Environmental Friend or Foe?

[frank462]

The Story of Two Houses - Look over the descriptions of the following
two houses and see if you can tell which one 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.


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 about in the New York Times or
the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient
truth."


.

 

[Ranillon]

So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON'T
hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or
the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient
truth."

How is your post anything but a rather obvious ad hominem attack, especially since your clear implicitation is by this to impugn environmentalism (and the news) as a movement? This not only just tells one side of the story, but only a small sliver of that.

Are we supposed to think from this that Al Gore is somehow an anti-enviromental scourge and George Bush its best champion? You conveniently forget that Al Gore uses Carbon offsets to compensate for any waste his activities otherwise generate (although the effectiveness of this is admittedly debatable).

But, even if we assume everything you say here is correct and there is no justification that still hardly illustrates the whole picture. Add in all their activities and clearly Al Gore has done far more to promote good environmentalism than George Bush. Even if his efforts are less than (or even far less than) perfect, they are nothing compared to the policies of the Bush Administration. At least Al Gore acknowledges the problem and argues we need to do something about it. Bush and friends have a hard time even admitting there are problems and whether anything should be done about it even if so.

But, sensational and emotionalized "comparisons" like this are disingenuous no matter who is giving them -- even if things were reversed and it was an environmentalist using Bush's abode to argue he was a "bad" man. Who cares? Science and environmentalism is ultimately about evidence and facts, not referendums on someone's moral character or lack thereof. Posts like these are just meant to stir angry, partisan debates, not useful discussions over how to make a better world for all of us.

 

[Earthborn]

I did not know Al Gore is a film maker. Does anyone know which films he directed/produced ?

 

[brodski]

1) What is the energy usage per person of each household?

2) When was each dwelling built, and what were the energy requirements for construction verses energy efficiency over the lifetime of the dwelling- in otherworld what would save more energy, demolishing the existing 20 story mansion and rebuilding an “EcoHome”, or continuing to use the mansion until the end of its serviceable life, and then replacing it with an “EcoHome”?


The first is a 20 bedroom dwelling the latter only a four bedroom dwelling, you’re comparing oranges and cumquats.
Without the information I have asked for your OP is meaningless.
It may be that you are doing the equivalent of lambasting an air traveller for choosing to fly on a commercial 747 rather than on a private leer jet, because it takes much more fuel to move a 747 from one place to another, whilst not taking into the fact that far more people fit onto a 747 than onto a leer. Or perhaps criticize people who ride the bus because a double-decker uses much more fuel than a 4X4 “SUV”.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

I did not know Al Gore is a film maker. Does anyone know which films he directed/produced ?

He guest-starred in an episode of Futurama.

Everything I need to know in life, I've learned from cartoons.

 

[jdhammer]

God, it's like a brain disease that's spreading on the politics board.....

So what's your point, Frank? Are you just going to "conveniently" ignore the fact that Al Gore pays a lot of money to offset his CO2 emissions? Do you think that, being the ex-vice president of the United States of America he should be living a life of poverty?

Should we ignore global warming because you think Al Gore has a big house? That sounds reasonable. Maybe I'll beat up a homeless man today because it's windy outside today.

You're just being a ***** disturber, obviously. Anyone who would call Bush more environmentally friendly than Gore is seriously, seriously mentally ill (I mean that, I really do).

 

[frank462]

--snip
You conveniently forget that Al Gore uses Carbon offsets to compensate for any waste his activities otherwise generate (although the effectiveness of this is admittedly debatable).
--snip

Carbon credits? You mean like these things?

Carbon Credits Fraud

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits

 

[frank462]

1) What is the energy usage per person of each household?

2) When was each dwelling built, and what were the energy requirements for construction verses energy efficiency over the lifetime of the dwelling- in otherworld what would save more energy, demolishing the existing 20 story mansion and rebuilding an “EcoHome”, or continuing to use the mansion until the end of its serviceable life, and then replacing it with an “EcoHome”?


The first is a 20 bedroom dwelling the latter only a four bedroom dwelling, you’re comparing oranges and cumquats.
Without the information I have asked for your OP is meaningless.
It may be that you are doing the equivalent of lambasting an air traveller for choosing to fly on a commercial 747 rather than on a private leer jet, because it takes much more fuel to move a 747 from one place to another, whilst not taking into the fact that far more people fit onto a 747 than onto a leer. Or perhaps criticize people who ride the bus because a double-decker uses much more fuel than a 4X4 “SUV”.

Let me introduce you to a term you might not be familiar with:

RETROFIT
TRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To provide (a jet, automobile, computer, or factory, for example) with parts, devices, or equipment not in existence or available at the time of original manufacture. 2. To install or fit (a device or system, for example) for use in or on an existing structure, especially an older dwelling.
INTRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To fit into or onto equipment already in existence or service. 2. To substitute new or modernized parts or systems for older equipment: an industrial plant that was retrofitting to meet new safety regulations.
NOUN: 1. Something that has been retrofitted or that has undergone retrofitting. 2. An instance of modernizing or expanding with new or modified parts, devices, systems, or equipment: a retrofit for the heating system.
ADJECTIVE: Relating to or being a retrofit: a retrofit kit for the homeowner; an energy-saving retrofit program; a large retrofit market.

 

[jdhammer]

Carbon credits? You mean like these things?

Carbon Credits Fraud

Again, your ignorance is showing......

Yes, there is a problem with a lot of carbon offset providers - This is because Joe Six-Pack has started setting up his own website and offering "offsets" when he has no idea what he's doing.

There are several legitimate offset companies out there. Native Energy is one of the best ones. The concept is not difficult - Your money is used to invest in renewable energy projects which will themselves prevent future CO2 from being emitted. All you have to do is do your homework to make sure you're buying from a legitimate company.

Al Gore deals with a legitimate company for his carbon dioxide offsets.



Again, I ask you, what's your point? You've blatantly attacked Al Gore, provided an article that is accurate (but you misinterpreted).....what next? What's your stance on global warming?

 

[Ranillon]

Carbon credits? You mean like these things?

One, posting a single critical comment about Carbon Credits does not a convincing argument make, especially when there are links to both sides of the debate. For example:
Al Gore's Electric Bill, Carbon Credits, and A Lesson In Economics.

But, as I said one can argue as to whether Emissions Trading is a the best solution available (it's worth pointing out that it does, as many Gore critics seem to miss, represent a free market approach to the problem). However, you can't then justify leaping to the sort of convenient and misrepresentative implication as you do. You are, in short, offering the shame deceptive sort of story that you accuse Gore of providing.

Two, you never did comment about the larger issues I brought up in my first post. Going to?

 

[frank462]

One, posting a single critical comment about Carbon Credits does not a convincing argument make, especially when there are links to both sides of the debate. For example:
Al Gore's Electric Bill, Carbon Credits, and A Lesson In Economics.

But, as I said one can argue as to whether Emissions Trading is a the best solution available (it's worth pointing out that it does, as many Gore critics seem to miss, represent a free market approach to the problem). However, you can't then justify leaping to the sort of convenient and misrepresentative implication as you do. You are, in short, offering the shame deceptive sort of story that you accuse Gore of providing.

Two, you never did comment about the larger issues I brought up in my first post. Going to?

You are partially correct. It was an ad hominem attack on Gore and network news providers. It was not an attack on environmentalism. I am a supporter of good sound conservation and environmental policies.

As far as your statement that Gore has done more for environmentalism, I disagree. Check the link below.

The Environment

Science and environmentalism is ultimately about evidence and facts, not referendums on someone's moral character or lack thereof. Posts like these are just meant to stir angry, partisan debates, not useful discussions over how to make a better world for all of us.

You got me! I am mischievous at times. I knew I would be "stirring the pot" a little but I did it anyway. I hope to see a similar response from you when the other side posts ad hominem stuff.

 

[Ranillon]

As far as your statement that Gore has done more for environmentalism, I disagree. Check the link below.

Before I answer I have to ask: Are you kidding? Is this more mischievousness?

 

[frank462]

Before I answer I have to ask: Are you kidding? Is this more mischievousness?

I gave you a resource. It's up to you if you accept or reject it. At least I gave you one. All you gave me was your statement that Gore did more. I am not sure what type of scale should be used to weight the evidence on both sides. There is also the problem of separating out the BS that will invariably come from both sides.

 

[brodski]

Let me introduce you to a term you might not be familiar with:

RETROFIT

Ok, and what energy saving measures should gore have installed that he hasn't?

What is the energy cost of those measures as compared the energy requried to implement them?

Come on, if you're hammering gore for this, you must have some idea of what he is actually doing wrong and how he could do better, unless you are just engaged in some kind of partisan mental masturbation.

So come on then, spill the beans....

 

[frank462]

Ok, and what energy saving measures should gore have installed that he hasn't?

What is the energy cost of those measures as compared the energy requried to implement them?

Come on, if you're hammering gore for this, you must have some idea of what he is actually doing wrong and how he could do better, unless you are just engaged in some kind of partisan mental masturbation.

So come on then, spill the beans....

Regarding "mental mastubation", you are the champ. I am not even a contender.

 

[jdhammer]

As far as your statement that Gore has done more for environmentalism, I disagree. Check the link below.

The Environment

Funny.....I'm pretty sure that if Al Gore didn't do what he's doing, these "green" efforts by the white house wouldn't even exist.

The Bush Administration is bending in a direction they don't want to go, but have to. I think that's plainly obvious to just about anyone.

 

[brodski]

Regarding "mental mastubation", you are the champ. I am not even a contender.

Are you actually interested in discussing your claim in the OP, or are you just looking for an argument?

 

[a_unique_person]

Natural gas for heating is a relatively benign source of CO2, compared to heating oil, coal or fossil fuel powered electricity.

Having said all that, what does that have to do with the science behind global warming.

 

[fuelair]

What amazes me is that given whatever above, nothing changes the point that Gore has a brain which he uses while Bush is a rectum.
Sometimetimes it helps to simplify these things.

 

[andyandy]

Having said all that, what does that have to do with the science behind global warming.

it has anything to do with the science behind AGW - but is somewhat indicative of the realities of the response to AGW