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".

The United States is a mighty large country and yet you folks have a choice of only two parties. This means that there will be a wide variance in the personal ideologies, intellects, ambitions and desires between Republicans. Republicans should not, indeed must not be tarred with the same brush. Of course the same logic applies to Democrats, Christians, Muslims, Catholics, atheists, feminists, whatever.... In fact I suspect that when it comes to voting time it is likely that many of you hold your nose and reluctantly vote for the party of your choice believing only that it may be the lesser of two evils.

This being said, it is my opinion that the reign of mini-Bush was pretty much a disaster. He put a corrupt man into the office of the Attorney-General. Under his rule your constitutional rights to privacy, etc have been eroded. He pushed a man of dubious ethics into heading up the IMF. He led your country into a costly no-win war with Iraq when it was already known that no WMDs were found in that country and that, moreover, Saddam was hostile to Islamic fundamentalists. The results of this last stunt have been disasterous: he has all but destroyed the only country capable of keeping fundamentalist Iran occupied in local wars; he has engaged in a fruitless war which is causing your country to hemmorhage money to the tune of trillions; he made this decision unilaterally and in doing so alienated America from many of her traditional allies. This man has often displayed himself as being stupid, woefully ill-informed, and arrogant.

You must understand that much of what political figures say is written for them by professional speech writers. What we hear is a combination of the marriage of spin doctors and those writers. Talk is always merely talk. But even when George II talks he does appear to be a little on the dim side though definitely a fun cat to hang with. (I know that I would much prefer hanging with the Dubya than with Hillary or Obama. Representing my country is an entirely different matter.)

Now, I am not dissing the man nor his regime simply because he is Republican. I am dissing him because he was and is unprofessional and unfit for the job. A cat like Mitt Romney would do a splendid job. It is likely that McCain will do a fine job.

It is for this reason that I find it impossible to take seriously any commentaries made or inniatives taken by the Bushites concerning the greening of America, conservation of fossil fuels, etc. You will note, by the way, that Bush started talking green only after his popularity plummeted in the polls and Nancy Pelosi and her gang of Demos won in the half-term elections.

Sorry Green, and believe me, I like you and respect you greatly and have told you before that I LOVE your debating style. but can't agree ..... I posted a list of things that I believe our president has done right, and it's pretty much the opposite of what you said in this post, but since you feel the way you feel about George Bush, I will expect that you wouldn't agree with that list or my ideas either, and I can understand that, we all see things from a different point of view and often the way we feel is related to our own personal experiences and background, I won't say that George Bush is perfect and has done everything perfectly and has never made a mistake, of course not, he is human, democrats and republicans have made plenty of mistakes in the past, but I do agree with many of his work while he has been in the White House, the green issue, he could've done more, maybe so, but many here in American are not too much into the green thing, at least not yet, others say they are, but don't practice it, many hypocrites preaching it and not practicing it, in any case, I think we will just have to agree to disagree...

The reason it is relatively easy for me to paint one party and one person with the same brush is because without the power of the Republican party behind George W, he would not have any power at all. The party stalwarts pretty much run things behind the scene and that's a fact. What that means to you and me is that we get whatever they dish out regardless of what George W. personally believes. So I get nauseous when anyone praises him for doing one thing or another. Particularly when much of what good is said about him is put out by spin doctors - and if it's the only "news" a person listens to, often because it is what makes us feel comfortable and secure, we buy it hook, line and sinker.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if John McCain were to be elected, he would have much more power over the party and would have much more input on which direction the party takes on most issues. That is one reason why so many Republican bigwigs are unhappy with John McCain as their candidate. He doesn't appear to be the "yes man" that George W has been. Now for me, that would be a welcome change, unless and of course, what John McCain decides as the "decider", is as bad for the country as what the Republicans have been for the past 7 years.

I think that a more moderate approach is called for from the person who holds the office of president. I believe that all citizens should be able to rely on their government for some semblance of fairness and truth. Of course, I am still probably too naive for the game.

P.S. You go, green.

By the way, I oh so totally get the hypocrisy lodged in that appalling disparity displayed between talk and walk to which we are treated by the Rich&Famous. Cranky Green is often left thinking oh gimme a forkin break and shaddup, eh! I can understand your irritation. In fact on my personal blog I have a thread which is titled Green hates Bono and many other celebrities.

Thank you Green! I totally agree with that! it makes me mad:cursing:

I will also admit that while I do care about the environment and do attempt to do my bit whenever possible, I live in Canada and this will mean heat in the winter and A/C in the summer. It also means imported fresh vegies throughout much of the year, and these sure do leave a hefty carbon footprint. I am a fresh produce freak. These are my personal sins against the environment.

In the plus side of the ledger, because I live in a large city with great public transit I do not drive (in fact I do not know how to drive!): I either walk or take the subway. I never bothered having kids and so no diapers, etc. Even though I live in chilly Canada I live in the core of a large city and the city produces a warmer micro-climate which means that I use less fuel to heat my house. (On the other hand I am forced to go nuts with A/C usuage throughout our appallingly hot, humid and polluted summers.) I also live in a city which is very serious about recycling and which has in place an extremely elaborate garbage collection system as a result. But long before that I was saving my kitchen waste in order to plow this into my backyard.

For years now whenever the mate and I have done our grocery shopping we've been bringing with us our own "luggage:" that is to say that we don't like to use the store bags.

So that is the story of my crappy little boring carbon profile and my attempts to take care of business. We all have our own personal carbon profiles but there will be areas which lie outside our own best abilities to control our own carbon footprints should we wish to do so.

It strikes me that one of the major issues is our need of energy. When I was young electricity in my home was cheap. This was because we were getting all our hydro-electric energy needs from Niagara Falls. Now, sadly, there is no longer enough to go around and my province is facing an on-going energy crisis. It is thus still reliant on a few of its coal burning generators. These are very, very dirty and the province had hoped to be able to retire these monsters.

One of the major pigs when it comes to consuming fossil fuels and polluting the environment is personal transportation. A major downside to owning a vehicle is that they are expensive to buy and to maintain and to run. Yet people need to get to work, shop, and visit friends and family. It seems to me that two iniatives are needed here: 1) the development of vehicles which are more fuel efficient and more environmentally friendly and 2) when it comes to white collar work the practice of working from home, e-commuting in other words, should become much more in the way of the norm. Perhaps the government could provide tax incentives to those businesses which encourage e-commuting and to those individuals who buy the greener vehicles.

And there are sumptuary taxes, too. You may know these as sin taxes, and, yes, these are most likely to appear on booze and smokes. But the notion of sumptuary is a little more complicated. For a long time perfume was heavily taxed in some countries for it was regarded as being a frivolous pleasure. Think of sumptuary as equating with luxury. I have gone into this tedious explanation in order to prepare you for the approach which my provincial government had chosen to take with respect to the purchase of muscle/high performance sports cars. We can buy 'em but we will be hit with an extra tithe.

Now wait just a darned minute there, Green! Are you talking about me giving up not only my beautiful car, but also my perfume? Are you outa your frickin' bird? Let's get back to talking about saving the whales, umkay?

By the way, I oh so totally get the hypocrisy lodged in that appalling disparity displayed between talk and walk to which we are treated by the Rich&Famous. Cranky Green is often left thinking oh gimme a forkin break and shaddup, eh! I can understand your irritation. In fact on my personal blog I have a thread which is titled Green hates Bono and many other celebrities.

My dear brother is an environmentalist wacko. Donates to Greenpeace, buys into it hook, line, and sinker. BUT when his daughters were babies, he used disposable diapers. Why? Because they were easier.

It's so easy to point fingers except when it comes to our own convenience.

The reason it is relatively easy for me to paint one party and one person with the same brush is because without the power of the Republican party behind George W, he would not have any power at all. The party stalwarts pretty much run things behind the scene and that's a fact. What that means to you and me is that we get whatever they dish out regardless of what George W. personally believes. So I get nauseous when anyone praises him for doing one thing or another. Particularly when much of what good is said about him is put out by spin doctors - and if it's the only "news" a person listens to, often because it is what makes us feel comfortable and secure, we buy it hook, line and sinker.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if John McCain were to be elected, he would have much more power over the party and would have much more input on which direction the party takes on most issues. That is one reason why so many Republican bigwigs are unhappy with John McCain as their candidate. He doesn't appear to be the "yes man" that George W has been. Now for me, that would be a welcome change, unless and of course, what John McCain decides as the "decider", is as bad for the country as what the Republicans have been for the past 7 years.

I think that a more moderate approach is called for from the person who holds the office of president. I believe that all citizens should be able to rely on their government for some semblance of fairness and truth. Of course, I am still probably too naive for the game.

P.S. You go, green.

In my own country there is a very big difference - in fact a gulf - between those who are strictly economic conservatives and those who are social conservatives. It strikes me that in the past conservatism was primarily linked to economics and to social issues only in so far as these are linked to the economy. In other words, that is to say that economic conservatives had no official comment at all on one's chosen life style provided that this did not include a reliance on welfare, public health resources, or include a vigorous adherence to pro-union practices. Old style conservatives were comfortable with us choosing our own lifestyles provided that our choices did not cost the taxpayer any money nor infringe upon the money making machines of commerce.

The new style of conservatism is quite different. These are the folks who are anxious to foist their own moral and aesthetic judgements upon all others. These are the folk who are concerned with what we read, what we watch, and how we think. These are people who do seek to control lifestyle. This desire is almost inevitably tethered to religious belief.

In Canada social conservatism is not popular. South of the border it is obviously very persuasive.

Now wait just a darned minute there, Green! Are you talking about me giving up not only my beautiful car, but also my perfume? Are you outa your frickin' bird? Let's get back to talking about saving the whales, umkay?

Um, Green is a major freak about perfume, eh. And she likes klassy stuff. Chanel, Boucheron, Ricci, Armani are but 4 of her personal faves when it comes to perfumes. She finds Hermes to be dire, however.

I was simply remarking that I remember when Canada imposed big sumptuary taxes on perfumes. This was when I was a tiny child by the way.

My dear brother is an environmentalist wacko. Donates to Greenpeace, buys into it hook, line, and sinker. BUT when his daughters were babies, he used disposable diapers. Why? Because they were easier.

It's so easy to point fingers except when it comes to our own convenience.

I remember reading somewhere years ago that a baby will go through roughly 15,000 diapers before it is house trained. That is a lot of diapers whether you toss 'em or buy, wash, disinfect, dry, and reuse 'em. Either choice will involve energy and if you opt for the second choice this will involve a time commitment as well.

You also run the risk of having a home which smells like a latrine. When I was a child I used to detest being dragged to the homes of those families who were recently blessed. Those houses stank! (Perhaps this is yet another reason why I was so vividly against having a baby of my own, eh.)

Anyhow, my city has done something about this. All used diapers, sanitary products, used Kleenex, used kitty litter will be recycled along with the usual kitchen waste.

The point which I was seeking to make in my above posts is that none of can, no matter how committed we are to our environment, solve certain problems for these are larger and will require the engagement of business and corporations. The recycling of used diapers which takes place in my city is an example which illustrates my point.

And, yep, you cannot ask folks to give up their tools without offering them alternatives. The simple truth is that most of the folks in Canada and the United States are car dependent. Most folks do not live in the cores of large transit friendly cities and thus they will need their cars. The trick is to find ways of producing cleaner, more fuel efficient vehicles. The other trick is to find ways to cut down on car use. The most obvious one is the work commute; and many office folks could e-commute.

My dear brother is an environmentalist wacko. Donates to Greenpeace, buys into it hook, line, and sinker. BUT when his daughters were babies, he used disposable diapers. Why? Because they were easier.

It's so easy to point fingers except when it comes to our own convenience.

Funny post, Gadget, because it is so, so true! Ya find the same kind of dichotomy in the animal rights movement. You find folks who are strictly vegan and yet who are wearing leather shoes, belt, and jacket. I was, by the way, a major contributor to an animal rights website even though I secretly eat meat. But not on a regular basis, eh.

To tell you the truth, this is the problem which I always have whenever I am faced with those folks who are wholly committed to a dogma, any dogma. While it is true that I have my own standards and this means that I am inclined to view some beliefs as being much more right than others, it also means that I view my experience of this world as one continuous learning curve. A too close adherence to any one belief system, whatever this may be, will inevitably block the adherent from receiving and processing information from other quarters. Not only does this handicap the receiver from learning new stuff, it also blocks the recipient from engaging in the on-going fun of learning.

Perhaps it is a pretty cool thing that your bro has been opting to use the throw-away diapers. This un-green activity of his may permit you to engage in an open discussion about the real day to day complexities of maintaining environmentally correct practices.

Perhaps it is a pretty cool thing that your bro has been opting to use the throw-away diapers. This un-green activity of his may permit you to engage in an open discussion about the real day to day complexities of maintaining environmentally correct practices.

I wish it were. He's the First Born (caps intended) and knows more than anyone. So he dismisses his hypocrisy with a shrug, not to be discussed. I don't bother trying anymore.

I remember reading somewhere years ago that a baby will go through roughly 15,000 diapers before it is house trained. That is a lot of diapers whether you toss 'em or buy, wash, disinfect, dry, and reuse 'em. Either choice will involve energy and if you opt for the second choice this will involve a time commitment as well.

You also run the risk of having a home which smells like a latrine. When I was a child I used to detest being dragged to the homes of those families who were recently blessed. Those houses stank! (Perhaps this is yet another reason why I was so vividly against having a baby of my own, eh.)

Anyhow, my city has done something about this. All used diapers, sanitary products, used Kleenex, used kitty litter will be recycled along with the usual kitchen waste.

The point which I was seeking to make in my above posts is that none of can, no matter how committed we are to our environment, solve certain problems for these are larger and will require the engagement of business and corporations. The recycling of used diapers which takes place in my city is an example which illustrates my point.

And, yep, you cannot ask folks to give up their tools without offering them alternatives. The simple truth is that most of the folks in Canada and the United States are car dependent. Most folks do not live in the cores of large transit friendly cities and thus they will need their cars. The trick is to find ways of producing cleaner, more fuel efficient vehicles. The other trick is to find ways to cut down on car use. The most obvious one is the work commute; and many office folks could e-commute.

Sooooo untrue of modern cloth diapers. Just so untrue. Hemp is naturally antimicrobial and antibacterial, it is less environmentally detrimental than cotton to grow. Dry pailing does not smell. Solid waste goes into the toilet where it belongs, not into the rubbish bin and landfill. Wet diapers just get pailed. Twice, three times a week, a cold wash with an environmentally friendly detergent and maybe some bicarband hang them on the line to dry. There is simply no competition with disposables as to which is more detrimental to the environment.

There is no need for wet pails full of special soaking water and without the filthy water, there is no smell. And funnily enough, when babies do poo, it doesnt stink the room out in a cloth diaper like it does in a sposie.

Disposable diaper recycling is in place here too and its a good move, because lets face it, we all do fall back on convenience items at times.

And ladies, you ought to try non disposable menstrual items. Once you get your head around the ick factor and actually try it you'll never go back.

I'm of the opinion that we each have to do our bit and we all contribute some ways and fall short in others, nobody is perfect. But the world of cloth diapering is amazing now, those old misconceptions need to be thrown out with the dirty pail water!

And ladies, you ought to try non disposable menstrual items. Once you get your head around the ick factor and actually try it you'll never go back.

I just have one thing to say. ICK! I will never get beyond the ick factor.

The point which I was seeking to make in my above posts is that none of can, no matter how committed we are to our environment, solve certain problems for these are larger and will require the engagement of business and corporations.

And, yep, you cannot ask folks to give up their tools without offering them alternatives. The simple truth is that most of the folks in Canada and the United States are car dependent. Most folks do not live in the cores of large transit friendly cities and thus they will need their cars. The trick is to find ways of producing cleaner, more fuel efficient vehicles. The other trick is to find ways to cut down on car use. The most obvious one is the work commute; and many office folks could e-commute.

The first point - yes, totally, exactly. Everyone can do their part, but big business are big polluters, and they need to do THEIR part (their huge part)

The second point - New York, London, Paris, what a way to live. You walk down to the corner (or take a quick tube) to a fresh market every day for your meals, for entertainment, for everything. There's no reason to have a car. But pretty much anywhere in America biking is just not going to happen.

And ladies, you ought to try non disposable menstrual items. Once you get your head around the ick factor and actually try it you'll never go back.

If I ever have another baby, you and me have sooooo gotta have a talk about diapers - which ones to buy, how to clean them, etc, etc. You are one green mama!

I'm trying to get past the ick factor. Now, tell me more. What products do you use? I'll check them out.

Oh, and about the baby poo thing - if you breastfeed the poo actually doesn't stink near as bad as if you bottle feed.