The evolution of my thoughts and opinions of Al Gore has been a strange one. What started with downright hostility turned to ambivalence, then to grudging respect. So when Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize two weeks ago I didn't mind. In fact, I thought it was an excellent choice.

Back in 2000, Gore seemed to do the best he could to not become president. Despite being vice president during a successful, albeit controversial administration, and having all kinds of advantages, he didn't really do anything to win anyone over, except already firm democrats. He was aloof, boring, robotic and cold, among other things. I wasn't old enough to vote back then, but if I had been, he wouldn't have been my first choice. The only signs of life he showed were during his concession speech.

It is what he has done since then that has impressed me. After his amusing chubby, bearded phase right after the election, he then set to work on increasing awareness for his passion: the environment. Slowly, fighting apathy and ignorance, he toiled to spread his message. It was "An Inconvenient Truth" that was the turning point for me.

When my mom suggested that she wanted to go see "that Al Gore movie" and wanted someone to go with, I laughed. I was going to go watch Al Gore give a slide show for two hours? It sounded like a good way to cure insomniacs. Then, after my mom essentially bribed me to go with her, I saw it. Not only did I not hate it, I thought it was very good.

It was not overly preachy and didn't reek of propaganda like the more recent "11th Hour," and it was well-reasoned.

Which brings me to the question: Why are there people still out there that attack Gore so viciously? Many conservative pundits went nuts on the fact that Al Gore was getting the Nobel Peace Prize. Apparently because Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat and Le Doc Tho also received it, it voids the award for Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela and makes Gore's a sick joke.

Do they prefer the obscure dissidents and other nobodies that have been getting it recently? Gore has essentially become a one-issue figure, so interlinked to the environment, that if you don't like him you don't like the environment or vice versa. Even if you care about the environment but don't like Gore, you have to at least respect the gains he has made for the cause.

I just don't understand why things like global warming or trying to eliminate our energy dependence are controversial issues. Even if global warming is a crock with the possible consequences being what they are, isn't it better to be safe than sorry? Or how is trying to reduce pollution a bad thing? And yet, people still oppose doing something about it. They'll throw the "it'll hurt the economy" bit out there, but I'm not buying it. The market will adjust and innovations can be made if the initiative is there.

Frankly, if some heavy manufacturing company or ExxonMobil loses something off its profit margins, I won't feel bad. Laziness and apathy are as big of enemies as the pollution itself.

And all this comes from someone who used to loathe Gore. Anyone who can change my view of someone by bringing themselves up from a contemptible position to one of admiration is itself worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. So I say to you Al Gore, well done.