I read on several sites/papers/blogs that the IPCC & Al Gore don’t deserve the this year’s prize. Whilst I disagree with those who doubt climate change- I believe the science is mostly sound, I can understand why people might be asking why the “peace” prize...
But where were they last year when the same prize was won by an economist (Muhammad Yunus) and a bank (Grameen) in Bangladesh “for advancing economic and social opportunities for the poor, especially women, through their pioneering microcredit work”.
So why didn’t they complain that this wasn’t a “peace” prize but an “economic” one?
I think that many either have an axe to grind against either Al Gore or climate change itself, or simply don’t share the Noble committee’s wider understanding of peace.
Peace is not just the absence of violence or conflict, it is also the presence of justice and rights, and dare I say it, an environment to live in too...
(incidentally the 2004 winner, the kenyan Wangari Maathai was an environmental activist before a political one and her prize was partly for her contribution to “sustainable development”)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment