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.

ANSWERS:

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville,Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (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 in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed for Mr. Gore is "an inconvenient truth".

OMG! Is this REALLY such a hard question? It's a HUGE HISTORICAL mansion! The man also has a more-than-full-time job.

Uh, yeah, so do I -- but he certainly has enough money to pay someone to head up the project for him.

Working with architects, builders, local planning for permits, etc. on a normal-sized house for normal remodeling can be a daunting task that takes months (or sometimes years) of planning. Ask any builder or architect and they'll tell you that it's much easier and takes far less time to build new. Green remodeling on the scale that he took on takes a great deal of time and research before one even gets to the permit stage (not even adding in the time for the actual demolition/building.)

In California, where the permitting and building process is quite oppressive, you could bring a house down to its foundation and build up a whole new house again in a year. In less lenient states, that could take as little as 3-5 months. I don't find it persuasive that a remodel would take 4-6 years, especially if that remodel involves something that someone is so passionate about.

Edited April 12, 200818 yr by gadgetlady

I'm starting to think that you like the "idea" of having these views and like the "idea" of what the right-wing has to say... but don't really do the necessary quality research to back up those ideas.

Believe what you want to believe about me. When I tried to get answers about Gore's portfolio -- precisely so I could evaluate the claims -- it wasn't an easy process. It's your prerogative to believe that I don't REALLY want to do the research or that I will ONLY read what right-wingers believe about the subject, but if I didn't want to research the issue I wouldn't have asked the question as to how to garner the information.

I didn't see any jumping and didn't hear any screaming. Unless that's the way you interpret it when someone confronts you with facts, as opposed to conjecture.

Yeah, because the stuff I posted about the mercury in the light bulbs was all conjecture, right? After all, everything I read is from right-wing sources so therefore it can't be true. (Wait! Is MSNBC a right-wing source?)

And if you're not trying to ruin Al Gore's reputation or to put it into question, at least.... what exactly are you trying or hoping to accomplish? Or are you just, again, presenting some links/conjecture that you find "interesting?"

I can't singlehandedly ruin Al Gore's reputation. I believe history will do that for him. I am hoping to spark discussion, which clearly I have :thumbup:

BTW, gadget, you are one of my favorite posters.

Sheesh! Thank you. Reading from oldest posting to newest, I was starting to feel pretty trampled.

And before you start to think that I agree with all the views of democrats or the left.. you need to know that I differ greatly from their opinions on military cuts and a plethora of other issues. I really face each issue on a case-by-case basis.

I think you'd be surprised at how I feel on some issues, as well. I was registered Libertarian for many years, and I do take issues on a case-by-case basis as well -- even though most people on this board think I'm a toe-the-line Republican.

In California, where the permitting and building process is quite oppressive, you could bring a house down to its foundation and build up a whole new house again in a year. In less lenient states, that could take as little as 3-5 months. I don't find it persuasive that a remodel would take 4-6 years, especially if that remodel involves something that someone is so passionate about.

Problem is its more then just a house. It's an office for him and his employee's. Also is a reception place for media and business clients. Considering the power needs of that home it might take awhile. My wife is in florida and it is taken 3 months on a permit for just a privacy fence to be put up.

The point was made that George Bush is the President and don;t need all that. However even if Crawford is just a vacation home, the President has security, advisors and media personnel ALWAYS. where do you think they stay? I bet its not all in that little house.

And the most upsetting thing is that vacation home is no more then a Symbol for him. That family is a NE American family pretending to be cowboys for that oh so coveted "Reagan" look.:thumbup:

My dear lapband friend... I think that was the point he was trying to make. Some stories are soooo full of holes that one just has to take "pause" and reflect on their pathetic-ness (as I coin a word).

Glad someone gets me :thumbup:

re: homeschooling...

I see where California has just made is some kind of crime to homeschool.

What's that really about?

Jack, there's a thread on it in R&R which should give you a bunch of information on the subject. The California Court of Appeals has vacated the decision and granted a motion for a rehearing on the issue. Everything is status quo right now, until the rehearing. There are a lot of positive things happening and CA homeschoolers have good sources of support, but until the courts reach a decision we really don't know what will happen.

If you need more info about it just ask and I'll post some links (hope posting LINKS are OK :thumbup:) to give you that info.

My dear lapband friend... I think that was the point he was trying to make. Some stories are soooo full of holes that one just has to take "pause" and reflect on their pathetic-ness (as I coin a word).

Yeah, I got that. I'm not dense. The point I was trying to make was twofold: 1) that the article itself was actually credible: Jesse Ventura DID say that and presumably he believed what he said, and 2) that even though the reporting of the article was accurate, it wasn't too difficult to reason through that Jesse Ventura isn't a demolitions expert.

I get that snuffy was implying that I take the approach that if I read something on a right-wing website, it therefore must be true.

I think you'd be surprised at how I feel on some issues, as well. I was registered Libertarian for many years, and I do take issues on a case-by-case basis as well -- even though most people on this board think I'm a toe-the-line Republican.

1st, i didn't think you were just a right wing nut. I still don't. I have to question your thinking because every misleading article you posted is fomr a right winged site. Also, I have yet to see you step on any republican toes. Since i haven't step on any lefties toes here's some things i support:

Fair Tax

School Vouchers (Including Homeschooling credits)

No Nation building (which is a Conservative stance that republicans definitely have ignored.)

Pro Guns

Take a look at the 'homeschooling' thread. Gadget has kept us all up to date. California is backing down, BIG TIME. All will be well in the land of homeschooling.

LOL! I guess I should read all the way through before I start answering posts!

California is backing down, somewhat, in that the decision was vacated. The ultimate resolution remains to be seen. The teacher's unions in CA would LOVE to eliminate homeschooling, so the war isn't over yet.

I have yet to see you step on any republican toes.

Here you go: I don't support Bush's record of social spending.

I'm really going to try to be done for the night now and go spend some time with my kids :-)

Yeah, I got that. I'm not dense. The point I was trying to make was twofold: 1) that the article itself was actually credible: Jesse Ventura DID say that and presumably he believed what he said, and 2) that even though the reporting of the article was accurate, it wasn't too difficult to reason through that Jesse Ventura isn't a demolitions expert.

I get that snuffy was implying that I take the approach that if I read something on a right-wing website, it therefore must be true.

And the article you posted was from a financial expert that knew what Al Gore has invested in?

How do you know Jesse Ventura is wrong when he said that Air fuel couldn't melt those beams?

Your trying to differentiate the two and you can't. They were both made by people that are not experts and both of them had no evidence whats so ever. Both articles didn't extend upon anything to help substantiate their claim.

So, the only reasoning behind the fact that you can't differentiate the two, is cause you are bias when you read these kinds of stories and choose to overlook the obvious "this reporter has no evidence of his claims" mentality if it suits you.

California is backing down, somewhat, in that the decision was vacated. The ultimate resolution remains to be seen. The teacher's unions in CA would LOVE to eliminate homeschooling, so the war isn't over yet.

This is one area we agreed on and glad to they are least making progress.

Here you go: I don't support Bush's record of social spending.

Thats a conservative stance, any liberal stances?

Thats a conservative stance, any liberal stances?

OK, sure. I'm against the death penalty. Now I really am signing off :-)