Unbelievable! Critics Say Awarding Nobel To Green Activist Inappropriate

[hatrack]

OSLO, Norway -- "The decision by the five-member Nobel Committee to award this year's Nobel Peace Prize to an environmental activist prompted some prominent Norwegians to criticize the decision, saying the effectiveness of the prize in promoting peace, enhancing security and ending conflicts could be diluted.

In Norway's reserved and polite style of public debate, critics joined Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik in congratulating and praising Wangari Maathai for receiving this year's prize, which includes a $1.36 million cash award, in recognition of her work in Africa fighting deforestation and her advocacy for democracy and women's rights.

But then some prominent voices here, in public comments, wondered whether giving the peace prize for environmental activism -- while a laudable activity -- in a time of global concerns about war in the Middle East, terrorism and nuclear proliferation was underplaying the potential of the prestigious award. "I thought the intention of Alfred Nobel's will was to focus on a person or organization who had worked actively for peace," said Carl I. Hagen, leader of the Progress Party, whose senior political adviser, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, is a member of the Nobel Committee. "It is odd that the committee has completely overlooked the unrest that the world is living with daily, and given the prize to an environmental activist," he told Norwegian state television Friday.

EDIT

On Saturday morning, Aftenposten, Norway's most influential newspaper, said that in the Amazon, Haiti, China and Africa, deforestation, erosion and climate change "have changed the conditions of life for millions of people, led to hunger and need, created tensions between populations and countries." Therefore, the newspaper concluded, "there is something untraditional and exciting with this award."

EDIT/END

http://www.indystar.com/articles/0/185299-3250-010.html

[Lorien]

1. Deforestation=climate change, topsoil erosion, and crop

loss=conflict and war. I see no problem with the award.

[RoyGBiv]

2. Someone on DU ...

Someone on DU was criticizing this decision as well, saying there were better people than her that deserved the prize.

I flatly disagree with that assessment.

The committee's wording was specific and accurate. Promoting global peace is dependant upon a healthy environment and wise environment choices. Without that, there will be increasing tensions as the world's habitable land, its resources, etc. decrease.

It was a good decision.

[theoceansnerves]

3. coming from a country that still whales

i find their objections wholly inappropriate and without merit.

[PeaceForever]

4. I would have given it to Justin Raimondo from antiwar.com or Michael Moore

THough he's a libertarian, Raimondo was one of the only voices against war in the days after 9/11. Even so-called "liberals" in the US were in favor of a military attack on Afghanistan for something that should really have been a police action. (We don't go to war against Mexico for having drug gangs, so we shouldn't have gone to war against Afghanistan for having terrorists.)

Shortly after the Iraq War began, when almost everyone was giddy over the attack (including here at DU), Michael Moore stood alone in front of a worldwide audience to say that the war was wrong. For that he received vicious hatred and scorn. Very few of us would have had the courage to do what Moore did.

While environmentalism is an important cause, it's a distraction in this case, perhaps because the Nobel Prize committee didn't want to get involved in the Iraq War issue.

[DrWeird]

5. I agree, for a different reason.

That whole "AIDS is a conspiracy theory" bullshit is inexcusable.

That said, I don't blame the Committee if it was never brought up before the decision.