You're making some interesting assumptions there: I don't follow why someone cannot earn the Peace Prize without "heroic suffering". Surely the prize is a recognition of effective work in the cause of peace? Someone who's spent their life dodging tornadoes or enduring drought might have a kind of moral high ground, but it wouldn't necessarily make them any more effective, and very likely less so.

I'm also interested in your characterisation of Gore as "shady" - do you intend the "debacle" term to refer to his receipt of the prize? I really don't think he projects himself as a "hero". More of a signpost, and one which has become urgently necessary given humanity's amazing refusal to believe in the the destructiveness of their own mess.