Who's the real environmentalist?

Question

A Tale of Two Houses

House #1
A 20 room mansion ( not including 8 bathrooms ) heated by
natural gas. Add on a pool ( and a pool house) and a separate guest house,
all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than
the average American household does in a year. The average bill for
electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this
property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American
home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt"
area. It's in the South.

House #2
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national
university. This house incorporates every "green" feature current home
construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms )
and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central
closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water
through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground.
The water (usually 67 degrees F. ) heats the house in the winter and
cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or
natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a
conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected
and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from
showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then
into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding
the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the
property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of The "environmentalist" Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas; it is the residence the of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

An "inconvenient truth".

Answer 1

To michael g and kenny j,

the inconvenient truth is that what david says is true:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

there you have it!

Answer 2

Absolutely they lived greener lives but I'm not convinced that it was by choice. That's just the way it was. As I think back to my grandparents who were born from 1895 - 1912 , their lives here in Canada were much as you described. They 'grew their own food, hauled drinking water, helped each other (they had a threshing machine), rode horses or walked to school, etc. Then, in my parents' generation (1931-1932), you could see it slowly erode. My parents had the results of their upbringing so we lived within our means (my mother was a genius with leftovers, sewed alot of our clothes and she had a button basket) but with the spread of mass media, technological inventions and the promotion of consumerism, things like travel and dining out became not only available, but attainable and that became the norm. And because noone knew, or at least it wasn't widely promoted, how harmful things were for the environment, yes, it was a time when many things were wasted, tossed, and used with indiscretion. That brings it to my generation (1955). I grew up with a combination of the idea that I should live within my means but that I 'needed' many things and worked hard to get them. David Suzuki, a Canadian environmentalist has been promoting environmentalism for 30 years or more. I remember his tv show, 'The Nature of Things' when I was younger but it has been a slow process and it is only in the last dozen years or so that his message has become mainstream. He has gone from a wacky environmentalist to a man who was 'ahead of his time'. What do we do now? We know what we are doing is harmful but we have grown up in a society of consumerism and we lack the infrastructure and likely the desire to go back to the way it was. So, I don't think the answer is in going back. We have to move forward. But with the knowledge of how everything we do affects the earth and the people and other life in it. We need to hold our governments, the media and big business accountable. The next generation, having grown up with recycling and 'the greenhouse effect' and environmentalism as an issue and not just a dirty word, will play an important role. So, our grandparents may have been environmentalists by just being alive during that time. Our children will need to be environmentalists by choice. If they don't, the next generation may be forced to be environmentalists just to survive. P.S. Your question just gave me a whole new appreciation for my mother's outdated but real wood furniture that I have inherited. Gore for president! ;)

Answer 3

Al Gore's house also serves as his and Tipper's home office, and they're not exactly "small time" business they have their own staff. On top of that, the fact that Al Gore even compiled an inconvenient truth shows that he cares more, where as President Bush lovingly refers to Prince Bandar (you know, the guy who's father is the leader of Saudi Arabia) as "Bandar Bush".

So Al Gore has faults. I admit, I don't like the idea of him using that much energy. But at the same time, I think it completely offsets his energy use when he is educating the entire world about global warming. What has President Bush done about global warming? Started a war, favors oil companies, loosened environmental standards...there's just no comparison.

Besides that, Crawford is Bush's VACATION home. Why don't you look @ the energy use of his formal residence? I think you'll find quite quickly he is no where NEAR an environmentalist.

Answer 4

Oh my, the GW alarmists are distancing themselves from Al Gore too. First it was The Day After Tomorrow., then it was Live Earth. Next it will be the IPCC Report.

Answer 5

If most of us could afford just a 1/3 of the price they paid to have their homes built, we wouldn't mind having an environmentally safe "shanty" either. Imagine the price tag on these homes. And the gap keeps widening... Good "truths", thanks for sharing.

Answer 6

A person's actions in daily life are irrelevant to any solution to Global Warming. We must totally revamp our industrial infrastructure to eliminate fossil fuels---that is the only real solution, and it requires political action. Those in favor of that political action are helping, those who oppose it may be putting the future of the Earth in jeopardy.

Answer 7

Excellent....

I'm also loving the entire "CO2 output" fear that they are now using. Let's see...more C02 = more food for plants = faster growing rainforests & timber = less environmental damage. haha...kind of another inconvenient truth for the dems....

Answer 8

Whats good is either one of them doing for the common man? Your talking about 2 rich guys each will use more energy in a day then we will use in a month for the rest of our lives . An "inconvenient truth" .

Answer 9

Have a link to prove this contention? I doubt it.
I will assume you posted because you are another fool with their head in the sand and doesn't understand the meaning of environmentalist. Neither house is close to being environmentally correct. Bush claims to be moral as he starts illegal wars and advocates killing. Don't see you whining about that hypocrisy.

Answer 10

Way to go, Mr. Bush.
Talk is cheap.
Jello, "Caring" means nothing without results. Typical of a liberal. "Feelings" mean more than results, facts, and truth.