Gore vs.Bush...which one is more environmentally friendly?

Question

This is a very interesting comparison....please read.

House 1:

The four-bedroom home was planned so that "every room has a relationship with something in the landscape that's different from the room next door. Each of the rooms feels like a slightly different place." The resulting single-story house is a paragon of environmental planning.

The passive-solar house is built of honey-colored native limestone and positioned to absorb winter sunlight, warming the interior walkways and walls of the 4,000-square-foot residence.

Geothermal heat pumps circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground. These waters pass through a heat exchange system that keeps the home warm in winter and cool in summer. A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof urns; wastewater from sinks, toilets, and showers cascades into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is then used to irrigate the landscaping around the four-bedroom home, which uses indigenous grasses, shrubs, and flowers to complete the exterior treatment of the home.

In addition to its minimal environmental impact, the look and layout of the house reflect one of the paramount priorities: relaxation. A spacious 10-foot porch wraps completely around the residence and beckons the family outdoors. With few hallways to speak of, family and guests make their way from room to room either directly or by way of the porch. "The house doesn't hold you in. Where the porch ends there is grass. There is no step-up at all."

This house consumes 25% of the energy of an average American home.
(Source: Cowboys and Indians Magazine, Oct. 2002 and Chicago Tribune April 2001.)

House 2:

This 20-room, 8-bathroom house consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, this house devoured nearly 221,000 kWh, more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, the house burned through 22,619 kWh, guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of this energy consumption, the average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.



Also, natural gas bills for this house and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. In total, this house had nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for 2006.

(Source: just about anywhere in the news last month online and on talk radio, but barely on TV.)

House 1 belongs to George and Laura Bush, and is in Crawford, Texas.

House 2 belongs to Al and Tipper Gore, and is in Nashville, Tennessee.

I do not think that one is better than the other. After watching Gore's movie, yes I was motivated as a person to make my own changes in ways that I can.

The facts still remain, while Gore is making his house more friendly to the enviro, it does not mean that his house is totally solar powered, or uses all green enrg. Can he not down size...

While it would be nice for Bush to push for more envionmentally friendly legislation, why do we not take it upon ourselves to make the change and the difference.

Do we have to have the goverenment, tell us what to do? Can we not act on our own accord to make things right.

Answer 1

What this actually shows is the difference in the two mens approach to the problem.

Al Gore believes that government programs are the answer and wants the government to use its power to force you and me and everyone else to do what he believes must be done (the fact that he will probably profit from this is also a consideration).

George Bush believes that government programs are not the answer and result in a loss of freedom. He believes that individual free choice with regard to environmental issues will result in the best solution, and the role of government is to provide the widest possible choice (as an example, providing incentives for alternative energy sources).

Answer 2

I would consider neither to be truely environmentally friendly!

Bush's personal life style certainly appears such - and one which should be a model for everyone. However, as a leader, his environmental policies have been so far deplorable. His administration has overseen major changes, for the worse, in both the clean air and clean water acts. He has weakend the laws, for the benefit of industry.

Gore by comparison has brought a lot of light to the environmental movement, but his own resistance to making the lifestyle changes he is calling everyone else to do, makes him a hypocrite who cannot be taken seriously! He has a decent message, but he is among the worst spokesmen for the job.

Answer 3

irrelevant facts to both mens actions .

if i tell kids not to take drugs .drink ,smoke have illicit sex and be good .does that mean i have to be like that as well .if it does i am gonna stop saying that ,

Al Gore is doing things for the Environment ,maybe he will have some positive effect ,that is the issue that counts from an Environmental point of view,his life style or his personal expenditure is another story all together and the two are not connected .

what about al these bad priests that have cubboards full of skelletons and still they teach morals in church on sundays

are you doing more than Al Gore for the Environment??

.so tell us what it is

Bush is another Ball game and i am not here to make enemies with America

Answer 4

Well--if you tried looking at something other than right-wing websites you'd find your "facts" are wrong.

First, the "figures" you cite about Gore's house are ones made up by a right-wing propaganda group. And are false--and the power company released Gore's power bills to prove they were lying.
Second, Gore's hous e is now powered by solar energy--last year it was in the process o fbeing converted. Which the liars I just mentioned didn't bother to include in their smear piece.

I can't say one way or the other about Bush's house--but if your "facts" are as inacccurate as those about Gore's, we can safely assume they are a fabrication.

Answer 5

Which is more important to the environment?

Gore uses more energy.

Bush doesn't pursue environmental programs.

This thread belongs in politics.

Answer 6

The devoted global warming fanatic will claim Bush is worse because he lied and starts wars and Gore is really neat because he has an oscar and actors like him and they want to have his baby and bush lied about weapons of mass destruction and Gore has a movie that tells the truth no matter what anyone else says and Bush is bad and I'm not listening to you la la la la la la la I can't hear you la la la la la

Answer 7

GWB & Al Gore are both hopeless douche bags, I wouldn't trust either 1 of them any further than I could throw them.

Answer 8

The Crawford Ranch home seems really cool.
However, I think that policies (since these are politicians) over weigh living situations.

Answer 9

I think this shows that President Bush "walks the walk" and Gore "talks the talk"

Answer 10

Bush is no friend of the environment. Do you think that your post has any merit in the context of the leading question? If so, you are a shallow thinker.