improves the environment and makes our species more sustainable.

 

end of insert

 

 

I said it much better last night, but basically the issue is putting the money where people are helping the environment in some way is good. Gore's focus is using our inherent desire for profit to motivate people and corporations to invest more R&D into ways to save the planet. We go where the money is, and this is an attempt put the money toward things which benefit as a planet. It also is increasing awareness, so any company that tries to turn a profit by doing things that are poor for the environment will be seen more negatively, and it will be harder for them to make money.

 

Sorry... the above doesn't even come close to what I was sharing last night. I'll keep my mind active while I'm working today and try to "re-hone" the point of what I'm saying.

 

 

Couldn't you have at least just edited out the part for which you are infracting me? Geesh.

[swansont]

What part of the carbon tax credits is positive environmental work?

 

Have you considered that it may be cheaper to reduce CO₂ in some instances than pay the tax?

[Dak]

"Politically correct" & "Common sense" = the point of both expressions is that you don't need any kind of evidences.

 

that's a bunch of politically correct hogswash, and common sense dictates that it is wrong.

 

mmm, paradoxy

[DrDNA]

Does the above real-world example help your understanding? I really empathize with not seeing it, but once you've looked at it more closely, Gore's approach becomes abundantly clear. The world is driven by money, so we need to drive the ways people make money toward work which improves the environment and makes our species more sustainable.

 

end of insert

 

 

I said it much better last night, but basically the issue is putting the money where people are helping the environment in some way is good. Gore's focus is using our inherent desire for profit to motivate people and corporations to invest more R&D into ways to save the planet. We go where the money is, and this is an attempt put the money toward things which benefit as a planet. It also is increasing awareness, so any company that tries to turn a profit by doing things that are poor for the environment will be seen more negatively, and it will be harder for them to make money.

 

Sorry... the above doesn't even come close to what I was sharing last night. I'll keep my mind active while I'm working today and try to "re-hone" the point of what I'm saying.

 

 

I believe that you are correct in saying that Al Gore's focus is profit (his own).

Thanks!

I apprecpiate your effort, but you have not convinced me that paying Al Gore or Al Gore's company does anything for the planet.

 

Have you considered that it may be cheaper to reduce CO₂ in some instances than pay the tax?

 

I would hope so, but that is a completely different thing.

I was not refering to government incentives or actions to reduce carbon emissions. I was refering solely to Al Gore's company.