Al Gore: Could Nobel Prize Spur Presidential Run?

[mjsd]

Well, this is an issue that shouldn't be neglected. Imagine that we are too careful, and impose such drastic cutbacks that this generates an economical crisis on world scale which triggers terrible conflicts, and total war.

firstly, being too careful won't be a concern because it simply will never happen. Just as no countries in this world will sacrifice its own standard of living to help other poorer ones, I don't see anyone yielding in this matter unless they are forced to by either the "doomsday" scenario or by another more powerful country.

secondly, if ALL countries do the same, you are only shifting the absolute scale but not the relative scale between countries (but it is a big if...). Besides, there are so many countries which are in huge economical crisis already, therefore strictly speaking only the bigger countries going to lose out in this... so by saying that we don't want to be too careful simply means:

The rich and powerful don't want to give up anything at all despite the fact that they are so better off than others already.

a reality we are loath to love...

First of all, this will probably generate a lot more ecological problems, and moreover, we've now traded hypothetical future wellbeing for immediate misery. I don't think that's a good deal.

True, we may not be around 100 years from now, and frankly who cares about what those suckers in the future need to deal with when we are not the one who need to face it? However, this kind of attitude won't get us very far in life... eventually we will stumble on something that we may later regret. Suppose the horrific effect of climate change will materialise in 40 years and not 100 years. then perhaps we would regret that we didn't do anything to make our later years more comfortable and has to endure a "torturing death"... are we willing to gamble? perhaps some would. But it is now not so clear what IS a good deal here. I wish life is that black/white and we can then make very decisive actions but it is not, so and unless you are a gambler, perhaps you should really plan for the future/long term (it is kind of fairer to others too ).

 

[BobG]

firstly, being too careful won't be a concern because it simply will never happen. Just as no countries in this world will sacrifice its own standard of living to help other poorer ones, I don't see anyone yielding in this matter unless they are forced to by either the "doomsday" scenario or by another more powerful country.

secondly, if ALL countries do the same, you are only shifting the absolute scale but not the relative scale between countries (but it is a big if...). Besides, there are so many countries which are in huge economical crisis already, therefore strictly speaking only the bigger countries going to lose out in this... so by saying that we don't want to be too careful simply means:

The rich and powerful don't want to give up anything at all despite the fact that they are so better off than others already.

a reality we are loath to love...

The world doesn't exist in a static equilibrium. The balance in power, whether economic or military, constantly changes. The US might not object too much if ALL countries do the same, since it would have the effect of freezing the current balance as is. Countries hoping to improve their lot in the world wouldn't be nearly as happy - especially countries where a high percentage of the population are already living in poverty. Making their condition any worse means people start dieing, or dieing at a higher rate where the standard of living is 'barely living'.

And, yes, rich and powerful aren't eagerly awaiting the day that China and/or India catch up to them economically. No country remains a world power forever and the US will be no exception. That doesn't mean the US would (or should) be willing to hurry along the day someone else replaces the US as a world power. It's not going to seem very fair to grant exceptions for countries that are rapidly developing that you don't grant for the US and Europe.

It's a little like asking for a progressive income tax, except the UN can't actually force the rich to accept their policies the way the US government can force higher income citizens to pay more in taxes.

 

[Gokul43201]

Countries hoping to improve their lot in the world wouldn't be nearly as happy - especially countries where a high percentage of the population are already living in poverty. Making their condition any worse means people start dieing...
...
It's not going to seem very fair to grant exceptions for countries that are rapidly developing

Most countries that fall in the latter category (eg: Angola, China, Armenia, India, Sudan, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Vietnam) also fall under the former.

 

[russ_watters]

Oh yes, as for his role in helping to bring about the modern internet, it seems that many here don't understand the concepts of leadership and spearheading important issues. Change often begins with a voice crying from the wilderness. Politically, Al Gore was that voice for the information super-highway, ozone depletion, and GW.

Well perhaps if he had said 'I took the initiative in creating a political climate that helped enable other people to create the internet', he wouldn't sound so stupogant.*

[*That's a new word I'm working on to capture the combination of arrogance and stupidity it requires for him to believe he did anything more than help spend money to support other peoples' ideas.]

[edit] Btw, who took the initiative for creating "An Inconvenient Truth"? Gore may have written the book and given all the speeches, but shouldn't the people who paid for all that be recognized? Gore should turn over his Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize to the real heroes behind his book.

 

[Evo]

Well perhaps if he had said 'I took the initiative in creating a political climate that helped enable other people to create the internet', he wouldn't sound so stupogant.*

Except he didn't even do that, the internet had already been created.

 

[russ_watters]

Oh, something else here - did anyone else find it ironic that Greenpeace was quoted in many of the articles about Gore's Nobel Prize. That would be the same Greenpeace that opposes alternate energy solutions such as wind power and nuclear power that could actually help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

 

[Gokul43201]

It seems a reminder is due that Gore was awarded the Prize for his work relating to global warming, not his work relating to the internet.

 

[Art]

Seems Gore is definitely not running. Opinion polls show no increase in support as a result of his award.

Former US Vice President Al Gore has said he has no plans to enter the race for the White House, despite winning the Nobel Peace Prize last week.
There had been some speculation that the award could persuade the Democrat to throw his hat in the ring.

But he told Norwegian state broadcaster NRK: "I don't have plans to be a candidate again, so I don't really see it in that context at all."
<snip>

Asked by Gallup if they would like to see Mr Gore run for president in 2008, people said no by a margin of 54% to 41%, about the same as in March, when people opposed his running by 57% to 38%.

Even among Democrats there was no visible surge of interest in him entering the race.

In the new survey, 48% said they would like him to run and 43% said they would not.

In March, Democrats were in favour of his entering the race by 54% to 41%.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1288751,00.html

 

[vsingh165]

I don't think Gore needs to run, as Hillary Clinton already shows a stronger environmental policy than most of the other candidates in the election. Here's an interesting link for you all

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/08/09/clinton/

 

[docholliday]

The values and goals that Gore's dad had for Al Gore, continue to be remembered and followed by Gore. It was his dad,a Senatior, who helped instill in him the dream of becoming a president, and thus he ran in 2000. Gore's method of speaking and debating and even his political ideologies are similar to his dad. His dad also thought him that in life, if he fails to achieve a dream he should not obstinately continue to pursue it. Rather, he should strive to successfully achieve a better dream. Al Gore has remembered his dad's teaching by winning the Nobel Peace Prize, giving him much better international recognition than PRESIDENT Bush. Thus, Gore will not try again to become president, but will continue to achieve a status better than one than the President of United States has.

 

[kach22i]

Thus, Gore will not try again to become president, but will continue to achieve a status better than one than the President of United States has.

Not hard to do these days.