<p>It’s in the nature of the Nobel Peace Prize that it gets awarded more often for effort than for results, and that wishful thinking plays a large part. Witness the prizes to Aung San Suu Kyi or Shirin Ebadi, not to mention Kissinger or Arafat. If actually accomplishing something non-symbolic were a requirement, it might not get awarded more than a couple of times a decade.</p>
<p>I, for one, have no problem with concluding that environmentalism and peace are closely connected. Competition for scarce resources is a frequent causus belli. I can think of a war or two that could have been averted were a high consumption rate of oil not a lynchpin of everyone’s economies. And the potential social impact of global warming in the Third World is profoundly destabilizing and frightening.</p>
<p>“If he (and others) are so concerned, why has he not been using his bully pulpit to goad official Washington into a massive increase in the carbon fuels tax”</p>
<p>I’m a little confused about this line of argument. You mean anybody who is concerned must also support the “massive increase in the carbon fuels tax”, and if one doesn’t support the “massive tax” then he/she is not concerned? No alternative?</p>
<p>I can not understand why my party attacks Global Warming. What interest is it the GOP whether there IS or NOT warming? Is it because BP is building solar farms and XOM is Not? That Toyota sells Hybrids and GM/Ford/Chrysler is 6 years to an hybrid? </p>
<p>It would seem that the GOP wants to “stay the course” and the rest of the world is being innovative. Our children’s jobs are surely will be overseas because that is where the future may lay.</p>
<p>Kluge, I think you misunderstood the nature of the comments from at least one of PH and Simba. I think that at least one of them is a true believer, aka a person who does not think the asininine comment of Gore about “having created the initiative that … blah, blah … led to the invention of the internet” was truly credible. Fwiw, you probably will find people who feel victimized by the spin machine or vindicated by the truth about Albert strongly aligned with their political stance. Nothing new there!</p>
<p>sure, there are plenty of long-term alternatives, and many yet to be developed. But, in the short-term, the fastest way to lower our carbon footprint and pollution is to make the cost of carbon much more expensive, which is what the Euros do. In addition to the pollution decrease, think of what a massive tax increase could help pay for (education, health care, etc)…</p>
<p>JHS, so should we give a Nobel prize to someone who proposes to ban all religions from the planet? Compared to disputes over scarce resources, religion seems to have been or be a much more pronounced and tangible … causus belli. </p>
<p>I agree with xiggi’s points in his/her first post. Giving a Nobel Peace prize to Al Gore for his lucrative speech engagements and movie based on others’ work and with many inaccuracies and not even related to ‘peace’ really discredits the Nobel IMO.</p>
<p>Have we not debated this ad nauseam before? </p>
<p>Fwiw, do you believe for a second that President Al Gore would have introduced sweeping changes in the way we tax our fuel uses or support the development of alternative sources of energy. Unfortunately, HIS record as as VP shows a much bleaker truth. Further, do you think that the European have shown the RIGHT way? It is one thing for governments to become addicted to the fuel tax revenues for funding social programs and quite another to pretend it brings solutions to environmental issues, let alone long term solutions of energy supplies. </p>
<p>The reality is that North America could and should be in a position to direct massive amount of funds towards finding working and effective solutions by doubling, tripling, or even more the amount of taxes on our fuel consumption. However, the only intelligent use of the funds would be to preclude a single nickel to fill the coffers of ineffective givernmental agencies like the DOE, NREL, etc. The future is to offer **production **incentives to companies that know how to develop and market products and offer incentives to the consumers who adopt them. </p>
<p>However, the reality is that you won’t find many democrats (or republicans) in support of a $6.00 per gallon gasoline. And, fat Albert would be the first in line to fight for his right to fuel his SUV’s as cheaply as he ever did. Of course, he’d pretend to defend the rights of the poor US citizen who needs his three cars and a pick up truck to survive.</p>
<p>And, for the record, I do support added taxes.</p>
<p>bluebayou: I haven’t made an argument either in support of or against carbon fuel taxes. I was merely responding to some who argued that Al Gore’s work on highlighting global warming was not related to “peace”.</p>
<p>xiggi: No doubt that religion is “causus belli”, but that does not take away from the issue of global warming. Sure there is more than one threat to the peace and security of the planet, but why use one threat to dismiss the other?</p>
<p>Xiggi–I would think that a Nobel Prize awarded to someone who spoke up against sectarian strife would be a fine thing…such as the one given to the Catholic and Protestant women in Northern Ireland a while back.</p>
<p>BBY; The europeans have had gas prices for as long as I can remember. While I lived and worked in Amsterdam in the early 1980’s, the price of gas was close to $4 a gallon. That was before this whole global warming histeria. </p>
<p>And a massive tax increase is pure B.S. Taxes are designed to support a particular effort. I.e. If you want to raise taxes to pay for education, than create an Education Tax Bill and have it passed through congress. Don’t disguise a tax by imposing it on fuel and energy, and then using it for some other pork project. That is the ultimate B.S. Plus, in most states, according to their constitution, that’s an illegal taxation.</p>
<p>Of course not, I was just pointing out to others that this emperor has no clothes. If he really believes that global warming is evil, and that burning caborn fuels contributes to it, he should be against the use of carbon fuel and should lead the effort to massively reduce their use, even if it hurts him politically. </p>
<p>Chris: you might read that local pump next time you pull up for gas. It clearly states each gallon has a federal tax, so the Constitutionality issue is moot. Econ 101 indicates that cash is fungible – take a looksee to where the Social Security “surplus” goes today. :)</p>
<p>Bluebayou, you can only increase tax to a certain level, and the rich ones probably have no problem affording however high tax, while the middle class and the poor, without alternative (green) fuel, have no choice but to continue depending on fossil/carbon fuel for basic needs, and you cannot shut down the whole industries that are depending on the fuel.</p>
<p>I think carefully calculated tax increase could be an option short-term to create incentive for green fuel; open the door wider for alternative green fuels is what we need.</p>
<p>BBY; I never said that taxes aren’t used for other issues; but the fuel tax you pay now is used primarily for highway funds and other related issues. Of course once the tax is collected, politicians have used them, as a loan, on other issues. The tax itself however is implemented with a specific purpose in mind. Forget Econ 101; I took plenty of those courses. College IS NOT the real world. Not even close. The law is a different matter. If they want to increase fuel taxes or design a new tax on fossile fuels, then it needs to be associated with it’s use. As I said, what they shuffle around after the fact is a different issue.</p>
<p>That still doesn’t dismiss the fact that europe has always had very high taxes on fuel. And it had nothing to do with reducing global warming.</p>
<p>What exactly as VP was Gore supposed to do? You may not remember the days when the VP was not a policy creator but rather some guy who we sent to a lot of foreign funerals. This was when the VP was still a member of the Exec branch instead of some ‘fourth branch’ cyborg. Gore’s big job was to break ties in the Senate, not to create policy initiatives. </p>
<p>I may as well add that under the Clinton/Gore administration, Superfund sites were being cleaned up, the FDA and EPA weren’t broken reeds (not to mention FEMA), and the National Parks weren’t for sale to the highest or best-connected bidder.</p>
<p>Huh? btw: I never said that Europeans’ high tax rates had anything to do with global warming. I just used it as an easy example of how to reduce greenhouse gasses, tomorrow.</p>
<p>fwm: Why is Al not out in front of your suggestion?</p>
<p>kluge: Yes I am very aware of the ‘internet’ myth. Actually, xiggi and I had very strong exchange when he was just a young hs kid - we go back a long way.</p>
</p>