Al Gore tipped to win Nobel

[Sisyphus]

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

 

So you, ostensibly a conservative, find it impossible to make money in a good way? Would you find it less hypocritical if he was making millions of dollars out of investing in technologies that are bad for the environment? Or perhaps your implication is that climate scientists are all in on a huge conspiracy designed to make Al Gore money?

 

Addressing the broader question of this thread, which apparently has to do with the alleged "partisanship" of the Nobel committee: Henry Kissinger. Are we done yet?

 

No? Ok, is it really impossible that a politician or former politician could legitimately deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? Wouldn't that be a rather silly condition, given the nature of the prize? Or perhaps it's simply the fact that it's a Democrat, and simply no positive acknowledgment of Democrats can be computed as anything other than a ploy of some kind?

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the committee always makes the best choice. That Arafat got one is a bit ridiculous, for example, or that Ghandi or John Paul II never did. But come on. Must everything be about American politics?

[swansont]

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.

 

Oh. I was thinking that you were referring to "any such carbon credit scheme"

 

Exactly how does Al, Al's company or any such carbon credit scheme reduce pollution overall?

[Pangloss]

Addressing the broader question of this thread, which apparently has to do with the alleged "partisanship" of the Nobel committee: Henry Kissinger. Are we done yet?

 

No? Ok, is it really impossible that a politician or former politician could legitimately deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? Wouldn't that be a rather silly condition, given the nature of the prize? Or perhaps it's simply the fact that it's a Democrat, and simply no positive acknowledgment of Democrats can be computed as anything other than a ploy of some kind?

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the committee always makes the best choice. That Arafat got one is a bit ridiculous, for example, or that Ghandi or John Paul II never did. But come on. Must everything be about American politics?

 

I realize this wasn't in reply to me but I think I kinda started this disagreement and it seems to me that I perhaps owe everyone another response. No, it's not at all impossible to conceive how a liberal/Democrats American politician might deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Not in the slightest.

 

As for whether everything must be about American politics, I don't think anyone has suggested that everything is. I don't even think that this is about American politics. I think this is about international politics on the issue of valid versus invalid American behavior in international affairs, such as global climate change and the war in Iraq. In my opinion the Nobel Committee decided to weigh in on those issues by awarding this medal in the manner that it has.

 

It's possible that I have that opinion because of what I generally refer to as my slight conservative bias (which I'm sure some view as not-so-slight, but I don't mind people thinking that and I don't assume that they do). It's also possible that I have that opinion because I focus too much on political angles to stories and not enough on the deeper purposes that organizations like the Nobel Committee are likely to have.

 

It's also possible that I'm right.

 

I realize that's not a popular point of view and I'm not winning any points here with that opinion. I respect the opinions of a number of people posted here that I disagree with, such as swansont, yourself, iNow and others. Hey, maybe I'm wrong -- I always keep an open mind about these things.

 

But that's how it seems to me and I haven't seen a shred of evidence proving the contrary. I've seen a lot of circumstancial validation of their proclaimed non-partisanship, but that doesn't prove anything, and I've already acknowledged the validity other points of view. Nothing irks ME more than unsubstantiated claims, so I can understand why people are irked with me over this. I also realize you can't prove a negative. But it's just my opinion. What can I say. I'm sorry if I've annoyed anyone in this thread.

 

What will ultimately decide the issue for me is probably reading biographies and histories many years from now. It's been my experience that the fullness of time and the academic process have a way of exposing truth that cannot be seen when the issue is at the forefront.

[swansont]

You can have a decision that is contrary to the current administration's position without it being partisan; if the decision stands on its own merits then you can't determine if it's partisan or not. The reality is that the scientific conclusion is that global warming is real. You also have to recognize that the US position is in a very small minority, politically, and validating the majority view is not evidence of partisanship.

[CDarwin]

Pangloss, do you take issue with the IPCC winning the Nobel?

[Pangloss]

You can have a decision that is contrary to the current administration's position without it being partisan; if the decisions stand on their own merits then you can't determine if it's partisan or not. The reality is that the scientific conclusion is that global warming is real. You also have to recognize that the US position is in a very small minority, politically, and validating the majority view is not evidence of partisanship.

 

I agree with all of those statements.

[CDarwin]

*Cough*

[Pangloss]

Pangloss, do you take issue with the IPCC winning the Nobel?

 

I guess my opinion on it would be the same.

 

They're prize-award announcers, not accuracy validators. Just because I think the award suffers from political taint doesn't mean I think the IPCC is wrong.

 

I'd expand on this further, but a representative of the Publisher's Clearing House Prize Committee is at my door, waiting to validate my years of contribution to the world.

[Fred56]

As an "outsider", I would say that, sure it's not about America because there's China and India and Indonesia and Europe for starters, but it is about America being the most capable.

That's what the issue is here, is the "best" country going to do it's "best"?

[DrDNA]

Oh. I was thinking that you were referring to "any such carbon credit scheme"

 

I was in fact refering to "any such carbon credit scheme". "Any such" as in private enterprizes that don't work and have no hope of cutting emissions.

 

Efforts to cut emissions, including carbon credits, which are administered or backed by governments may or may not be viable, but I was not refering to them so I do not consider them "any such"; like Al's carbon credits at all. I would in fact be surprized to find that anyone might consider them in the same catagory. Do you?

 

As soon as Al Gore and/or his company becomes a legitimate government, then what they are doing may be likened to, and they will be included with government-backed carbon credit incentives or penalty programs. Then, in my opinion, "any such" may include Al and his scheme.

 

But until then, I can't help but consider "any such carbon credit schemes" that exist, like his, as self serving commercial entities, and without teeth as worthless; until someone can show otherwise, and they have not done so yet. Until then, I will remain convinced that these schemes benefit no one but themselves and perhaps their customers (a la: we polluted but we planted a tree to offset our emissions, don't we feel good now, let's do it again...).

[iNow]

Like I said... too bad we won't be discussing the true issue we all face. We're having too much fun bitching about people, putting them into little type-caste boxes and pigeon holing them so we may more easily attack everything they do.

 

 

We're like... smart en stuff.. Hehe.

[Martin]

Like I said... too bad we won't be discussing the true issue we all face. We're having too much fun bitching about people, putting them into little type-caste boxes and pigeon holing them so we may more easily attack everything they do.

 

 

We're like... smart en stuff.. Hehe.

 

That's an understandable reaction. But this has been an interesting and valuable thread. I'm glad you started it! I was especially interested by what you said about your company----I live in the SF Bay Area and there is a lot of smart entrepreneurial action on the Peninsula around solar and energy saving technologies. Maybe your company is one of them. I quote for reference:

 

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

Endquote. I think there are some good ideas about how carbon credits could work. Companies that find ways to reduce their greenhouse emissions can sell their credits to companies that don't want to bother doing that. In the end it turns out to cost money to load the atmosphere and you gain money by figuring how not to.

 

re: Gore. It doesn't matter but i read he had an investment company--like a mutual fund--which also does research and consulting and supplies info to the companies they invest in. I didn't know Gore also had a company that actually plants trees. doesn't sound like my idea of him somehow. there are a lot of more sophisticated things that one can do than go plant trees (unless you are talking ORNL genetic modified high-tech poplars:D or something like that).

[swansont]

I was in fact refering to "any such carbon credit scheme". "Any such" as in private enterprizes that don't work and have no hope of cutting emissions.

 

Efforts to cut emissions, including carbon credits, which are administered or backed by governments may or may not be viable, but I was not refering to them so I do not consider them "any such"; like Al's carbon credits at all. I would in fact be surprized to find that anyone might consider them in the same catagory. Do you?

 

As soon as Al Gore and/or his company becomes a legitimate government, then what they are doing may be likened to, and they will be included with government-backed carbon credit incentives or penalty programs. Then, in my opinion, "any such" may include Al and his scheme.

 

But until then, I can't help but consider "any such carbon credit schemes" that exist, like his, as self serving commercial entities, and without teeth as worthless; until someone can show otherwise, and they have not done so yet. Until then, I will remain convinced that these schemes benefit no one but themselves and perhaps their customers (a la: we polluted but we planted a tree to offset our emissions, don't we feel good now, let's do it again...).

 

 

I see your point now that you have clarified it. I was merely pointing out that, to me, it was not clear to which schemes you were referring, as you separately mentioned "any such scheme" and "carbon tax credits." ("tax" to me implying a government program) I am not familiar with the carbon trading specifics of Mr. Gore's investment company, but the Tennessee Valley Authority's Green Power Switch program seems simple enough: you pay extra and the utility can generate "green" power, which costs more to produce. You're basically paying the extra cost associated with generating wind power, which currently can't compete economically.

[DrDNA]

I see your point now that you have clarified it. I was merely pointing out that, to me, it was not clear to which schemes you were referring, as you separately mentioned "any such scheme" and "carbon tax credits." ("tax" to me implying a government program) I am not familiar with the carbon trading specifics of Mr. Gore's investment company, but the Tennessee Valley Authority's Green Power Switch program seems simple enough: you pay extra and the utility can generate "green" power, which costs more to produce. You're basically paying the extra cost associated with generating wind power, which currently can't compete economically.

 

Oh no. I see the error after going back and re-reading my own posts. My fingers and my mind have become independant entities.

I was convinced that *YOU* were mixing up "carbon credits" with "carbon tax credits", when in fact *I* inappropriately used the term "carbon tax credits" in some cases where I intended to type "carbon credits".

 

That was a big error on my (darn fingers') part and I am very sorry for the confusion that I have caused.