No sooner had former Vice President Al Gore been named as this year’s recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize than critics began dissecting his work, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Certainly parts of Mr. Gore’s warnings in the movie will prove to be overstated. And just as certainly he will have missed crucial signs about the dangerous effects of climate change. But he and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deserve the award because, among other things, they have demonstrated the seriousness of climate change and the threat it poses to international stability.

Global warming is an economic, environmental and political issue, but, at its core, it is a security issue. Saving polar bears and reducing insurance costs were not compelling enough reasons for U.S. lawmakers to enact strict limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing global conflicts, and the impact on the United States, should be.

“By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control,” the committee said of its choice.

Its warning that climate change could lead to mass migrations, greater competition for resources and, hence, violent conflicts, mirrors a U.S. Department of Defense analysis.

The consequences for the United States, according to a Pentagon paper, could include a flood of starving immigrants from Mexico, South America and the Caribbean Islands, causing the country to strengthen its borders. Tensions with Mexico could escalate if the United States reneges on a treaty that guarantees that some water from the Colorado River flows into Mexico. The country could be forced to rely more heavily on oil from the Middle East to meet growing energy needs.

Internationally, the weather changes could lead to more fighting and new alliances. Eastern European countries, for example, could invade Russia to gain access to its oil and minerals. India, Pakistan and China, all with nuclear weapons, could face heightened fighting over access to shared rivers and arable land.

Despite such dire warnings, progress to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has remained slow. However, there appears to be growing support in Congress for legislation that would cap emissions. Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins have long supported a cap-and-trade system to reduce emissions and spur technical innovation.

To be effective, such legislation should include caps that will significantly reduce emissions in the next decade, not decades in the future. In addition, allowable offsets must actually reduce carbon emissions in the near-term, not swap small future reductions for minimal action now. Tying together emissions reductions, increased renewable energy production, fuel efficiency with rigorous economic analysis, as legislation sponsored by Sen. Collins has done, offers a proactive, comprehensive approach.

As the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Ole Danbolt Mjoes, told reporters, the award should challenge countries to rethink their approach to climate change.

It also should push American lawmakers to consider the problem more seriously and pass legislation that will significantly reduce this country’s contribution to it.