asking Al Gore to run in 2008!
Two Houses
Posted April 5th, 2007 by gdetennis
If Al wants to be taken seriously he must fix this ASAP!!!!! I would love for him to run again but he must change this or it will haunt him:
The Story of Two Houses
LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING
TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH
BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.
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 ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the
average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for
electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural
gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property
consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.
This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. 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 contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and
is nestled on 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 winter and cools it in summer. The system
uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of
the 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. Flowers
and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding
rural landscape.
NOW THE REST OF THE STORY>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
HOUSE # 1 the (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville,
Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and
filmmaker) Al Gore.
HOUSE # 2 the (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford ,
Texas ..... Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private
residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.
So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you
WON'T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York
Times or the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an
inconvenient truth."
Be part of the Draft Gore '08 campaign!
Too bad Bush doesn't live and work in that house
In case you forgot unlike Gore Bush lives and works in the White House which happens to consume much more energy than Gore's house and unlike Gore's house it does not use green power.
Not to mention that Gore didn't build his house he bought it. It has been there in Belle Meade since 1984. Which means if he and his staff and family wouldn't use it someone else would and the environmental impact would probably much worse as very very few consumers pay for 100% green power as Gore does.
I Agree...That was powerful!
By virtue of inserting this little remark Mr. yabu, "if he and his staff and family wouldn't use it someone else would ..." you have defined yourself as the "liberal" that you are. You have made an excuse for Bad Algorithms having been an irresponsible custodian of the environment and making excuses is the first step to defining onesself as a "victim".
Earlier you alluded to the likely correct assumption that the White House uses much more energy than the Gore Belle Meade modest abode. It may seem strange to you, but the cost of utiities and general operation of the White House, Bush's "temporary" place of business and residence is not under his control. As ignorance of the matters you comment upon seem to be your stock-in-trade may I commend to you the perusal of information contained within this link:
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/GDS/D94-09_GrnWhiteHouse.pdf
Greening the White House is an ongoing project initiated by your very own Prodigal Prez, William Jefferson "Bubba" Clinton. Strange you were not aware of this, but life is an ongoing remedial learning experience for you liberals. Please to enjoy the journey.
1. I'm not a liberal
If only liberals had voted for Gore he couldn't have received more votes than Bush did.
There are no 51 million liberals in the US.
2. Nice try to spin Bush's carbon-based energy consumption. He can't control it? Someone forced him to be president or what? It's not that he absolutely had to run for president. He doesn't HAVE to live in the White House. He chose to live there instead of his supposedly little "green" house in Texas.
He, his family and his staff are the ones who use that amount of energy just like Gore, his family and his staff were using 191,000 kwh in 2006. We don't know how much Bush would use if he actually spent most of his time in that house in Texas. And we don't know how much Gore would use if he lived in the White House.
Who cares if Bush owns a "green house" if he doesn't use that one but another "dirty" building? By simply owning that house in Texas his environmental impact will not be smaller. Or is that too complicated for you to understand?
Bush is living in a 132 rooms and 35 bathrooms energy hog and enjoys all the luxury that comes with it. Which is fine but whether he owns a green building in Texas or not is irrelevant in terms of his impact on the environment since he doesn't live there.
3. Greening the White House is an ongoing project initiated by Clinton? Really?
Greening Gore's mansion is an ongoing project.
So if Bush is living in a "not so green but will be green at some point" building that's OK in your book.
But if Gore lives in a a similar building, even if he, unlike Bush actually gets his electricity from solar, wind and methane gas, that's not OK. Hypocrite.
4. If Gore had built that house instead of buying it you would have a point. But that house was already there just like tens of thousands of similar buildings in the US. What can you do with them? Destroy?
If Gore advocated that you would be the first to call him nuts.
So then what's the best Gore can do with such buildings?
Buy one (or preferably more) make them as efficient as possible and run them on green energy. Which is exactly what he has done.
By contrast if someone else has bought it most likely he wouldn't have reduced the environmental impact, at least not as much as Gore did, as very few people are willing to pay for 100% green energy, or install solar panels. Just ask TVA or NES. Don't tell me that the US is full of people eager to pay more for green power.
5. According to your "logic" all Gore should do to be as "green" as Bush is build a "green house".
He shouldn't even live there, as Bush doesn't live in his "green house", either.
If Gore owned some kind of "green building" that itself would be enough for you to say "Gore is walking the walk."
Sure.
Wow, that was powerful!
Hey Yabu you should debate that on the O'Reilly Factor! That's like saying I used a gun to kill someone because if I didn't then someone else would. The point is they can both afford to create Smart, Green Houses. Bush did, Gore did not. As for the White House, where do you think Al Gore would live if he was elected? An eco friendly bio dome? Doubt it. It would certainly be more eco firendly if Gore tore down that home (getting rid of one unearth friendly home) and building a smart green home like Bush (adding to the green campaign) That would really impress me. No, I'm sorry, Gore is like every other lying liberal out there who only cares about his personal agenda. 20 room mansion you say? It's those democrats who preach about taxing the rich to help the less fortunate! Yeah, he sounds like one of the low income families that needs assistance! Wake up!
No that's not the bottom line.
See above why.
Your gun metaphor is bullshit as there are plenty of things you can do with a gun not just kill someone else. And if I kill you there is no evidence someone else would have killed you anyway.
However there is evidence that Gore's mansion was already there and owned by someone else before Gore bought it. It's not that it started to impact the environment at the moment when the Gores moved in.
And if they had not bought it and if they had not retrofitted it and paid for 100% green energy the environmnetal impact of that building would be, in all likelihood, much bigger. Get it?
Creating new "green houses" doesn't reduce carbon emission unless they replace "dirty" buildings.
Which "dirty" building did Bush stop using since that "green building" was created? The White House?
Come back when Bush actually lives in a "green" house and when you have data about how much carbon-based energy he and his staff consume there and when that data shows his carbon-footprint is smaller than Gore's.
Too bad Bush doesn't live in a "green" house and you don't have the data. In other words you are full of BS.
Typical Millionaire
It is also important to consider that Bush did not win the Nobel Peace Prize for raising the awareness that Global Warming is a real threat. I really like what Gore is doing, but this really turned me off. He asks everyone to conserve (starting at home) but then you look at his home and it sounds very inefficient and wasteful. Wasteful, green energy or not. If you waste green energy then there is less for other people and according to supply and demand the price will go up.
I'm also surprised there is no official response to this from Gore. Is there?
Al's Response?
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071218/NEWS/71217040
Bush built a nice green house because his friends/advisors told him it would be a good political move. Do you think he cares? Have you taken a look at his voting record? Additionally, it is obvious that this mental midget does not have the capacity to make these sort of decisions anyway without being 'advised'. He is the Milli-Vanilli of politics.
Here's something to consider: which do you think conserves more energy globally? Creating the Inconvenient Truth documentary, or inventing a superflous war in the middle east? Tough one, but I think our brainless-in-cheif has wasted enough energy deploying tanks and battleships to effectively render this green energy debate completely moot.