Post #309,964
6/21/09 8:50:39 PM
|
bwahahahaha figures
from a canadian friend of mine
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 per month. 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 of ex President of the United States, George W. Bush.
An "inconvenient truth."
And, yes ... I DID check Snopes prior to forwarding it.
You can verify it at : http://www.snopes.co...cs/bush/house.asp
|
Post #309,992
6/22/09 2:08:53 PM
|
House #1 was built how many decades ago?
It's probably due for an insulation upgrade.
Don't forget that his utility bills also cover heating the pool and pool house.
"Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from."
-- E.L. Doctorow
|
Post #309,995
6/22/09 2:33:49 PM
|
Doesn't matter how old
it's an inconvenient truth about Gore.
|
Post #309,997
6/22/09 2:43:11 PM
|
So it doesn't matter
- The difference in weatherproofing between the houses?
- The difference in square footage between the houses?
- The difference in geographic location of each house, which is a large factor in annual utility bills?
- The difference in landscaping to minimize the effects of wind and sun on the interiors of each house (trees to provide shade, trees to provide windbreaks, etc. I don't know what either house has in the way of protective landscaping.)
"Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from."
-- E.L. Doctorow
|
Post #309,998
6/22/09 2:49:57 PM
|
difference in the owners real thoughts on the matter?
|
Post #310,001
6/22/09 3:12:49 PM
|
nope
Gore's the one telling everyone they need to cut back, while his energy usage in one month is what the typical Nashville home uses in a year. (check the Snopes link that boxley provided).
In the case of being green, Gore is "do as I say, not as I do" while Bush is leading by example.
|
Post #310,003
6/22/09 3:57:05 PM
|
Aww crap, didn't want to get into this one
But you just said exactly the right thing to get me to jump in.
The only place Bush has ever been "leading" energy policy was in the direction that the energy companies wanted him to. Has he spoken out about reducing personal energy usage? Has he supported tax breaks for efficiency upgrades? Has he advocated equivalent efficiency upgrades (similar to his house) for industry? If not then he's not really "leading" anyway. He's following.
This sounds like one of two things happening. Either: Bush knows that the long-term cost of an energy efficient home is really lower than the alternative, but didn't care to enact legislation to help less-wealthy people achieve the same gains for themselves. Or: Bush knows (or listens to someone who knows) that building a house like this provides a convenient talking point for Republicans who want to oppose environmentalism.
--
Drew
|
Post #310,004
6/22/09 4:25:26 PM
|
Says as much in the Snopes article
The features are environment-friendly, but the reason for them was practical — to save money and to save water, which is scarce in this dry, hot part of Texas.
As such, we know what Bush's motives are.
In the case of Gore and his preaching, but not practicing, it's most likely financially motivated as well GIM also owns a 10% stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), CCX in turn owns half of European Climate Exchange.This gives Al Gore a financial bias towards promoting global warming control trough the issuing of carbon credits
http://en.wikipedia....stment_Management
|
Post #310,007
6/22/09 5:54:20 PM
|
True, but ...
Like I said, if the outcome was a net cost savings, why wasn't he "leading" on the issue when he had the opportunity?
--
Drew
|
Post #310,014
6/22/09 7:04:07 PM
|
the issue for him is saving money
being green about some things is just a nice side benefit.
|
Post #310,030
6/23/09 8:13:46 AM
|
maybe you missed a few things
|
Post #310,008
6/22/09 6:22:50 PM
|
Not that this makes a huge difference, but...
Also note that the Gores buy a large portion of their energy from "green" sources, which makes it more expensive than regular energy.
The article was comparing energy *cost*, not energy *usage*.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #310,012
6/22/09 6:55:17 PM
|
while the email mentions money
the Snopes research looks at usage - Gore's 10,000 square foot Belle Meade residence consumes electricity at a rate of about 12 times the average for a typical house in Nashville (191,000 kwh versus 15,600 kwh)
|
Post #310,011
6/22/09 6:54:13 PM
|
Re: nope
And you're well aware that his home is 4 or 5 times larger than the average Nashville home, because it includes home offices for himself and his wife, not to mention an office for the Secret Service.
How about bringing up the energy usage and/or cost for H. W. Bush's mansion on Houston, or the house Dubya just bought in an exclusive section of Dallas...
"Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from."
-- E.L. Doctorow
|
Post #310,013
6/22/09 7:03:05 PM
|
I work from home
My house isn't twice as large as the average in Houston.
How about bringing up the energy usage and/or cost for H. W. Bush's mansion on Houston, or the house Dubya just bought in an exclusive section of Dallas...
why? Are they telling everybody to cut back or buy carbon offsets via companies they own?
|
Post #310,015
6/22/09 8:28:24 PM
|
Very old news.
Bush lives in Dallas now. http://maps.google.c...1994&z=16&iwloc=A
It's about 8500 sq feet, so it's approaching Gore's spread.
http://www.zillow.co...29/26757769_zpid/
I can't find any information on power consumption, etc.
Gore's is here: http://www.zillow.co...05/41141401_zpid/
Anyone who's seen the picture of Gore in his office - http://www.techtalk..../al-gore-lcds.png - would realize that he uses more electricity than Bush - http://www.allthings..._harriet_mi_R.jpg
As others here have pointed out, what really matters is what a person does with the power or persuasion they have. Bush and Gore both had a lot of power to affect energy consumption in the US. Bush did nothing; Gore did a lot. And he has put his money where his mouth is: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22248699/
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #310,016
6/22/09 8:51:04 PM
|
Older news
Karl Marx, I understand, lived a respectable, socially conservative life. Benjamin Franklin, on the other hand, was a notorious libertine who hosted a hellfire club and probably lied about that lightning experiment.
What does this tell you about the value of their ideas, their causes, their leadership?
And isn't Bush being a bit of a hypocrite, refusing to personally support the energy industry by getting all cheap on his ranch?
|
Post #310,018
6/22/09 9:38:11 PM
|
:-) Speaking of Marx...
If you didn't see it earlier, there's a nice essay by Hitchens in the April issue of The Atlantic, with some funny anecdotes: "The Revenge of Karl Marx" - http://www.theatlant...904/hitchens-marx
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #310,031
6/23/09 8:15:48 AM
|
yeah, bush did nothing
http://www.pbs.org/n...nscripts/070129c/
oops, someone forgot to edit the narrative :-)
|
Post #310,033
6/23/09 8:28:20 AM
|
I'll play.
1) Notice the date on that? January 2007. When did W take office again?
2) BILL PRINDLE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY EFFICIENT ECONOMY: The money was taken from existing programs on energy efficiency, so while some more money went into bio mass and solar and wind, the money came out of some other accounts and so there really wasn't a net new commitment to clean energy.
DHUE: Clean energy producers rely on tax credits to support their business models, but those tax breaks have been on and off in the last six years. For example, the wind industry wants its tax credit extended to 10 years, but as it stands those tax breaks expire after two years. Energy consultant Peter Fox Penner says the gap between political rhetoric and policy makes for a difficult investment climate.
Sounds like a real plan, huh.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
