op-ed Al Gore deserves the Prize

Author: Dan Streitfeld

Alex Garlick, Campus columnist, has, in a rather hastily written piece, spilled some ill-advised ink regarding Al Gore's recent receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize. The raison d'Ítre of the column is that Gore does not deserve the award because his actions cannot truly be seen as directly promoting world peace in a meaningful way, as has been the case with previous prize winners.

As Mr. Garlick reminds us, Gore (and the U.N. Panel on Climate Change) were given the award for, in the words of the Nobel committee, "their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."

Mr. Garlick challenges none of this, but writes that "[d]ue to the unpredictable nature of climate change [the Nobel Committee's rationale] is a very speculative reason for an award that is traditionally given for retrospective action. What if climate change brings rainfall to water-starved arid regions?"

Anyone who studies climate change knows that there is indeed a tremendous amount of uncertainty involved in predicting its effects. Yet Garlick seems to fallaciously presume that the probabilistic effects of climate change amount to something akin to spinning a roulette wheel, randomly bringing positive outcomes in some cases and negative outcomes in others.

In fact, had Mr. Garlick done any research into the matter, he would have discovered that, despite the uncertainty, there are models that attempt to systematically predict the effects of climate change. It is true that many of the more prosperous countries of the north, such as Canada, the U.S. and northern Europe might experience net benefits from climate change, mostly due to frigid regions being warmed enough to host increased agricultural production and human habitation.

On the flip side, however, there is a general scientific consensus that the regions most negatively affected will be those around the equator - the Caribbean, sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. This is the case because a rise of only a few degrees Celsius could have cataclysmic effects in those already heat-baked regions - higher temperatures and decreased precipitation levels (due to less snow melt, changed weather patterns, and others causes) would be even more mal-suited to agriculture and human habitation.

In fact, many have postulated that climate change could cause wars over fertile land and water supplies, eventually leading to a mass exodus of humans from those regions towards less adversely affected areas. Ban Ki Moon, secretary general of the U.N., has in fact already speculated in an article he wrote that part of the conflict in Darfur (largely a war over water) is due to global warming. He writes that "[scientific evidence] suggests that the drying of sub-Saharan Africa derives, to some degree, from man-made global warming."

As these areas tend to have the weakest political and physical institutions of any on the globe, they are particularly ill-equipped to deal with the seismic changes that climate change will bring. Beyond these direct effects to equatorial regions, climate change could also cause unpredictable and extreme one-time weather events, long-term changes in ocean currents (such as the Gulf Stream) and dramatic rises in sea level. All of these factors could cause scarce resources, mass emigration and chaotic conditions in general - if these conditions are not conducive to war and conflict, then I don't know what are.

One of the crutches of Mr. Garick's argument is that the prize should be awarded for tangible past contributions as opposed to hypothetical future ones. I would argue that, despite the uncertainty, when we take into account the magnitude of the changes as well as the scientific consensus concerning their general character, there is almost no question whatsoever that climate change will cause great conflict in the future, if it has not already begun to do so today. When we take this into account, I have to wonder whether Mr. Garlick discounts lives in the future (who will be dramatically affected by climate change) so heavily that they matter insignificantly compared to lives today?

In his conclusion, Mr. Garlick has the audacity to believe that the Nobel Committee's modus operandi is being the gadfly to the Bush administration. As much as we Americans would like to believe that the entire world revolves around us, other countries are in fact able to progress on important issues, in spite of our country's inaction. It seems to me a rather na've display of hubris to immediately assume that the Nobel Committee must have been making a political statement directed at U.S. politicians when they award the prize to probably the most well known advocate in the entire world for action against climate change.

I applaud the Nobel Committee for taking a progressive stance on global warming by recognizing the calamitous (though indeed partially uncertain) impact to world peace non-action has not just today, but for the long-term future, as well.

Dan Streitfeld '08 is from Dallas, Texas.