And with this, the Nobel Peace Prize completes its transition. Not into irrelevancy, like you might expect me to say, but into fully-blown misnomer.
Since Yassar Arafat at least won the prize, it's been a joke, but now it has clearly completed the transition to the Nobel Darling-Of-The-Left Prize. Preventing Global Warming could be the most important thing ever, but it's not about Peace. There's an obvious argument that global warming changes might encourage peace, but the same argument trivially converts to an argument it will cause more war. (Sustainability as painted by Gore involves using fewer resources, which can lead to a fight over the reduced resources. I disagree that's the solution, but nobody gives prizes for principled centrist positions.) "I can make an argument that it involves Peace" is a weak standard, opening the field to anybody, anywhere. If that's the desired nature of the Prize, there's nothing wrong with that, but calling it a Peace Prize is then a misnomer.
As I like to say explicitly, I'm speaking broadly of "the left" on purpose. Note I'm not actually criticizing the diffuse "left" here, only the Nobel Prize committee, so it shouldn't ruffle any feathers anyhow.