As everyone has presumably heard by now, Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this morning for his work on climate change, in conjunction with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The head of that panel is an Indian scientist named Rajendra Pachauri, who formerly worked for the Tata Energy Research Institute. (As an aside, if you’re the head of a panel that wins a Nobel Prize, do you get to say “you” won the prize? Probably not, I suspect. One would have to find a nuanced way to put this kind of thing on one’s CV…)
According to the BBC, Al Gore and Pachauri had a brief conversation after the award was announced:
The two men spoke on the phone after the announcement. “This is Pachy… I am certainly looking forward to working with you. I’ll be your follower and you’ll be my leader,” Dr Pachauri said. (link)
(Pachy? Oy.)
In recent years, Pachauri has sharply criticized the general lack of action on climate change, though interestingly his name was originally put forward for this post by the Bush administration, because he was thought to be less passionate about the subject than his British predecessor:
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told an international conference attended by 114 governments in Mauritius this month that he personally believes that the world has “already reached the level of dangerous concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere” and called for immediate and “very deep” cuts in the pollution if humanity is to “survive”.
His comments rocked the Bush administration – which immediately tried to slap him down – not least because it put him in his post after Exxon, the major oil company most opposed to international action on global warming, complained that his predecessor was too “aggressive” on the issue. (link)
The backstory on Pachauri’s initial appointment goes back to the controversy over the Bush administration’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol; more on that here. I’m a little puzzled as to why the Bush Admin. thought Pachauri would be a quieter candidate, especially since I gather he himself supported a boycott of ExxonMobil back in 2001.
Last year I wrote a post about Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, with specific emphasis on the potential impact on the Indian subcontinent. As I mentioned earlier, there is a very high likelihood of major population displacement in the Bay of Bengal due to rising sea levels. Also, the core of the water supply for the entire Indian subcontinent is likely to dry up, possibly in our lifetimes, due to the retreat of the Himalayan glaciers. Thirdly, the overall monsoon climate pattern may significantly change, though no one knows exactly how that will happen (people say there have already been changes in the pattern).
I am not entirely convinced that turning a profit on such environmental policy is detrimental, provided the policy is based on sound reasoning and information of course. Grassroots campaigns motivated by a sense of altruism are well and good, but I think that policy, that would alter the course of industry, would have to have some benefit for the industry itself. Showing that environmentally friendly/conscious policy can be profitable may be the best way to get the support of those with the greatest influence (ie. those with the deepest pockets already). I may be overly cynical , but personally I think there is definately a self serving side to Gore’s activity (either monetary or for recognition) but that may be the example that if followed could bring support to otherwise restrictive regulation.
“Right, I was responding to WGiiA’s suggestion that it might have been better for them to wait for twenty years or so, and award it after a lifetime of work in the field. But if you want to influence things in a certain way, then that might be too late – that’s all I was saying.”
true chachaji. i’ve had several hours to think about it, and it doesn’t seem so faddish now 🙂 if the award had just been given to the ipcc, i think my somewhat skeptical reaction would have been less so and i would have probably appreciated the more long-term effect of the prize. i’m just a bit wary of celebrities who latch on to certain causes in a big way only to discard them or move on to the next hot cause – although many are indeed very genuine — but i think my initial reaction was unfair to gore in that i don’t think this is a fad for him. i have, however, yet to see an interview/reaction on cnn with anyone from the ipcc. maybe i missed it.
“Were others also bothered by it?”
Yes, a bit.
“According to Tigrett, his old pal Al Gore is also “more or less” a devotee of Sai Baba…..”
goodbye White House 2008:)
“I’ll be the followed and you will be my leader” ??!!!
Gora Saheb, please lead us.
In other words, spoken like a true desi.
FYI, Gore interested in global warming during his college days because of a class in Harvard. As for ‘fad’ he wrote a book in 1989 called ‘Earth in Balance’ and has long pushed the US Congress & Senate to get interested in this issue.
About Gore being a ‘smug spin doctor’ please read http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ and see how the effects of global warming have been UNDERSTATED rather than over, because scientists are naturally conservative, they (we actually, I am a scientist too but do not work in this specific field) don’t make extravagant claims because of uncertainities and error bars.
“FYI, Gore interested in global warming during his college days because of a class in Harvard. As for ‘fad’ he wrote a book in 1989 called ‘Earth in Balance’ and has long pushed the US Congress & Senate to get interested in this issue.”
let me clarify. by fad, i meant the nobel prize committee giving it to this particular cause at this particular time – not that the cause itself is a fad, or its advocates faddists. i just initially wondered if the ipcc would have received this prize on its own this particular year without a major spokesperson/public face like gore and the oscar and emmy that he won in the past year and all the attendant publicity in the wake of those awards.
Funny isn’t it. The white man screws the environment. And now he wins a nobel prize for it!!!
What a joke.
The U.S. government has led the way in stalling global warming agreements. So now that the Nobel Commitee has decided to award someone on this issue, it awards a representative of the U.S. government? Where’s the logic in that?
And why award a POLITICIAN?? Why not award scientists or an organization entirely independent of government? The implicit message: when the environment needs saving, politicians take the lead. American politicians in particular.
Good for Gore!
I quite liked an inconvenient truth. It didn’t seem as overt as the other doc-gandas I’ve watched. And his conviction was evident in the movie. He used interesting examples to illustrate the link between global warming and human activity. While the causality in some of those examples is a matter of scientific debate, there’s no denying the importance of the overall cause. And there’s no reason why a little spin and drama shouldn’t be acceptable if it helps drive the point home. In fifty years we might discover one of two things – that gore was a pesky self-centred alarmist OR that he was a visionary who drew attention to a precious cause. If giving gore the nobel somehow means erring on the side of caution, so be it.
I was actually really excited to hear that the IPCC received the award because they have done so much (necessary) work to establish a body of scientific literature (and develop something close to a scientific consensus on climate change). That said, what I disagree with the prize committee about was their announcement that Gore + IPCC had worked towards initiating big scale changes to roll back the effects of man-made climate change. I think that aspect of the announcement was highly premature. While the IPCC and Gore have done a LOT to “put climate change on the map” as an imminent and necessary concern, there has NOT been enough widespread commitment or action towards really impacting carbon emissions.
I like Gore. But he needs to do more to bring other scientists to open up and be more visible on this. He should also suck it up and run so he can make a real difference not just for global warming, but for the enivronment. I think our water and food supplies need to be cleaned up and is just as much an immediate concern. Gore had 8 years to do something about global warming with Bill Clinton. Obviously, he needs to be in charge instead of leaving it upto someone else again. So why let Hillary win.
Flock of Dodos does a better job advocating for evolution than what Inconvenient Truth does for global warming.
This is ridiculous. First, Gore is no longer a representative of the U.S. government, just as former President Carter (also a recipient) is no longer a representative of the U.S. government. It’s not like the Prize Committee gave an award to President Bush for his so-called “Clean Skies Initiative.” Second, while the U.S. disproportionately pollutes and creates waste, Al Gore is not some spectre of “the oppressive white man, dumping carbon dioxide into the skies.” Climate change is a human-made problem, and while there are certainly countries who contribute more to the problem, this is not a “white man’s” problem or a “white man’s” creation (unless you are going to argue that industrialization was a purely “white” phenomena that continues be “whites only”).
Well, the word “white” never left my keyboard, so I don’t know why you’d think I might say that.
Point taken. “Representative of the U.S. government” was the incorrect thing to say. But he’s still going around the planet with the title of “Former Vice President” attached to him. You’re right. He’s not currently an office holder, and his view is in opposition of present government. But when he makes public appearences, he’s still representing his government as an establishment, at least up to a point. Because the prestige of the Nobel Prize rubs off on the position he formerly held, even if the current Vice President isn’t a Democrat. It’s no different than an entire university sharing in the glory and prestige of a Nobel Prize award in sciences, even if it’s only awarded to single member of the university’s faculty.
My main problem is that on this particular issue, they should have awarded someone other than a famous politician.
cc, I didn’t mean to conflate what you wrote with what venkat wrote. I was attempting to respond to both, but I apologize if lumping you together misrepresented you. I also agree with you that there are others who have had a much longer legacy (and more profound impact) on environmentalism.
Pedantic point, because I’ve heard this said everywhere now: Al Gore did NOT win an Oscar earlier this year. His film won, which means the Oscar went to the director. But he didn’t win it any more than James MacNamara did for The Fog of War.
Just to clear that up.
cc, you’re correct, thanks.
But he’s still going around the planet with the title of “Former Vice President” attached to him. You’re right. He’s not currently an office holder, and his view is in opposition of present government.
cc, that may be because of the way media works in the US, rather than Gore insisting on being referred to as former Veep. I’ve observed Clinton being referred to as “President” in the media without fail during the past 6 years, and Madeleine Albright called as Madam Secretary even after she stopped being the Secretary of State. I wouldn’t read too much into it or draw some conclusions – that’s just the media protocol for former administration members. I think.
WGiiA @55, cc @62 and 64, you make good points.
The way I see it – it still makes sense for Gore to get it, if the Prize raises his prestige so high as the highest-profile person in the US (and the world) arguing for climate change to be taken seriously, and for something to be done about it – that the whole center of gravity of the debate in the US also changes – in the direction of what the IPCC and the Nobel committee would like it to.
As a general comment, I am less enamored of people and companies trying to make money from intermediating global emissions quotas and permits trading regimes – and much more of companies developing long-term adaptation and mitigation technologies, and yes, even those companies who are thinking of creative ways of reversing climate change.
my sister’s boss (she lived in india for a summer) when she studied energy at Tata was pachauri. so that makes me just a few degrees separated from a nobel prize winner…and six degrees away from kevin bacon.
What about George Sudarshan (1979 and 2005)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Sudarshan http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510342
r we thinking bout our kids and babies after 30 years …just commenting bout gore and pachauri…Please accept the Fact and Act….start now at this moment onwardss…..regards n Luv MAHESHG