Bush's Ranch House 'Far More Eco-Friendly' Than Gore's
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
March 01, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - George Bush may be a nemesis of the global green movement and Al Gore its hero, but the president's home is arguably far more environmentally-friendly than the home of the man he defeated in the 2000 election.
Bush's "Western White House" in Crawford, Texas, has been praised as "an eco-friendly haven" while the former vice-president's home in Nashville, Tennessee was criticized this week for heavy power consumption.
"In politics, people don't always practice what they preach," Marlo Lewis, Jr., a senior fellow at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), told Cybercast News Service on Wednesday.
Bush has been criticized harshly by environmentalists for his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol and its mandatory cuts on emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming.
By contrast, Gore on Sunday won an Academy Award for his documentary focusing on the impact of climate change. He recently announced a series of music concerts on seven continents in July to drew further attention to the cause.
"It's interesting that Bush seems to actually practice conservation, while Gore seems to want to buy his way out of his obligations," said Lewis, referring to the purchase of offsets for carbon emissions attributed to the high power use in Gore's 20-room mansion.
An April 2001 article in USA Today described the president's 4,000-square-foot single-story limestone house in Crawford as an "eco-friendly haven."
"Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground -- one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called 'gray water,' and one tank for 'black water' from the kitchen sink and toilets," it said. "The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater."
In addition, "the Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25 percent of the electricity that traditional heating and air-conditioning systems consume."
As Cybercast News Service reported earlier, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR) charged on Monday that Gore's mansion in Nashville "consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year."
"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said TCPR President Drew Johnson.
David Roberts, staff writer for the online environmental magazine Grist, Wednesday criticized the analysis by the TCPR, which he described as an "attack group from Tennessee."
The center's report had been "thrown together purely for the purpose of attacking Al Gore after the Oscars," Roberts told Cybercast News Service.
It was unfair, he said, to compare Gore's electrical consumption to the national average, which "includes apartments and trailer homes and is an average across all climatic zones, some of which are quite temperate."
Gore and his wife, Tipper, "both work out of their house" and "have special security measures for an ex-vice president, all of which naturally increases the electricity use in the home," Roberts added.
Moreover, Gore "pays almost a 50 percent premium to buy the 'green power' offered from his electrical company," which generates its voltage from hydroelectric and nuclear power rather than coal, he said.
"If every national leader did as much as Al Gore does to ameliorate their impact on the climate, the world would be a much better place."
Nevertheless, Roberts conceded that the energy efficiency of the president's home in Crawford is "fantastic."
"I wish that George Bush would back public policy that is in line with what he does on his ranch," he said.
'Elitist'
Johnson of the TCPR defended his group's report against criticism from Gore's supporters.
He acknowledged that the information was obtained from the National Electric Service the day after Gore won his Oscar, but argued that "it is fair to compare Gore's [energy] use to what most Americans are used to."
"All of the niceties he may have and all the extra people he may have running in and out of his house still shouldn't mean that the person leading this environmental charge should have 20 times the electrical consumption of the average American," Johnson charged.
The CEI's Lewis said the disparity between Gore's message on global warming and his power consumption reflected an "elitist mentality."
"The average soccer mom can't afford to plant trees in the rainforest in order to remain carbon neutral," he said.
"All these jet-setters' lives consist of going to conferences in other countries by burning jet fuel and staying in posh hotels where they keep the lights on all day and so on in order to tut-tut about how wasteful the rest of us are in our use of energy," he stated.
"They always make an exception for themselves because what they're doing is so important."
__________________
1998: East Troy2; East Lansing
2000: Noblesville; Auburn Hills; Chicago
2003: East Troy; Clarkston1
2004: Toledo; Grand Rapids
2006: Grand Rapids; Auburn Hills
2009: Chicago
2010: Columbus
2011: East Troy (PJ20), both
2013: Wrigley Field
2014: Detroit
I think it is possible, I am not sure. That is why I hate articles like this. They shock you with a big number but fail to answer any of the follow-up questions anyone with even a bit of a brain might want to know. Things like: Why is it so much higher, How old is Gore's house, does he use gas heating or electric (maybe he is using an electric heat pump and his monthly gas bill is $0), does he have a pool, what do they mean by average households, how does his house compare to houses in similar climates. With hack writers like this one for all we know Al Gore is running a grow-op in his basement, or feeding the homeless with a commercial kitchen, since the writer gives us no background information.
I donl't think it's hack writing at all. It's factual representation with legitimate numbers.
Gore is a suspicious politician. He's talks use less but spend more...that's all he does.
If he wants to make a difference talk about saving money not spending more money. People still eat his broken science shit up. I used to. This guy has an agenda and it not about saving earth as much as it is getting some money moving imo.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
PS - The average house size in the U.S. is like 2,100 square feet. Gore's is like 10,000 feet. It's only (OK, I say ONLY facetiously) 5x bigger than the average house, but he uses enough energy to power MUCH more than 7 houses. Another sickening political hypocrite is all he is.
Agreed. He is also probably 10 times more solar than the average home user as well. This guy is a power hog. Hypocrite indedd.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I donl't think it's hack writing at all. It's factual representation with legitimate numbers.
Gore is a suspicious politician. He's talks use less but spend more...that's all he does.
If he wants to make a difference talk about saving money not spending more money. People still eat his broken science shit up. I used to. This guy has an agenda and it not about saving earth as much as it is getting some money moving imo.
Of course it is a hack article. It cherry picks the facts it wants to try and get a certain point across rather than giving the whole story. When looking at someone’s energy usage you can’t just look at their electric bill since it doesn’t give you the whole picture. Like I said above maybe he has an electric heat pump to heat his home, which would use a lot more energy than a gas furnace, and lead to a higher gas bill, but at the same time is much more efficient than a gas furnace and leads to a much lower gas bill. For all we know he is shooting his next movie in his back yard and all the filming equipment is using all the power. Or maybe his wife is running "Tipper Gore's Old Tyme Tennessee Cookie Factory" in her basement. I am not trying to defend Al Gore at all I just think a good reporter should answer the “why” questions, and it bugs me when they don’t.
PS - The average house size in the U.S. is like 2,100 square feet. Gore's is like 10,000 feet. It's only (OK, I say ONLY facetiously) 5x bigger than the average house, but he uses enough energy to power MUCH more than 7 houses. Another sickening political hypocrite is all he is.
the guy gets his energy from wind and solar - yeah, his consumption is high but it's from renewables which is way better then people who use 1/10th of his power but from fossil sources like coal ...
well ... how else do you get people to pay the TRUE cost of a resource?
You are correct in that we don't pay the true cost of energy.
But I'm not sure that taxing it, thus giving the $ to the gov't, is the total answer.
First, the environmental standards for producers needs to be raised. They will need to pass cost along to the consumer. So now, the consumer is paying the $ for reducing environmentla impact. Making everyone comply with the same Env regulations is tough to do since their are global providers.
Then, you can raise the tax on the product, so the gov't has th e$ to deal with leaning up the emissions produced when the consumers use it (or finding alternative energy).
Not that I want this to happen, but you're right in my opinion.
You are correct in that we don't pay the true cost of energy.
But I'm not sure that taxing it, thus giving the $ to the gov't, is the total answer.
First, the environmental standards for producers needs to be raised. They will need to pass cost along to the consumer. So now, the consumer is paying the $ for reducing environmentla impact. Making everyone comply with the same Env regulations is tough to do since their are global providers.
Then, you can raise the tax on the product, so the gov't has th e$ to deal with leaning up the emissions produced when the consumers use it (or finding alternative energy).
Not that I want this to happen, but you're right in my opinion.
i think what it boils down to is that if you are going to charge producers for spewing toxic greenhouse gases that has impacts on our environment and health - it is essentially a tax ... there's no way around it ...
now, i also know that many of you don't like the gov't controlling those dollars ... and i don't disagree necessarily ... it's just that i don't see what other options are out there ...
i think what it boils down to is that if you are going to charge producers for spewing toxic greenhouse gases that has impacts on our environment and health - it is essentially a tax ... there's no way around it ...
now, i also know that many of you don't like the gov't controlling those dollars ... and i don't disagree necessarily ... it's just that i don't see what other options are out there ...
I don't think you 'charge them'...I think you force them to pay for and install the best available technology for emission control and require frequent updates...not a tax...$ goes to manufacturers of emission controls...and more $ there drives competition their, drives lower cost of emission control as well as increased inovation...just a thought
I don't think you 'charge them'...I think you force them to pay for and install the best available technology for emission control and require frequent updates...not a tax...$ goes to manufacturers of emission controls...and more $ there drives competition their, drives lower cost of emission control as well as increased inovation...just a thought
but even with the best forms of emission controls - it will still spew toxic chemicals in the air - how do you account for the thousands that die from respiratory illnesses a year? ... or the health care costs or loss of productivity from the millions who are sick due to air quality?
but even with the best forms of emission controls - it will still spew toxic chemicals in the air - how do you account for the thousands that die from respiratory illnesses a year? ... or the health care costs or loss of productivity from the millions who are sick due to air quality?
but even with the best forms of emission controls - it will still spew toxic chemicals in the air - how do you account for the thousands that die from respiratory illnesses a year? ... or the health care costs or loss of productivity from the millions who are sick due to air quality?
Seriously though, I gues syou are right in that part of it is a tax...I really liek the idea of companies purchasing ...can't think what there called, but basically the right to pollute a certain amount of pollution that they can then sell on the openm market if they reduce their own emissions...it's not perfect, but I like it.
I'm all for cleaning up the environment, and reducing emissions, but I think Gore is just out to carbon tax people in order to get their money. Seriously though, what's the deal with this guy? How much frickn power does this idiot need?
"In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice Presidents home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.
A mans commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home, said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.
In the past year, Gores home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.
In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gores Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.
After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gores massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the homes windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the green overhaul.
Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month 1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.
In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.
Actions speak louder than words, and Gores actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity, Johnson said. Gore is exploiting the publics concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gores home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service."
Al Gore did not win an Oscar. In a documentary only the producers can win. The subject doesn't win. Again the Left's misinformation system is filtering into the mainstream.
"If you're not living on the edge you're taking up too much room."
Gambling=a taxation on stupidity.
Remember, you can walk anywhere, as long as you have the time.
Although, something is screwy about that article, or its findings. I find it funny that his bills actually went up after going geothermal and solar... The Geo would make the electric bill rise, but the solar should have at least offset the extra electricity that the heating system would draw.
Comments
Bush's Ranch House 'Far More Eco-Friendly' Than Gore's
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
March 01, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - George Bush may be a nemesis of the global green movement and Al Gore its hero, but the president's home is arguably far more environmentally-friendly than the home of the man he defeated in the 2000 election.
Bush's "Western White House" in Crawford, Texas, has been praised as "an eco-friendly haven" while the former vice-president's home in Nashville, Tennessee was criticized this week for heavy power consumption.
"In politics, people don't always practice what they preach," Marlo Lewis, Jr., a senior fellow at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), told Cybercast News Service on Wednesday.
Bush has been criticized harshly by environmentalists for his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol and its mandatory cuts on emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming.
By contrast, Gore on Sunday won an Academy Award for his documentary focusing on the impact of climate change. He recently announced a series of music concerts on seven continents in July to drew further attention to the cause.
"It's interesting that Bush seems to actually practice conservation, while Gore seems to want to buy his way out of his obligations," said Lewis, referring to the purchase of offsets for carbon emissions attributed to the high power use in Gore's 20-room mansion.
An April 2001 article in USA Today described the president's 4,000-square-foot single-story limestone house in Crawford as an "eco-friendly haven."
"Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground -- one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called 'gray water,' and one tank for 'black water' from the kitchen sink and toilets," it said. "The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater."
In addition, "the Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25 percent of the electricity that traditional heating and air-conditioning systems consume."
As Cybercast News Service reported earlier, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR) charged on Monday that Gore's mansion in Nashville "consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year."
"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said TCPR President Drew Johnson.
David Roberts, staff writer for the online environmental magazine Grist, Wednesday criticized the analysis by the TCPR, which he described as an "attack group from Tennessee."
The center's report had been "thrown together purely for the purpose of attacking Al Gore after the Oscars," Roberts told Cybercast News Service.
It was unfair, he said, to compare Gore's electrical consumption to the national average, which "includes apartments and trailer homes and is an average across all climatic zones, some of which are quite temperate."
Gore and his wife, Tipper, "both work out of their house" and "have special security measures for an ex-vice president, all of which naturally increases the electricity use in the home," Roberts added.
Moreover, Gore "pays almost a 50 percent premium to buy the 'green power' offered from his electrical company," which generates its voltage from hydroelectric and nuclear power rather than coal, he said.
"If every national leader did as much as Al Gore does to ameliorate their impact on the climate, the world would be a much better place."
Nevertheless, Roberts conceded that the energy efficiency of the president's home in Crawford is "fantastic."
"I wish that George Bush would back public policy that is in line with what he does on his ranch," he said.
'Elitist'
Johnson of the TCPR defended his group's report against criticism from Gore's supporters.
He acknowledged that the information was obtained from the National Electric Service the day after Gore won his Oscar, but argued that "it is fair to compare Gore's [energy] use to what most Americans are used to."
"All of the niceties he may have and all the extra people he may have running in and out of his house still shouldn't mean that the person leading this environmental charge should have 20 times the electrical consumption of the average American," Johnson charged.
The CEI's Lewis said the disparity between Gore's message on global warming and his power consumption reflected an "elitist mentality."
"The average soccer mom can't afford to plant trees in the rainforest in order to remain carbon neutral," he said.
"All these jet-setters' lives consist of going to conferences in other countries by burning jet fuel and staying in posh hotels where they keep the lights on all day and so on in order to tut-tut about how wasteful the rest of us are in our use of energy," he stated.
"They always make an exception for themselves because what they're doing is so important."
1998: East Troy2; East Lansing
2000: Noblesville; Auburn Hills; Chicago
2003: East Troy; Clarkston1
2004: Toledo; Grand Rapids
2006: Grand Rapids; Auburn Hills
2009: Chicago
2010: Columbus
2011: East Troy (PJ20), both
2013: Wrigley Field
2014: Detroit
I donl't think it's hack writing at all. It's factual representation with legitimate numbers.
Gore is a suspicious politician. He's talks use less but spend more...that's all he does.
If he wants to make a difference talk about saving money not spending more money. People still eat his broken science shit up. I used to. This guy has an agenda and it not about saving earth as much as it is getting some money moving imo.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Agreed. He is also probably 10 times more solar than the average home user as well. This guy is a power hog. Hypocrite indedd.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Of course it is a hack article. It cherry picks the facts it wants to try and get a certain point across rather than giving the whole story. When looking at someone’s energy usage you can’t just look at their electric bill since it doesn’t give you the whole picture. Like I said above maybe he has an electric heat pump to heat his home, which would use a lot more energy than a gas furnace, and lead to a higher gas bill, but at the same time is much more efficient than a gas furnace and leads to a much lower gas bill. For all we know he is shooting his next movie in his back yard and all the filming equipment is using all the power. Or maybe his wife is running "Tipper Gore's Old Tyme Tennessee Cookie Factory" in her basement. I am not trying to defend Al Gore at all I just think a good reporter should answer the “why” questions, and it bugs me when they don’t.
the guy gets his energy from wind and solar - yeah, his consumption is high but it's from renewables which is way better then people who use 1/10th of his power but from fossil sources like coal ...
well ... how else do you get people to pay the TRUE cost of a resource?
You are correct in that we don't pay the true cost of energy.
But I'm not sure that taxing it, thus giving the $ to the gov't, is the total answer.
First, the environmental standards for producers needs to be raised. They will need to pass cost along to the consumer. So now, the consumer is paying the $ for reducing environmentla impact. Making everyone comply with the same Env regulations is tough to do since their are global providers.
Then, you can raise the tax on the product, so the gov't has th e$ to deal with leaning up the emissions produced when the consumers use it (or finding alternative energy).
Not that I want this to happen, but you're right in my opinion.
i think what it boils down to is that if you are going to charge producers for spewing toxic greenhouse gases that has impacts on our environment and health - it is essentially a tax ... there's no way around it ...
now, i also know that many of you don't like the gov't controlling those dollars ... and i don't disagree necessarily ... it's just that i don't see what other options are out there ...
I don't think you 'charge them'...I think you force them to pay for and install the best available technology for emission control and require frequent updates...not a tax...$ goes to manufacturers of emission controls...and more $ there drives competition their, drives lower cost of emission control as well as increased inovation...just a thought
but even with the best forms of emission controls - it will still spew toxic chemicals in the air - how do you account for the thousands that die from respiratory illnesses a year? ... or the health care costs or loss of productivity from the millions who are sick due to air quality?
Survival of the fittest?
Seriously though, I gues syou are right in that part of it is a tax...I really liek the idea of companies purchasing ...can't think what there called, but basically the right to pollute a certain amount of pollution that they can then sell on the openm market if they reduce their own emissions...it's not perfect, but I like it.
survival of the privileged!
Same thing.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
Gambling=a taxation on stupidity.
Remember, you can walk anywhere, as long as you have the time.
http://www.ryanmontbleauband.com/
http://www.myspace.com/jessedee
Gambling=a taxation on stupidity.
Remember, you can walk anywhere, as long as you have the time.
http://www.ryanmontbleauband.com/
http://www.myspace.com/jessedee
Although, something is screwy about that article, or its findings. I find it funny that his bills actually went up after going geothermal and solar... The Geo would make the electric bill rise, but the solar should have at least offset the extra electricity that the heating system would draw.
I wonder if that part of the article is correct?