Saturday, October 13, 2007

Reactions to the Nobel Peace Prize Award

This morning I woke up to the disconcerting editorial in my local newspaper, the Statesman Journal, which had this to say about the Nobel Peace Prize Award to the IPCC and Al Gore: 

Tossup: Al Gore.  He shared this year's Nobel Pace Prize for his efforts to educate people about human-caused climate change.  His commitment is admirable, even if you don't agree with his cause.  However, the Norweigian prize committee certainly has expanded the definition of "peace.

Apparently the august body of the Stateman Journal's editorial board has two objections to awarding Gore the prize: they don't agree with his cause and they don't think it has anything to do with peace.

I won't even comment on the first objection -- that's silly.

As to the second objection, I've done a bit of research on past winners of the Peace prize to explore the contention that the Nobel Committee stretched the definition of peace for Gore's benefit.  I've also looked at the research concerning the implications of climate change for global conflict.

The award to the IPCC and Gore is certainly in line with the Committee's previous Peace prize awards, which have focussed on sustainability as a means to achieve peace.  The Committee rather unsurpisingly believes that creating sustainable environmental, economic, and social conditions within nations reduces international conflict.  Go figure!  Indeed, the Committee has focused recent awards on sustainability efforts.  Two obvious examples are the 2006 Peace prize award to Professor Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank who invented the idea of microcredit and the 2004 Peace prize award to Professor Wangari for her work encouraging tree planting in Africa and cancellation of African debt.  [Their full Nobel biographies can be found below].

Continue reading

October 13, 2007 in Climate Change | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

What's your question?

The Nobel Laureate site allows visitors to pose a question to any of all of the Nobel laureates.  In honor of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, I asked "If the U.S. Supreme Court had decided to elect Al Gore President, instead of George Bush, how would the world, particularly human impact on global climate, be different?"  What's your question?  Ask a Nobel Laureate

October 13, 2007 in Climate Change | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, October 12, 2007

The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize goes to...

According to a press release issued today by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize "is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for 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."   The full text of the announcement can be found below.

Watch the award announcement on YouTube

Continue reading

October 12, 2007 in Climate Change, International | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Monday, October 8, 2007

Making golf a bit greener

All of us who play golf, even if we seldom hit the green, welcome the greening of the greens reported by the Economist:

LAST summer the big three American automakers, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, who have all watched their market shares diminish under the pressure of foreign competition, suffered yet another embarrassment at the hands of Toyota. Paul W. Smith, who hosts a radio show in Detroit, passed over the hometown companies and asked Toyota to sponsor his annual golf tournament. Ten years ago, asking a foreign company to host a local event would have been unthinkable.

AFPA green sort of brown

A decade ago it would have been similarly unthinkable for a company like Toyota, which adheres to a “global earth charter that promotes environmental responsibility throughout the entire company,” to sponsor an event on one of America’s often over-watered, over-treated golf courses. But like the hybrid vehicles Toyota now produces, golf is getting greener.

While some American courses are in cool-humid climate zones similar to that of Scotland, the ancestral home of the modern game, many are not. The Detroit metropolitan area is the tenth largest in the United States and its amenable climate sustains 50 courses and 4.4m residents. By comparison, the Phoenix metropolitan region is the nation’s thirteenth largest, and it already boasts more than 75 blankets of lush fairways laid out on the desert sands. The booming greater Las Vegas area has more than 60 courses for less than 1.8m residents.

These courses have increased property values and brought more tourist dollars to the Southwest, but they also consume immense amounts of ever-scarcer potable water. During the summer of 2002, the third-hottest year on record, the city council of Santa Fe, New Mexico threatened to sue Las Campanas, a luxury golf and residential development, which during the height of the summer drought was consuming 1.8m gallons of water a day, ten percent of the city’s daily supply.

Some courses in dry regions have begun using more efficient irrigation systems and untreated effluent water to reduce their strain on municipal supplies, but water remains scarce. Dennis Lyon, the manager of the Denver suburb of Aurora’s municipal golf courses, has placed posters on all his courses that read, “Brown may not be beautiful to some, but an additional 40 yards roll off the tee can be a beautiful thing.”

But keeping those fairways green requires more than just water. Beyond Pesticides, an environmental advocacy group opposed to pesticide use, calls golf courses “the most chemically treated land areas in the United States, second only to fruit orchards.” Pesticides, especially older broad-spectrum, long-residual concoctions, can wreak havoc on sensitive native plants and animals.

Runoff from fertilisers can lead to algal blooms that cause dissolved oxygen levels to drop to suffocatingly low levels, strangling aquatic life. Courses in humid climates can avoid both of these problems by using wild, drought-resistant grasses that reduce the need for both irrigation and chemical treatments.

More effective organic fertilisers have led some premier courses, such as the Plantation Course in Kapalua, Hawaii on the island of Maui (which hosts the PGA Tour Mercedes Championship), to drastically reduce chemical treatment, while about a dozen courses have gone entirely organic.

In response to these trends, the Professional Golfers’ Association (PGA) and the US Golf Association (USGA) have collaborated with Audubon International to establish an environmental-certification program, which rewards golf courses with free publicity if they commit to conserve water, reduce pesticide use, and create wildlife conservation plans for the approximately 70% of course land which is not used for play.

Continue reading

October 8, 2007 in Sustainability | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)