Leading article: Gore and peace

When Al Gore presented his latest barnstorming slide show - in Oslo on Thursday - the chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize committee was sitting unobtrusively in the back row. Ole Danbolt Mjoes, who had flown in from the Arctic city of Tromso, insisted he was there "as a private person", but he joined in the standing ovation at the end and said he thought Mr Gore's was "a very important message". His presence, and his reaction, will do nothing to diminish increasing speculation that the former vice-president turned environment campaigner will win the world's most prestigious award in October.

No one can doubt the sincerity of Mr Gore's tireless campaigning on the issue of climate change, or his ability to inspire and persuade the public and leaders alike. The previous Saturday he was delivering his show in New York, before arriving, exhausted, in Cambridge for three days of "training" 200 prominent Britons - including the unlikely figure of Manchester United boss Sir Alex Ferguson - in spreading the word. But giving him the prize might be a double-edged accolade. While delivering a satisfying slap in the face to George Bush - who dubiously beat him to the White House in 2000 - it could actually make it harder to get measures on global warming through Congress. Already there are signs that Republican opposition is hardening as Mr Gore's high and inevitably partisan profile politicises the issue.

Related articles

• Editor-At-Large: These shallow 'green' recruits are no friends of the Earth
• Wars of the world: how global warming puts 60 nations at risk

Be that as it may, Mr Mjoes's presence in Oslo last week, and Mr Gore's favoured status, mark an important moment. For, as we report today, climate change is increasingly being seen as a security issue, as growing conflicts arising from shortages of water, food and other resources threaten to put the "war" into global warming. Conflicts in Darfur and the Middle East are already being attributed to it, and there will be many more as the climate changes.

This alone may help to push the issue up the international agenda. Governments may find it hard to grapple with long-term environmental issues but they are hypersensitive to issues of security. If that inspires them to act - not just with words but with cutting carbon emissions, as Tony Blair's government has so signally failed to do - that will be a prize indeed.