An Inconvenient Truth? More Like An Convenient Lie - Part I

Despite being a believer in the threat of global warming, I was astounded to hear a few months ago that Al Gore had been awarded the coveted Nobel Peace Prize. For the life of me, I could not understand it. The Nobel Peace Prize is arguably the greatest award a person can win: a prize I associated with the likes of Nelson Mandela, who spent 27 years in jail, forever believing in his cause of "an democratic and free society" and thus, ending the apartheid regime; Henri Durant, the founder of the Red Cross and Geneva Convention and Gorbachev, who successfully and peacefully lead the dissolution of the Soviet Union. As far as I knew all Al Gore had contributed to the world to gain the prize was a film. Do films encourage and promote peace? Does making a film compare to the amazing feats of other Nobel Laureates? Did he truly deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? No, not really.
Okay, okay, maybe I am being a little harsh, it is just an award, and yes, I was one of those pleased at the time of release of An Inconvenient Truth that at least someone was doing something, even if it was just making a film. But let's just go back in time for a bit, back to Alfred Nobel, the creator of the prize, who said the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Fair enough, but did Al Gore do this? No. In fact, the Iraq War, (Al Gore did oppose to US support of Sadam Hussein) is - for the pessimists - an oil war, which is of course linked to Global Warming.
Okay, yes, being harsh again, but then we hear the reason he won it "for their (Note:he won it jointly with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)) 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 changes." Fair enough, but it doesn't really make sense. Did Al Gore tell me more about man-made climate change? Well, yes he did, but I knew the basic principle, and it was such a current issue, that most people did, and well, the rest of the information he showed us was all very lovely and it reinforced his case, but was it really necessary? Is the greater knowledge he told us useful? Probably not.
Then, his efforts to lay the foundations to stop global warming. Erm....okay...where are they? He made a film, did Live Earth (Because quite clearly Live Aid stopped Famine and Poverty, so of course that was a clever idea - Live Aid was a good idea as it raised awareness about the issues, but, like Geldof said, everyone knows about Global Warming), and then teamed up with Cameron Diaz and Sir Richard Branson to form some random competitions called 60 Seconds to Save the Earth and the Virgin Earth Challenge. Well, let's start with Live Earth...so, where did the money go for that then? Interesting right. Intelligence Earth, a British website which advises people on where best to donate their money, found this question perplexing, publishing "What on (Live) Earth is going on?" (http://www.intelligentgiving.com/articles/features/what_on_live_earth_is_going_on)
And then, where does his $100,000 speaking fee go?
Oh, and then there is the issue of the event's carbon emissions. The artists' and spectators' travelled all around the world, and well, they used planes, cars, planes, buses, taxis, and then there is lighting and electricity. John Buckley of CarbonFootPrint.com said energy consumption, was at least 74,500 tonnes, - more than 3,000 times the average Briton's annual footprint. It is estimated that 100,000 planted trees are required to offset the total carbon emissions produced during the event, but because of the continuing deforestation occurring on the planet, this is unlikely to counter the emissions from the event, even if 100,000 trees were planted, which of course they won't be. Not forgetting the environmentally conscience audience left tons of rubbish around, especially plastic cups, after the event, instead of placing them in recycling bins - so did they care about Global Warming, or did they just go to see their favourite stars? Then, there is the stars. Hypocrisy was forever in the concerts with performers such as Madonna, who produces more than 100 times the average amount of waste produced by Briton in a year. Furthermore, the concerts had pretty dismal viewing ratings, which just rubbed salt into sore wounds. So Live Earth was a flop.
60 Seconds to save the Earth was an alright idea, but with the main prize such being an Toyota Highlander Hybrid (An SUV), it does slightly dent the validity of it, just like the carbon emissions from Live Earth did. The Virgin Earth Challenge is about the only good idea that has appeared since the film, but was mainly created by Sir Richard Branson, and is basically a giant pay-off for anyone who can save the planet, which is fair enough.
Global warming is happening - for The Great Global Warming Swindle believers, I concede maybe it is not totally due to us - and we are using up our fossil fuels, and for both of these, we need to do something about it. Somethings being an energy-saving light bulb, taking a bus, turning off the lights, letting wind farms (which are beautiful by the way) be built near your house is brilliant for the average person. Even making a film is worthwhile, but for people who have as much power as Al Gore - more than a film and a concert is something. That's all I'm saying.