Dip a toe into the Nobel Peace Prize news and next thing you’re drowning in commentary. Here’s an attempt to distill what it means for greens, by which I mean the types of people who rely on air, water, soil, and other naturey elements.
Obama’s nuclear disarmament work won him the award. A member of the Nobel selection committee says so. His reengagement with the international community was the broader reason. Much as we’d like to say his climate-change leadership was a key factor, that would be overstating things—even though his climate work got a mention in the official announcement.
Obama is going to Copenhagen for the U.N. climate conference in December. He has to—the prize ramps up expectations for everything on his foreign agenda. Plus, he’ll be in the neighborhood, accepting the prize in Oslo, Norway, on Dec. 10. Today White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said a heads-of state portion of the climate conference was under discussion.
What can Obama really do on the world stage? The Council on Foreign Relations has a story on this question. Matt Yglesias explains how Americans are prone to placing too much stock in the President’s problem-solving ability and giving too little attention to the rest of the political system.
This year’s award isn’t going to a long-lasting, unsung activist. Duh, but this is a lost opportunity for celebrating someone who doesn’t get Obama-level attention. Few fit this model as well as Wangari Maathai, the Kenyan tree-planting organizer who was a surprise winner of the 2004 peace prize. She offered her thoughts on Obama’s award today.
There’s a connection between peace and living within ecological means, in the eyes of the Nobel Committee. In awarding Maathai for her ecological work, the committee expanded the scope of what peace work can mean. Giving the 2007 prize to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fit the pattern. The (brief) mention of Obama’s climate leadership is further evidence.
For more analysis, commentary, opinions, spin, whatever ... might we suggest the internet?
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU
Comments
View as Flat
Tyler Durden Posted 3:00 pm
09 Oct 2009
Permalink
lucas.ingamba@gmail.com Posted 1:00 pm
17 Oct 2009
Permalink
reyortis Posted 8:27 pm
09 Oct 2009
office furniture desks
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:55 pm
09 Oct 2009
"The committee makes its final vote in October."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html
Why award the peace prize to the first president to break the color barrier (with totally non-violent "peaceful" means), that prevented anyone but white men from running the most powerful nation on planet earth? That color barrier based on centuries of slavery and prejudice, fear and ignorance, finally busted.
By a candidate who learned politics from the grassroots up and even with huge resistance (agregiously dirty politicking from his democratic opponents) from his own party in the primary, prevailed. Coming from virtually nowhere to turn the course of the US around, when it was surely headed for an invasion of Iraq, with a Mc(bush)Cain win.
Why give the prize to a president who understands that reliance on oil has caused these wars we are currently engaged in, and that renewable energy can end these oil wars and the 10 more that will be waged if we keep using oil?
Why award him the prize after he has proven his political strength over these 9 months in office?
Only raving wing nuts can't find the answer.
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 6:24 pm
11 Oct 2009
The Nobel committee knew that there would be an international meeting in October/09 in Scandinavia to revise the Kyoto Accord and remind the world that Medicine, Science, Literature won't matter that much if climate change turns most of the world's population into refugees. Obama will be there because of the Peace prize. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Will he hear the desperate cries?
Permalink