"An inconvinient truth"

On accepting the Nobel prize, Al Gore used the lime light to warn that global warming is "the greatest challenge we've ever faced", (BBC 2007). He added that "we face a true planetary emergency and that global warming is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity". Now, global warming is here, its happening and its ahead of all of us, I am quite sure that there are not a lot of people that would disagree with that. But the idea that it is the greatest challenge we've ever faced, to me sounds a bit over the top, because there has been a lot of studies carried out on the global problems that we face today and climate change always comes at the bottom of the list. I know this does not mean that its less important or its not happening as quick as we may think, but it shows that there are far worse problems facing the world today. Ending poverty is right on top of the Millenium Development Goals with Environmental sustainability coming in at number seven out of the eight goals (www.un.org/millenniumgoals). People like the Irish singers Bono and Bob Geldof have seriously and widely campaigned for the eradication of poverty, but no one has even nominated them for a Nobel Prize or an academy award as awarded to the film "An Inconvinient Truth" (BBC 2007). I agree that AL Gore is raising a seriuos climate issue with his film, books and talks and educating people in the process while possing a question or two in the minds of skepticals, but the fact that the Nobel Committee often uses the coveted prize to cast the global spotlight on a relatively little-known person or cause, posses a question on whether he really deserved to win the prize or not. After all, he din't do anything that has not been done before. In 2004 the prize was awarded to a little known Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai who pretty much spent most of her time teaching people mostly in Africa on dangers of climate change and what they can do to stop it (BBC 2007).

Given that Al Gore had a high profile already, I would say that he didn't have to work so hard for people to listen to him or to get his message across, but for people like Wangari Maathai, it must have been an uphill struggle. The point I am trying to get at here is that the Nobel Prize would have gone to a more deserving person or cause. When Alfred Nobel created the Prize with his 1895 Will, he outlined the efforts to be rewarded for, which included disarmament efforts and peace making. But the Nobel Committee has broadened his interpretation and now recognises human rights, democracy and environment to name a few (BBC 2007). If I was an American I would probably say that he deserved to win the Prize due to the fact that the American government at the time was denying that global warming was real. But as reported in BBC news 2007 "Al Gore made it okay to talk about global warming over breakfast and dinner tables all across America". So on this basis he probably deserved the award hugely because America is one of the biggest polluters and the fact that they were in denial made the award more deserving. Having said that though, I cannot help to think that global warming is getting the limelight simply because its happening all over the world and not just in the third world as poverty, hunger and diseases like malaria are. Climate change knows no boundaries between developed and developing world, and no doubt that it is affecting the latter more but I think this is due to the fact that they are faced by far worse problems hence lending them powerless to act on climate change. The Copenhagen Consensus under Bjorn Lomborg states that we should prioritise solutions rather than problems hence putting prices on issues and assessing what is workable in the short and long term. It continues to say that empowering people through ending poverty etc would increase the abilityof dealing with things like climate change as we would all be working towards a common goal. But as it stands, different people across the globe have different priorities(www.wikipedia.org/Bj_Lomborg).

As for the film chaging my views on climate change, it didn't do enough really as it didn't highlight anything I didn't know on climate change. As for others, it depends on what part of the globe they are in because if you show the film to someone who is losing their whole family to either AIDS or Malaria, I don't think they would be slightly interested. The film is effective as far as what boot fits whoever is wearing it at the time. And what was that about the continents being one big chunk at some time in the past, was that really true?

sustainability of my lifestyle

My lifestyle is pretty boring, but I know I could do things like, recycle more and get more involved in community activities. Recycling helps sustain the environment, and getting more involved in the local community will give me more self esteem and a feeling of belonging somewhere. All these will sustain my lifestyle and in the process help the environment and the community as well.

Whats preventing me from doing these is bare and simple ignorance.