Making Too Much of the Nobel Peace Prize

Don't get me wrong. I sympathize from the depth of my heart with the first paragraph of Joe Brewer's blog post on The Huffington Post yesterday afternoon:

The big story today is that the Nobel Peace Prize recognizes the climate crisis as a genuine threat to humanity. It now has official standing along with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, conflict in the Middle East, landmines, and poverty as something that causes harm to people within and beyond conflict zones.

Brewer then went on a moderate rant against the media for trying to turn this into a story about Al Gore getting into the Presidential race; and I sympathize with that rant, too. My problem is that, however big the story may be (even the right one), I find it hard to believe that it is going to have much impact, at least in our own country.

The issue is not "that the Nobel Peace Prize recognizes the climate crisis as a genuine threat to humanity." Rather, the issue is the question of whether this recognition will have any impact on those faith-based environmentalists that continue to dictate our country's policy. For those unfamiliar with the concept, the basic precept of faith-based environmentalism is that God provided the bounty of the Earth for Man to consume and enjoy. When that bounty runs out, God will take care of those who believe in Him; and the rest (presumably including myself) will have to fend for themselves. This concept did not originate with the current administration. It goes back at least to when James Watt ran the Department of the Interior under Ronald Reagan; and, as a policy, has changed very little (if at all) since then. Bush simply continued the principle with his conviction that accountability to God (or his interpretation thereof) was more important than accountability to the Kyoto Accord.