>>I disagree. The link between the peace prize and the ecology isn't obvious at first sight, but if you take into account that climate changes may cause more natural disasters (hurricanes, floods) and reduce the volume of water supply, then taking action now against pollution will help in reducing the damage and have less peoples dying or fighting each others for the remaining ressources.
>>
>>For me, the choice of Al Gore for the Nobel peace prize is a good one.
>>
>>>It certainly is NOT a peace prize.
>
>The Nobel Committee states your point....
>
>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/press.html
>
>Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.
>
>There's also a video on their site...
>
>Following the announcement, Geir Lundestad, Secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, tells freelance journalist Øystein Heggen why climate change is connected with war and peace.

And Gore certainly has been competing for earth's resources, what with all the jet-setting he does, and $37,0000 to power his home