An "inconvenient truth."

tomtom22

tomtom22

Chief Engineer
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."

THIS ARTICLE IS TRUE ACCORDING TO SNOPES.COM.


 
There's a phrase we learned in English Lit. class.... Irony. ;)

Never liked either one myself. LOL Course, I wasn't old enough to vote for Gore.
 
probably only shows Mr B is more spending conscious (and so probaly richer?).

Anyway, as I as "Culé" (meaning Barcelona) fanhave no problem at all recognizing Zidane as the most complete soccer player that I have seen in my life (and he played for Madrid, so I know some of my Culé friends will call me traitor and "Merengue" = Madrid fan), I also have no prob whatsoever to recognize that the 2nd mansions is (if the facts are true) better maitained, and (still given the facts are what is stated, no time to crosscheck) Gore chose a bad XO and a bad PO.

Strange, though, that Mr B, if he seems to realize the personal profits from such a layout was so against discussing making this a world standard...

Any info on the Obama residence yet?

Rattler
 
Never did like Gore anyway. That guy comes off as a fake the instant you see him. Funny that not many others seem to be able to pick that up.
 
My GOD you're a smart one Chukpike.

I said I wasn't old enough to vote for Gore because I wasn't old enough to vote when he ran. Just a point in time, pal.
 
How many fat doctors are there in this country, ones to tell you to eat healthy while never actually do any of it themselves?

Just because they don't practice what they preach doesn't nullify the truth in what they are preaching.
 
One of the greatest hypocrisies are the way delegates travel to environmental conferences. Some of these even offer local tours for delegates who are not interested in the lectures during that particular day. It does make me question whether these people are serious, or simply using it as a means of what is known in the business community as a 'jolly' (vacation).

I recently questioned a local sustainability group why so many international environmental conferences were not more fully equipped with teleconferencing facilities, and why delegates were not financially encouraged to use it. For example, using an attendance tax for subsidising the teleconferencing equipment, or giving priority to questions through electronic media.

Expecting total support, I was shocked about the lack of response and lame excuses. Usual crap excuses such as the important of 'personal contact' and 'body language' made it sound like a meeting of management consultants rather than scientists!
 
Last edited:
This comparison lacks critical information and looks to be quite bias against Gore.

First of all its comparing a 20 room manision vs a 4 bedroom ranch. And although it conviently excludes the exact size in cubic feet of Gore's house one would have to guess that its MUCH larger than Bush's house. And assuming its much larger its only normal its energy costs will be much higher. That isnt rocket science.

Second, there is a climate difference between Nashville and Crawford. True Nashville isnt Vermont but it can get cold and even Snow in the Winter. You cannot honestly compare energy consumption between Nashville to Texas, the only way this test would be fair is if both houses were in the same location within a few square miles of each other. Not that fairness was ever intended in this "study".

Third, and most importantly Gore energy costs are more because he insists on Power from Tennesse's Green Power Switch (an energy grid that uses solar and wind energy). As the grid is further away, this means he pays premium price for energy. Another "inconvient" fact left out of this study.

Fourth, Bush's ranch (built in 2000) is a modern ranch and was designed from the ground up as eco-friendly design, including geo-thermal power and recycled water. According to the architech David Heymann of the University of Texas School of Architecture these features were chosen because of cost effectiveness (as both water and power are scarce) not because of enviromental concerns, a common option amongst homeowners in SW Texas.

I couldnt find any info on Gore mansion, but judgeing from the photos I would guess that its a much older house that couldnt accomodate the nicieties of the more modern Bush Ranch.

And lastly what does this have to do with the climate change issue? How about somebody on the right comeup with a sensible idea to deal with global warming rather than trying to kill the messenger by pretending their is no problem. Remember these are the people that absolutely insisted that Iraq was secure, the economy was strong, New Orleans wasnt under water, etc. etc. etc.
 
Last edited:
True, but you'd think Gore of all people would still try to incorporate the latest in green technology into his home.
Actually this passage reads a lot like something you'd read in a GRE argumentative essay question.
 
From a related Snopes article...

The above-quoted report from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR), claiming that Al Gore's Tennessee home uses over 20 times more energy than the average U.S. home, was released the day after the former vice-president's film about global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, won an Academy Award for Best Documentary.

The specific numbers involved may be disputable (the TCPR claimed Gore's home uses electricity at a rate more than "20 times the national average," while the Associated Press reported that its own review of bills indicated that the Gores' Nashville household used more than 12 times the average for a typical household in that area), but the gist of the claim — that the Gores' Nashville residence consumes a substantially larger proportion of energy than the average American home — is true.

A spokesperson for the Gore family responded by noting some mitigating factors, such as the fact that the Gores' Nashville residence isn't an "average" house — it's about four times larger than the average new American home built in 2006, and it essentially functions as both a residence and a business office since both Al and Tipper work out of their home. The Tennessean also noted that the Gores had been paying a $432 per month premium on their monthly electricity bills in order to obtain some of their electricity from "green" sources (i.e., solar or other renewable energy sources). Other factors (such as the climate in the area where the home is located and its size) make the Gore home's energy usage comparable to that of other homes in the same area.

The former vice-president maintained that comparing raw energy-usage figures is misleading and that he leads what he advocates, a "carbon-neutral lifestyle," by purchasing energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance out the carbon emissions produced in generating the electricity his home uses:
Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that "the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it."

A carbon footprint is a calculation of the CO2 fossil fuel emissions each person is responsible for, either directly because of his or her transportation and energy consumption or indirectly because of the manufacture and eventual breakdown of products he or she uses.

The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family tries to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local Green Power Switch program — electricity generated through renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution. "In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power," Kreider added. "They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
 
mmarsh said:
And lastly what does this have to do with the climate change issue? How about somebody on the right comeup with a sensible idea to deal with global warming rather than trying to kill the messenger by pretending their is no problem. Remember these are the people that absolutely insisted that Iraq was secure, the economy was strong, New Orleans wasnt under water, etc. etc. etc.
Click to expand...

We all live in a carbon intensive society, and it it almost impossible to live an affluent lifestyle without emitting large amounts of carbon. I guess their residence emissions are miniscule in relation to the carbon released through travel of these two prominent people over the last decade. (PS in the US do politicians claim for multiple homes, a sticky issue in the UK at the moment)

Therefore, can we choose simply to use less and travel less? We can only live in one room at a time, is there need for 10 rooms per person? Is it really necessary with modern technology to travel to conferences in person? Is it necessary to drive a 6000 lb vehicle to transport a 200 lb person?

These are fundamental questions, and I cannot think of a prominent politician who sets a good example. We simply to to evade the problem by trading off credits to someone else or designing complexity into the product which consumes even more resources.
 
perseus said:
We all live in a carbon intensive society, and it it almost impossible to live an affluent lifestyle without emitting large amounts of carbon. I guess their residence emissions are miniscule in relation to the carbon released through travel of these two prominent people over the last decade. (PS in the US do politicians claim for multiple homes, a sticky issue in the UK at the moment)

Therefore, can we choose simply to use less and travel less? We can only live in one room at a time, is there need for 10 rooms per person? Is it really necessary with modern technology to travel to conferences in person? Is it necessary to drive a 6000 lb vehicle to transport a 200 lb person?

These are fundamental questions, and I cannot think of a prominent politician who sets a good example. We simply to to evade the problem by trading off credits to someone else or designing complexity into the product which consumes even more resources.
Click to expand...

Most C02 emissions are from burning fossil fuels in combustion engines. Most household energy in the US are either Natural Gas or Electrical, both of which are "clean" energy. If Gore Drove some gas-guzzling SUV then I would agree he's a hypocrite.

This study is dishonest, it leaves out several facts and its trying to make an issue out of a non issue because these people simple dont like Gore personally.
 
I think Gore gets a lot of stick because he represents the political face of environmentalism. This is seen by many as a threat to personal economic prosperity since this is based on growth and this in turn has traditionally been closely related to Energy use and carbon emissions. Since our economies are based around carbon fuels it is difficult to be prosperous and not emit lots of carbon and since Gore is prominent politician he (like all the others) expect to live an affluent lifestyle, so he becomes easy to critisise. Decoupling carbon emissions from growth has still to be proven, and the only other route to reducing carbon emissions is to restrict growth.

In world terms, the main source of carbon is coal in electric generating stations. I suspect this may be the case in the US as well (below), however amongst the affluent business class I guess it is air travel if expressed in CO2 equivalent terms. Greenhouse gas emissions from air travel may be around 2-3 times that implied from the CO2 emisions alone.

ES7-7.gif


I think there is too much focus on automotive carbon emissions (despite me being an automotive engineer) and plug in hybrid/electric vehicles as the solution to these. Neither is true since these will depend upon the energy source. I think the key is to develop a clean and flexible electric generating technology such as fossil fuel carbon capture and storage. However it now seems Obama will now approve coal power stations without this technology, a disaster in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
the problem is Al Gore has become an apostle of renewable, eco-friendly living. He can't be a leader on global warming and a slothful energy waster. Its unethical and feeds the hyper-'green washing' conspiracies that pervade the right.
 
Mt. Pinatubo put out more carbon "footprint" in it's one week of serious eruptions than all of mankind did in two hundred years (not counting the nuclear tests).

I make a motion that volcanic eruptions be banned for their environmental damage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top