Missing the Real Message in Nobel Prize?
The big story today is that the Nobel Peace Prize recognizes the climate crisis as a genuine threat to humanity. It now has official standing along with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, conflict in the Middle East, landmines, and poverty as something that causes harm to people within and beyond conflict zones.
This story, that the climate crisis poses a threat and humankind is struggling to address it, is presented effectively on the BBC website.
Wait a minute. Isn't the "real" story about what winning this prize means for Al Gore? Shouldn't we be talking about his prospects for the '08 Presidency? A quick scan of major news sources shows that this is the main focus of discourse here in the U.S.
The New York Times has a lead story titled "Gore and U.N. Panel Win Peace Prize for Climate Work," that weaves life histories of Gore's climate activism and the superb research of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). While these are laudable stories to tell, the New York Times neglects to tell the real story - that the climate crisis is a genuine threat.
CNN International opens their story, "Gore Shares Prize with U.N. Panel," by acknowledging the work Gore has done. Then it quickly digresses into a discussion of a campaign urging him to run for president. The Washington Post parrots this message in their cover story, "Gore, U.N. Body Win Nobel Peace Prize," giving prominence to the person of Gore by quoting the Norwegian Nobel Committee that he is "the single individual who has done most."
The Fox News article, "With Nobel in Tow, Will Gore Run?", skips past the climate crisis entirely. Many progressive bloggers, in a rare moment of harmony with Fox News, are also focusing directly on the campaign bid. It is as if the most important news were the horse race for the presidency.
Al Gore and the IPCC winning the Nobel Prize is important news. The problem is that these reports do not go on to talk about the significance of the climate crisis, opting instead to shift the discussion toward Gore's political life.
Personally, I am glad to see the climate crisis getting the recognition it deserves. Having studied climate science, I have known about the dire consequences of inaction for several years. In many ways, it is the ultimate security threat we face. It is global in scale. People everywhere will face greater risk as global warming goes on unchecked. And it exacerbates the problems that arise with poverty, regional conflicts, terrorism, and international trade.
In my article, "Shifting the Climate of Security," I argued that the climate crisis requires us to reconsider the meaning of security in light of the new kinds of threats that emerge in this web of threats. (Sign up to keep informed about our work at the Rockridge Institute on framing the climate crisis.) With the climate crisis having official standing as a global threat, we should take this opportunity to urge our leaders once again to grant the climate crisis the seriousness it deserves.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The issue is not "that the Nobel Peace Prize recognizes the climate crisis as a genuine threat to humanity." Rather, the issue is the question of whether this recognition will have any impact on those faith-based environmentalists that continue to dictate our country's policy. For those unfamiliar with the concept, the basic precept of faith-based environmentalism is that God provided the bounty of the Earth for Man to consume and enjoy. When that bounty runs out, God will take care of those who believe in Him; and the rest (presumably including myself) will have to fend for themselves. This concept did not originate with the current administration. It goes back at least to when James Watt ran the Department of the Interior under Ronald Reagan; and, as a policy, has changed very little (if at all) since then. Bush simply continued the principle with his conviction that accountability to God (or his interpretation thereof) was more important than accountability to the Kyoto Accord.
It's intentional.
Rather than shed any light on the issue of climate change, the various "media corporations" you have cited here, instead took the opportunity to dim that light as much as possible, by cloaking it in Al Gore's future political prospects.
And it's no surprise (as you cite above) that Fox leads the way, by heralding the awarding of a Nobel Prize to several individuals working on the climate change issue, with the headline:
"With Nobel In Tow, Will Gore Run?"
And then the article (I trust your reading of it, because I wouldn't waste my time) "skips past the climate crisis entirely".
It's intentional.
An excellent post. It is simply amazing that in the midst of of a very "genuine threat to humanity" we cannot spend even a moment on the reality of it. I do not blame the media, for I believe they really are an exemplification of what we as a people have become. Primitive!
I beg to differ. I was so pleased to see on CNN a story today where they interviewed people at the pentagon who explained why it was a "peace" prize he won. That water shortages/draughts and hunger, in some areas are causing mass migrations of people. In other areas where the sea coast is rising, many will/are having to move inward. Regugees are flooding into southern Europe because of such disasters. The possibility of wars over this is huge. And the pentagon is starting to gear up for stopping trouble when it can due to this crisis.
Al Gore didn't have to win the peace prize for the rest of the world -- and our pentagon -- to know we are in deep doodoo, literally and figuratively. But some right wing wingnuts at home did need it..no doubt they'll ignore this like everything else...eve
Anyway, while I'm not a CNN fan as a rule, they did a great story today. They may be many years too late but its a start.
Whoever goes around the world bashing Bush and the USA gets the prize. It is not hard to miss
The verdict on global warming is in. Gore was right and Bush was wrong. Only an intelligent being can look at new facts and change their beliefs. It's called learning. Right wing conservatives are unable to learn because they are incapable of distinguishing the difference between faith and facts. They are unmoved by facts and nobody can remove the scales from their eyes.
Yes, global warming is real - not because Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize - because it is!
Why must the media immediately digress from the importance of the issue to worry about Gore's presidential ambition - he has none. He already won the presidency onece - then it was stolen from him and us by the Supremes.
In fact, he is much more influential on the environmental issues than he would be in trying to clean up the mess that Bush and his cronies have made of the world!
Bush probably asked when the news came out: "why did he win the noble prize? I am more noble than he is!"
Too imagine that a feckless bunch of politically driven Norwegians lends legitimacy to anything is amusing.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
