1. The Scientific Debate
There are of course still those who continue to refuse to acknowledge the increasingly overwhelming scientific evidence. Attention in this inevitably focuses on Al Gore, rather than the IPCC. He is attacked because of his perceived political agenda, and because some consider his film "An Inconvenient Truth", erm, inconvenient. It is true that he overstepped the mark in some areas of the film. A UK judge this week pointed out nine points in the film, where Gore went against scientific consensus in his conclusions about effects of climate change. However, while this gives publicity fuel to the naysayers, the scientific evidence is still overwhelming - as Roger Harrabin points out, "all the world's major scientific institutions believe the man-made climate change theory".

And this is the importance of the inclusion of the IPCC in the Prize. While Gore may have raised awareness, it is the IPCC that identifies the scientific evidence. With over 2500 scientific expert reviewers, and representatives of over 113 governments on the working group, the report of the IPCC, basing its assessment mainly on peer-reviewed and published scientific literature, is widely regarded as authoritative.

Twenty-nine thousand real-world observations were included in the analysis. "There is observational evidence of regional impacts on every continent on physical and biological systems," said Cynthia Rosenzweig, a climate impacts specialist with the US space agency Nasa. "There are multiple lines of evidence that human-induced climate change is happening now, and the impacts are being seen now." Even the US chief scientist, and advisor to George Bush, is now convinced.

In reality, it seems to me that the scientific debate is won. However, it is also true that there is no such thing as "pure" science. Our understanding is always shaped by our world view, including our political, lifestyle, and religious commitments and prejudices. But in this case I think it is the opponents of climate change science who are more hindered by such perspectives than those they accuse of a "liberal political agenda".

2. Is it really a contribution to "peace"?
A valid point. Alfred Nobel's will reads that the Nobel prizes should be awarded to: "those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." On this count, there is definitely a good case to be made. If the impact of climate change is as severe as predicted, with flooding and shortages of food and water, then awakening us to it and helping us prevent it will have conferred an immense benefit on mankind.

Regarding the Peace Prize in particular, it was to be awarded to those who had been working for "fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Over time, the phrase "fraternity between nations" has given the Nobel committee the latitude to consider poverty alleviation, human rights, and other global issues. Although not immediately obvious, I am assuming that the thought hre is that climate change will inevitably lead to conflict, as its effects impact the nations, leading to large-scale migration and competition for resources. Following the announcement of the 2004 prize to Wangari Maathei, the Kenyan environmentalist, Aftenposten, Norway’s most influential newspaper, observed that deforestation, erosion and climate change have already "changed the conditions of life for millions of people, led to hunger and need, created tensions between populations and countries."

In this thought, dealing with climate change pro-actively will thus "promote fraternity between nations." And preventing the tension, exclusion, and injustice that is often a cause of conflict must surely be better than dealing with its consequences in the in the future? One can imagine a scenario where mass migrations cause conflict between peoples. Or where poorer countries, suffering the loss of resources because rich countries refuse to deal with their climate change impact, rise up to protect their interest - and get accused of terrorism.

While there may be debate over whether this was the best option for the Peace Prize, and while it may open the Nobel committee to accusations of a political agenda, personally I think the award was a brave and valid choice.

In Conclusion
Certainly, it will be the poorest as always who suffer most the consequences of climate change, as Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, has said: "It's the poorest of the poor in the world, and this includes poor people even in prosperous societies, who are going to be the worst hit." The IPCC report estimates that 75-250 million people across Africa could face water shortages, and Agriculture fed by rainfall could drop by 50% in some African countries by 2020. And these are the countries least able to cope with the effects.

For me therefore, a Christian response to climate change requires "creation care" not only as an expression of honouring the Creator, not only as a recognition that humanity is more whole when in relationship to God-made rather than man-made environment, but also an expression of a divinely ordained commitment to the poor, weak, and vulnerable.

And this means that we, the richer nations must deal with our impact upon the world's climate. The argument that doing so will hinder our "economic prosperity" cannot be a Christian option. A "cross-shaped" theology recognises that doing right in worship and service requires sacrifice and self-denial. We need to be prepared to pay the price.

Tags: nobel peace prize peace prize climate change al gore ipcc christianity terrorism