Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Al Gore, the Nobel Prize and the End of the Beginning
Alex Steffen, WorldChanging
“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
– Winston Churchill, speaking of the turning point battle of El Alamein,1942
Al Gore and the IPCC winning the Nobel Peace Prize symbolizes more than just a head-nod towards some eco-fad — it shows that sustainability has finally moved from the outskirts of activism to the most central halls of authority. Concern for the planetary future is now as credible as it is possible to get. The beginning of the struggle to save ourselves from ecological catastrophe has come to an end and we can begin to see the outlines of the next stage of the struggle.
Those of us who’ve spent our careers advocating a saner approach to the future can be forgiven a few moments of smugness, for these are sweet days. There is no longer any reasonable debate about whether or not we need to move with all possible speed towards a different way of living on this planet. To argue the contrary is now to prove oneself morally bankrupt.
…It’s common, among certain of our allies, to try to avoid seeming like radicals by reassuring people that a sustainable world won’t be all that different from the world we live in now. It’s time for us to stop saying that.
It’s time for us to stop saying that because it’s not true: the kind of world we will be building will have to include what are, from today’s perspective, some truly massive changes. We won’t be living the same way in a couple decades, either because we’ve undergone some relatively profound transformations, or because the consequences of failing to change our ways will be coming home to roost in a series of utterly predictable disasters.
But it’s time to stop downplaying the changes needed for another reason: if we do our jobs right, life will get better. The systems we currently rely on don’t just destroy the environment, they limit our happiness. We do not live in the best of all possible worlds. We know it is possible to create lives which are not only profoundly more sustainable, but more prosperous, comfortable, stylish, healthy, safe and fun. If we do our jobs right, a bright green future will be downright sexy.
Our task now is to envision those lives, envision them with such practical clarity that we gain the power to build them.
(12 October 2007)
Astyk on the Nobel Peace Prize
Original title: Feeding New York
Sharon Astyk, Casaubon’s Book
Well, Al Gore and the IPCC won the nobel prize, something I’m more than a little ambivalent about. On the one hand, they both did an enormous amount to draw attention to climate change, and that’s really important. On the other hand, in re: Al Gore, I’m reminded of what Tom Lehrer said when Henry Kissinger was given the nobel peace prize, that it made political satire obsolete. I mean the man was a participant in the Clinton policies that, among other things, allowed half a million kids in Iraq to die from sanctions. But then again, I would have thought “never was a Nazi” was a criteria for Pope, and that’s clearly untrue. And obviously the “never was a mass murderer” bar for the Nobel Peace Prize, if it ever existed, is long since broken. Probably my standards are too high.
As for the IPCC, I would tend to say that were I give out Nobel Prizes (which no one has asked me to do yet, for the record, but I’m sure any day now), I would tend to focus on people who actually bring about peace and show moral courage doing it. While some IPCC scientists have shown enormous courage, the committee as a whole has not been able to withstand the pressure of governments not to water down its findings – as hundreds of its own members admit. So yes, I’m glad the IPCC is bringing attention to this issue. I’m glad Al Gore is bringing attention to this issue, and that he is in some sense redeeming his participation in other ills. Heck, if he runs for president and we have to choose between mass murderers, him, the comparatively powerless veep, the current monster or the she-president who could have at least withheld sex (ok, Al could have withheld sex too), I’ll probably vote for him. And yet…in my fantasy world, the Nobel Peace Prize actually stands for telling the truth and bringing about change. Of course, in my fantasy world, all this new awareness is happening 30 years ago, when it would do a lot more good. Ah well.
(12 October 2007)
The rest of the essay deals with food and agriculture. -BA
Award Underlines Danger of Climate Change
Elisabeth Rosenthal, New York Times
The Nobel Peace Prize committee made a powerful statement today that the consequences of increasing carbon emissions could be as dangerous as the ravages of war.
The award to Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reflects a growing conviction on the part of scientists, politicians and economists that emissions and the global warming they produce will lead not only to more pollution but could also create economic mayhem, social upheaval and conflicts between nations or groups trying to survive in an increasingly hostile natural environment.
“This prize is an indication of the degree to which we’ve realized in the past few years that what happens in the environment is not just about natural resources but has so many different dimensions,” said Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, which helped found the intergovernmental panel.
“It recognizes that changes in the environment are likely to manifest themselves in tensions and conflicts.”
Indeed, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which has for years maintained a “Doomsday Clock” to monitor the risk of global disaster from nuclear weapons, this year increased its warning level for the first time not because of weaponry but because of the threat posed by global warming.
Some scholars believe that climate-related conflict is already upon us.
(13 October 2007)
For whom the Nobel tolls
David Roberts, Gristmill
…Over the past week, all the U.S. media could talk about was how winning might affect Gore’s chances in the U.S. presidential race. To me this demonstrates just how badly our media is misjudging the race, Gore’s significance, and our current historical moment.
There’s no reason to think that winning the prize would have any positive effect on Gore’s chances if he did run. Does the American public care about the Nobel, a prize awarded by a bunch of … foreigners? Wouldn’t winning a “peace” prize brand Gore as weak on national security? Doesn’t it show that he thinks he’s better than us? Who would want to get a beer with a Nobel Peace Prize winner? Wait, did he just sigh?
If he entered the race, Gore would run headlong into the same dim-bulb, theatrics-obsessed political press that did him so much harm in the 2000 race. He’d also run into Hillary Clinton’s political machine. He would own the climate change issue, so other candidates would have to start attacking him on it and distancing themselves from it. He’d be forced to spend his time discussing one piece of frenzied ephemera after another, instead of focusing on his animating passion. He’d end up in a bruising, demeaning battle, and winning some peace prize wouldn’t shield him. The process of electing a president, like so many things in the U.S. today, has become small and petty. It shrinks, cheapens, simplifies, and plasticizes those who take part in it, as Gore has already learned.
No, it would be a disaster for Gore to enter the race at this point — not because he might lose, but because he has transcended U.S. partisan politics. He has become a figure of global stature, one of a tiny fraternity of private individuals in the world capable of driving historical change from outside the confines of any institution. What many Americans don’t realize is that the rest of the world is not distracted by the serial, lurid distractions that compose our political dialogue. Our national conversation is dominated by the resentful bile of a core of nationalist, reactionary, authoritarian ding-dongs, but it’s not like that when Gore goes overseas. In other countries, they don’t care about his electrical bills or his waist size or his clothing choices or his lack of that most important qualification for leader of the free world, the ability to act like a regular guy.
Gore can’t act like a regular guy. He’s smart, and he talks like a smart person. He’s earnest and committed. He cares. He wants to help save the world. Inside the glorified high school of U.S. politics, those qualities make him a square, an easy subject of mockery. But outside the U.S. they are assets. Gore can help bring governments together; he can get powerful financiers, corporate titans, rock stars, and energy scholars in the same room. He can help shape policy and public opinion across globe, not just in the U.S.
We are at an inflection point in history. These are times of immense consequence. The world will either unite around the problem of climate change and start pulling as one in the direction of survival and sustainable development, or grim years lay ahead for all of us. We must learn, as a species, how to share our collective resources more equitably and how to become happier without using more stuff and creating more waste. We must decouple our health and fulfillment from our ecological impact.
That’s the project Gore’s involved in now. He is called to higher things than running for president.
(12 October 2007)
