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).
Al Gore for 2008!
Al Gore for 2008!
No, no. He should keep doing what he’s doing…
I agree with Amardeep. He can have more influence with the work he’s doing than joining the circus race.
curly, i think that could be argued. with a willing congress, he could get tangible measures passed that will finally bring detroit to the 21st century, as well put good people in charge of the epa, engage in relevant international diplomacy, and so on. plus there’s the question of total utility, and he might have a bigger positive effect on the world in a position where he can directly effect change on things like iraq, taxes, and so on.
of course, good ideas alone do not make a good president, so i don’t know if he is better off being the moral leader he is now than an executive.
the pachauri guy looks like an opportunitic bureaucrat. he was a board member of indian oil corporation! no wonder gore opposed him appointment to the ipcc.
dravidian….a good president is only as good as his ability to get the Congress and people behind him. Gore seems to be really good at this issue not sure how much he could influence on other issues… perhaps the peace prize will further the work and put global warming and real change back on the forefront…maybe (wishful thinking) even Bushie will want to do something other than spew out hot air on the subject?
yes, i addressed that point. maybe obama could be his vp. win-win for all 🙂
but hey, i am no james carville. i am probably not even a shrum who, despite consistently running campaigns into oblivion, still gets listened to.
It looks quite likely that he is NOT going to run. On the environment, Gore may not be the most credible or unifying face, but he sure has been passionate. Good for him.
If one of the prez-hopefuls promises to appoint him “environment czar”, he/she can have my vote. Like Amardeep, I don’t want Gore focussed on anything but what he is doing now.
It is great that these two winners were awarded this prize. On the one hand we have an international body whose reputation is beyond dispute. On the other hand, we have a potential figurehead for a large scale environmental movement. Greens like me have been looking for both these things for a long, long time. For the past 15 years, we’ve been accused of fudging numbers and being alarmists. A body like the IPCC gives us so much more legitimacy. As for Gore, every movement has to have a face, and if it ends up being him, so be it.
a professor i had knows pachauri and assured us he wasn’t the pushover everyone thought he would be. on an aside, while i admire gore for his message, i’m not really sure about singling him out for this prize or the panel. in what way have they really fostered peace? it’s too early to tell. this prize should be given for a lifetime’s commitment to some idea or ideal – perhaps gore/the ipcc would have deserved it in a couple of decades. handing it out for a treaty signed here and there seems shortsighted.
i agree completely with this. but the nobel peace prize has been used for advocacy, especially several times in the last 10-15 years (israel-palestine, irish accord etc.). plus i don’t think it has that much credibility, with some especially perverse choices like kissinger and arafat.
i think bill bennett should’ve got the prize for his efforts to combat the spread of gambling.
dravidian lurker,
i can somewhat see the value of using the award for advocacy. but as the palestine-israel situation shows us, it doesn’t really work all the time and then the award becomes a slave to political expediency (but in truth maybe all the Nobel/any other awards have this unavoidable element to it). i guess peace is such a nebulous concept (kissinger?) and an award is by its nature advocating something. i think of charles keeling, who first made the connection between atmsopheric carbon dioxide and global warming, and who never got a nobel prize, not even a science one as far as i know.
that will finally bring detroit to the 21st century
Detroit is in the 21st century. If you want to discourage buying of vehicles < 20mpg slap a tax on gasoline. Easily cured. Even fuel efficient hybrids emit CO2.
that will finally bring detroit to the 21st century
Ok, that did not come out right. Detroit is in the 21st century. If you want to discourage buying of vehicles with less than 20mpg slap a tax on gasoline. Even fuel efficient hybrids emit CO2.
best news i’ve heard all year!!!
As to why the peace prize was awarded for environmentalists: there has always been a strong link between conflict and the environment. The committee acknowledged the same in their press release:
Yes, the committee has made some debatable picks over the years, but I agree with this one. The first step in tackling global warming on a global scale was to raise mass awareness. Through his film, Gore succeeded to a good degree. By wading through the science and making coherent recommendations, the IPCC succeeded as well.
I work with a guy who runs Gore’s office in Tennessee, I am trying to get my hands on the offering doc and the annual for Gore’s generation investment management LLP, I recall reading somewhere, his fund has long positions in many companies that benefit directly or indirectly from the carbon offset business. This piece by Arnold King in the economist from March is worth a read. I personally think his intentions are not as honest as they are made out to be.
Actually, brown, one might argue that by investing in carbon offset and allied businesses, he is providing the financial backing to firms that are aligned to his principles regarding global warming etc. Gore firmly believe in carbon offsetting, the man is literally putting his money where his mouth is. If he profits from it, it will only be because the companies that he is long on have succeeded in their effort.
If you want to look at it another way, Gore could have used his political clout to be on the partnership of almost any large private equity firm, but he did not.
As to whether carbon-offsetting is really all that useful, there is plenty of debate on that. But the point remains that Gore believes in it, and having his investment fund raise money for it, is like fundraising for it with promised future rewards. They call it social venture capital, which is a contradiction in terms, and probably not the purest form of capitalism. But in the case of the environment, no body pays the cost. In a regulated market economy, such as the US, more active government regulation is the only option. In its absence, the best we can hope for is Quasi/non-gov institutions and private funds.
Maybe, by investing in what he believes in, he is putting his money where his mouth is. Your argument that he is touting environmentalism only so his investments in carbon-credit trading companies will bear fruit is really tenuous. I doubt that the only thing the carbon-trading market needs to thrive is Gore’s advocacy and passion!
DDIA,
The question whethere he is raising money for it or he being the chairman directly pocketing profit from it are two separate issue, I have much to say on this but not a lot of time right now, hopefully before this thread becomes stale. I understand his is the popular method and I may very well be in minority but I am happy to present an opposing point of view.
Does this award raise the small number of desi laureates? I vote not.
same pinch
Skepmod,
It is not his money, it is the investors, Gore’s advocacy and passion lends it credence and visibility, I will come back with more later.
Though far less atrocious than some of the other decisions (and though i am generally sympathetic toward the cause), the noble peace prize is still highly political and has very little to do with real merits of individuals receiving them (i.e. those who have really worked toward peace; though that too happens every now and then. i mean kissinger, among other potential war criminals, received it.
Muitineers would be interested to also know that Al Gore and Pachauri had a public spat . So will Al Gore now join the presidential race ?
some more here and here.
Brown, if he is a name partner, he typically has to have some equity in it.
Brown, I love reading Equity Private’s blog, she is witty, insightful and generally brilliant (and I am kicked to find someone else that reads it too 🙂 ). If you follow her blog, you will notice that she finds everything to do with social venture capital smug, financially irresponsible for shareholders and, in general, pretty awful for the machinery of capital markets; primarily because it allocates capital suboptimally. In this case she is on the money about the smugness.
But note how she stresses the importance of the Pigou club etc. — which advocate governmental/regulatory means effected by means of taxation. In the absence of regulatory control — which incidentally has the same market distortingm sub-optimal allocating effect as social venture capital — all that Al Gore’s investment management company does is take from the rich (minimum $3m committment) and save the trees. It’s not as good as, perhaps, investing in Baidu or whatever, hence my analogy to political fundraising. Besides, if there is a market for people to buy carbon offsets, and if carbon offsets are not proven to be deleterious for the environment (of which there is no conclusive evidence yet) then why not give the markets what they want?
In conclusion, Al Gore is smug and a lot of An Inconvenient Truth is pure spin to prove his point. I dislike smug spin-doctors. That said, I find no ethical issue with his investment firm going out and investing in the carbon offset business (at least till someone shows me scientific evidence of why carbon offsetting is bad). At least it is a step in the right direction — i ) planting more trees (you need to do that to actually be able to sell the offsets) is not a bad thing, and ii) making flying more expensive for the conscientious/guilt-tripped who will want to buy an offset is, in effect, just like a Pigovian tax.
DDIA,
I am equally kicked to find another reader although I don’t agree with everything she says, my contention is that is the company really taking money from high net worth people and saving the trees, at last count about 75% money is from other funds, here are the underlying investments per the SEC form 13, I believe it is like any other fund masquerading as a socially conscious fund. I am trying to get a hold of the funds annual performance report and will share as soon as I get it.
I hope you’re gonna check to make sure this is public information 🙂 You wouldn’t want Al Gore suing you.
ddia:
do you happen to know the best (free) database for social venture capital, cleantech, or enviromentally friendly funds?
absolutely:) that is why I qouted SEC filings, which are public and will look for something that was publicly released.
Nope. Not in the $ biz 🙂
In any case, are these people subject to the same rules as public companies? I have no idea about corporate law/SEC. Desi corporate lawyers/wallstreets? Where’s puli?
SEC requires institutional invesmtment managers (I believe their definition includes PE and HF) to file form 13-F, I know with the new FAS 157 there is increased scurtiny of fair market valuations and underlying funds investments are open to scrutiny as well.
i have noticed an sudden explosion of interest in the cleantech area, a sudden emergence of energy vc’s, as well as older vc’s (kleiner p, draper f) getting into the game. the probelm woith GIM is that they only invest in public companies (i called them last week to make sure) so the real innovation is usually off their radar. i’m not sure what good carbon offset do or even if they make money.
the wellness theme seems to be picking up some steam too.
I haven’t looked into all this stuff about Gore’s investments in carbon offsetting firms closely, but in general I don’t see what would be wrong if he himself aimed to profit somewhat from efforts to improve the environment.
He has always been in favor of the free market — and he encourages others to pursue this path (i.e., using the economic principle of competition to promote businesses and business practices that will be beneficial). In effect you could say he is practicing what he’s preaching.
It does, of course, make him less saintly — though I don’t think it makes him seem insincere.
I may change my mind as I read more and understand more (at present much of what ‘Equity Private’ is talking about goes above my head).
Amardeep,
I personally have an issue with intent, the investment firm is not as cut and dry as it is made out to be, first link in 27 provides some good detail.
Good point, WGiiA! But I think the award of the Prize to Gore might represent, in part, an attempt by ‘the Europeans’ to influence, indeed shift, the internal American debate on the merits of the climate change argument, and on the need to do something about it, by enhancing Gore’s prestige.
Amardeeep, holding ‘long positions’ in companies that stand to benefit from climate change regulation, and also working to bring those regulations into force by using your personal and private prestige – is related to a version of ‘insider trading’, and so, highly questionable in my book, if true. I don’t know much about this, and will be checking out the links brown provided.
I meant ‘personal and political prestige’
Nothing wrong with that. Wasn’t that the purpose of the prizes in the first place – to reward people for doing what Mr. Nobel/the Foundation thought was “good”?
Working to bring the regulations into force is only bad if he had some measure of control on the regulation or inside information. Lobbying voters/senators etc isn’t insider trading. Heck, by your definition, every CEO and lobbyist is guilty of insider trading.
this is the carlyle group methodology–hiring ex govt officials to lobby govt for policies and contracts that benefit portfolio companies (in their case defense appropriations). its certainly a conflict of interest, as far as govt is involved, but it may be a necessary evil in a mixed economy. in other words, i don’t know how to avoid the conflict without violating 1st amendment rights to free speech and petitioning the govt.
but al gore engaging in this practice may make him susceptible to charges of hypocrisy, as well as his use of private planes and huge energy consumption (no, that’s not a fat joke) while lecturing others to do otherwise. ergo, my snarky bill bennet comment. and i once heard al gore flush the toilet 5 times in a row in a minneapolis airport bathroom.
I agree with Manju, my issue is with hypocrisy and not profit making, and skepmod most CEOs are not noble prize winners and have mass following like gore, so the comparison is not entirely accurate.
“As to why the peace prize was awarded for environmentalists: there has always been a strong link between conflict and the environment. “
SkepMod, good point, as the water “wars” in india show, and also refugees. also the award they gave to Wangari Maathai. i understand the connection but i guess my reaction was more a sort of instant knee-jerk reaction to gore being given special credit – probably unfair of me. the scientists sort of get pushed to the background as part of a group. i heard a reporter on cnn say “he blew the whistle on global warming.” while i think he has been instrumental in using his position, fame in generating more awareness, i’m not sure about him “blowing the whistle.”
At least the Democrats who still believe Nader cost Gore the WH, can now partially thank Nader for Gore’s Nobel peace prize. 😉 (dark cloud – silver lining) I’m not entirely sold on Al Gore’s good intentions and need to research more, but if this award raises awareness of the global warming issue among public, and motivates them to find out more, the award has served the purpose.
Very few, IMHO, deserve the peace prize and don’t think Gore being a champion for the environment merits one. But I’m not on the board that hands these out, either, so it doesn’t really matter what I say.
It almost seems the peace prize is the opposite to the prizes handed out for scientific acheivement or economics.
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.
Good point. Still, I would argue that appearances matter, and he puts his credibility at stake by arguing for something that, if enacted, impacts his wealth very positively. Since he doesn’t actually hold public office, there may be no legal obligations, but ‘moral’ obligations are also part of the calculus people employ in assessing public figures.
Obviously not. The panel was named as the winner not him; and its the panel that gets the monetary award. Gore on the other hand can of course claim that he won the Nobel Peace Prize.
By the way heres an interesting tidbit of information about Al Gore that few are aware of: his close boyhood friend from Tennessee Isaac Tigrett, founder of the Hard Rock chain and subsequently owner of the House of Blues, is a devotee of Indian godman Sathya Sai Baba. According to Tigrett, his old pal Al Gore is also “more or less” a devotee of Sai Baba…..
We all say silly things sometimes, and affect false modesty at others, but I found this part of what he said rather fawningly sycophantic, and altogether too cloying. Especially when he has a record of standing up and not kowtowing to politicians and powerful interests. Were others also bothered by it?