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 an arid, 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.
Links below back up the facts of the 2 houses.
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/arti...
http://www.cowboysindians.com/articles/a...
An "inconvenient truth" about Al Gore, or what?
2007-10-13 05:14:45 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Noah, come on, man. Gore just won a Nobel Prize for something he doesn't practice. How does "shooting the messenger" fit here? He shot himself.
And as far as wind power, California tried to put some more windmills in besides the ones in Indio, and the locals shot 'em down because of the lubricant dropping from the propellers and the noise pollution from them. Speaking of lubricant, how does wind power make us less dependent on oil? Machines have to be oiled.
I won't charge you the dollars, but I like my donuts glazed, by the way.
2007-10-13 16:16:33 · update #1
Shooting the messenger doesn't address the problem. The Bush administration still backs the use of unlimited fossil fuel and is even willing to invade other countries to get it. (Yeah..it's not about oil and other fables.) Gore has led a movement to free ourselves from what is essentially a 19th century technology...oil and coal. The Bush administration doesn't want the use of oil and coal to diminish...that would be bad for the oil and coal mafias. Gore is in favor of new industries such as wind and solar and I'll bet a dollar to a donut that most people, given a choice, would prefer clean power sources to polluting power sources. The Bush administration has fought against raising the CAFE standards to increase miles per gallon in the auto industry. Gore has pointedly suggested that raising the CAFE standards would go a long way toward reducing greenhouse gases. He's also on the record as being in favor of alternate fuels to keep the wheels on the road. The Bush administration spent most of the its time in office backing the idea that human activity has nothing to do with climate change...even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. Gore began to question using our onion skin thin atmosphere as a dumping ground for pollution and greenhose gases over twenty years ago. The list goes on. The point here being while Gore can get a slap on the side of the head for the home he's owned in for two decades and Bush should get his @ss kissed for being personally 'mo green, that doesn't alter the fact that Gore is right on the issues of pollution and climate change and the Bush Junta and his polluting pals are wrong. I'll give you credit for a darn good smear..at least it's original, but as I said....it doesn't address the issue!
2007-10-13 05:44:39 · answer #1 · answered by Noah H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as people believe the "carbon credits" scam, they can believe that the first house has an overall footprint equal to the first.
Couple that with believing that since Al spends all his time telling people how to save the planet from the doom he blames on Bush, there's nothing "inconvenient" about these truths.
You're right on the facts, but if you think they matter to the brilliant scientists of Hollywood, you are mistaken.
2007-10-13 05:22:54 · answer #2 · answered by open4one 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Let's not forget good ol' sayanythingal's famous BTU tax. You remember that one don't ya? That's the British Thermal Unit tax he wanted to impose on the entire country based on how much energy you used to heat your homes. In the winter you'd get slammed for how much heat you used to keep warm, in the summer you'd get slammed for air conditioning, all as a means for providing "incentives" to use less energy.
Basically, he took a page from old jimmy carter's playbook, when he made his famous statement about the elderly on fixed incomes having a hard time paying heating bills in cold weather: "can't they just throw on another sweater?"
Ah, the libs. You just gotta love 'em.
2007-10-13 05:40:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Who cares. As long as he's telling people the dangers that are out there and hurting the environment, does it really matter what lifestyle he lives in? Most of you guys should be ashamed of yourself. Al Gore is simply trying to protect the future generations and all you can think about is attacking any politician you disagree with and who is actually attempting to make a difference. If your grandchildren die due to the overheating of the earth...don't cry about it in your grave, because you are the one who technically killed them!
2007-10-13 05:29:44 · answer #4 · answered by Qu'est ce que tu penses? 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes, it's true. And you can find many more inconvenient truths in the book "Do as I say (not as I do)".
As for the phony Nobel prize for Peace, how did Gore contribute to peace?
2007-10-13 05:23:17 · answer #5 · answered by angelo 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I assume your concerrn for energy efficiency means you agree with what Gore has said about man-made global warming.
2007-10-13 05:22:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You didn't know that Gore is just promoting a carbon tax on everyone so he can sell carbon credits so people can avoid a carbon tax...If he truly embraced green living he would have started living it before he released his infomercial...
2007-10-13 05:20:14 · answer #7 · answered by coco d 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
more lies from the suv gas guzzling polution community.
You put up a couple of links that dont work.
2007-10-13 05:23:54 · answer #8 · answered by MyMysteryId 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No.
No WMDs or terrorist links in Iraq.
Those are inconvenient truths.
2007-10-13 05:21:31 · answer #9 · answered by Think 1st 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Send this to the Nobel committee...I'm sure they'll give the prize to Bush instead. LMAO!!!!!!!!
2007-10-13 05:19:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋