Little known Facts

[eagle 0]

It is now 20:33 hrs.(8:33 p.m. CST)here...I have just finished watching (NBC) Ann in a brief interview with Al Gore,at the Aforementioned concert ..which is going on right now broadcasted world wide.

 

This in itself is probably as interesting breaking news as watching grass grow to some of you,There is one little catch I thought is absolutely necessary to share with you all,..I am reffering to an article published in a local magazine(you may want to check it out... WWW.dixielivingmagazine.com)..the article was submitted by Margaret Ann Hall.

 

"Who would have thunk it",as follows:

 

Look over the descriptions of the following two houses and see if you can tell which belongs to someone who says he's 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 seperate 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/is a fossil fuel),this property consumes more than 20 times the Nationial average for an American home. This house is not in a northen or midwestern"snow belt," either.it's in the south.

 

HOUSE#2:

Designed by a professor of architecture at a leading nationial 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 a a arid high prarie 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 conventionial 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 guzziling mansion) is outside of Nashville,Tennessee. It is the abode of that reknowed envionmentalist (and film maker) 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.

 

Now this posting is not politically motivated...you all know me better than that,I just find it a wee bit too "Ludicrus" to stand on a stage in front of literally the entire world,including Ann Currie and talk about the effects of global warming/energy conservation when you DO NOT practice what you preach,or as we say in the south..."Talking out of both sides of your mouth",let me hear your opinions,and by all means visit the website of our little local magazine...you may get a refreshing breath of honest,no double talk,air,..and quite possibly have some fun :)

[Greg Nirvana 0]

Wow, what a hypocrite, I always thought something was wrong with that guy. At first i thought it was his hair. Then I thought it was that he wasn't thinking of running until Dicaprio mentioned at awards, and yet there is a website called votegore2008 dot com.

[eagle 0]

Makes ya go Hmmmm...wonder what the various groups/artist,and supporters would say about this little known fact...you guys be the judge.. :)

[Greg Nirvana 0]

Makes ya go Hmmmm...wonder what the various groups/artist,and supporters would say about this little known fact...you guys be the judge.. :)

 

I just dont like that Bush has an eco friendly house. I hate bush. THat scares me.

[V'Roy 0]

I saw An Inconvenient Truth. Although I think the "science" behind it is wrong, it wasn't the Republican-bashing I thought it would be. Gore said that just as much damage to the environment was done during the Clinton administration as the Reagan administration, and he did point out that the ozone holes are fixing themselves.

 

But still, it irks me when someone doesn't practice what they preach.

[Guest STSF Lebowski]

Now, just to be fair, let's consider a few things about this article. First of all.. this seems to me to be political. It obviously tries to say that Gore's house is evil and bad, and that Bush's house is good. As with most things like this, they pick which details to include about both sides. Now, I may be playing devils advocate.. there may not be anything important left out. But we don't know that there isn't, especially with the emphasis on big numbers in the first house and the emphasis on harmonious terminology in the second. It doesn't say how many people live in the houses... it doesn't say if these people own other houses.. it doesn't mention any possible expenditures for maintaining the "surrounding rural landscape." Again, I'm not saying that the comparison is wrong... I'm just saying, don't jump down Gore's throat based on a biased description.

 

Also, by the way, natural gas is, in fact, a lot better than most other fuel sources.

 

Take a look at http://www.naturalgas.org/environment/natu...as.asp#emission

and you'll see that with emissions such as "Sulfur Dioxides", 20 times as much spent fuel is still 1/100th the emissions. See? I just picked the best looking statistic for my point, but it's not the only statistic. You never know when someone else is doing the same thing! :)

[Col. C.E. Harper 0]

Now, just to be fair, let's consider a few things about this article. First of all.. this seems to me to be political. It obviously tries to say that Gore's house is evil and bad, and that Bush's house is good. As with most things like this, they pick which details to include about both sides. Now, I may be playing devils advocate.. there may not be anything important left out. But we don't know that there isn't, especially with the emphasis on big numbers in the first house and the emphasis on harmonious terminology in the second. It doesn't say how many people live in the houses... it doesn't say if these people own other houses.. it doesn't mention any possible expenditures for maintaining the "surrounding rural landscape." Again, I'm not saying that the comparison is wrong... I'm just saying, don't jump down Gore's throat based on a biased description.

 

Snopes has a piece on it. (Gotta love Snopes!) http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp The numbers are a bit exaggerated, though the basis is there. The Gore family does take steps to reduce the impact of their energy usage. And I'd love to see the stats on the other residences of the Bush family.

 

Should Gore walk the walk better? Yeah, probably. But he's doing more to reduce damage to the environment than most of the rich in America. In any event, the impact of one family's usage pales in comparison to the impact of corporate usage... and Bush's record on instituting eco-friendly regulations on corporations is horrendous.

[eagle 0]

As stated previously...the post(mine) is not politically motivated...just an accumilation of various submissions to the afore mentioned magazine.

 

That being said...the entire reason/logic behind the post was to point out the grave differences of what one projects(publically) and in fact portrays a whole different way of life..((ergo my personal comment of talking out of both sides of your mouth))...not intended as a hate Gore campaign ...just an interesting observation :)

[STSF NDak 0]

Gore also pays *extra* for green energy. There's nothing wrong with owning a 20-room house that you've spent millions in retrofitting into a more eco-friendly house, including adding solar panels. Gore also flies on regular planes now and drives hybrid cars. Could he do more, of course, we could, But he is doing more than most people are and trying raise awareness.

 

If you're going to bash someone, doing a little research in the future might be effective.

[Greg Nirvana 0]

Gore also flies on regular planes now and drives hybrid cars.

 

 

I heard that he just bought that to show off and he hasn't used it since h bought it.

[STSF Corizon 0]

Hybrids? Thats all he and his wife drive, they each have hybrid Mercury SUV's, which are as ecofriendly as a Prius, which his children drive.

[Greg Nirvana 0]

Hybrids? Thats all he and his wife drive, they each have hybrid Mercury SUV's, which are as ecofriendly as a Prius, which his children drive.

 

I heard all he did was fancy-ishly announced he was gonna buy his entire family hybrids, and stuff.

[Kansas_Jones 0]

Have you ever noticed that no matter what a person subjected to the public eye does or doesn't do - they are still damned if they do, and damned if they don't?

 

Not an easy line to walk. Then again, it is their choice to do so come what may.

[Greg Nirvana 0]

Have you ever noticed that no matter what a person subjected to the public eye does or doesn't do - they are still damned if they do, and damned if they don't?

 

Not an easy line to walk. Then again, it is their choice to do so come what may.

 

Yup. They don't have to be celebrities/public speakers. They simply choose to be.

[STSF Corizon 0]

As I said he actually does drive them though...

 

And since his son was recently pulled over while driving his :)

[Dox Maturin 0]

Gore's kids do drive Prius', but no one mentioned the hybrid drive doesn't work effeciently driving 100mph while intoxicated.

[eagle 0]

OK....ALRIGHTY THEN...As was previously noted...this post was not originally intended,posted,or in any means meant to be construed as either political,..or personal,it was submitted in the basic spirit of journalism...to provide an alternative to the main stream of thinking(Just for the record,and personal....the world is way too full of brainwashed yes sirs..

just a personal observation...) When we STOP asking questions,pointing out obvious wrongs(and that includes the majority of the public opinion),we are moving towards a world standard that I "personally" do not wish to be a "qualified" participant in.

 

Please let it suffice to say the post was unambigious,non-threatening,and definitely non personal in matter/substance,quite the contrary.....and if some noted STSF represenatives have taken it as a negative article... I truly regret it, As well as the research was of a thorough nature,not by just the magazine mentioned,but the library of congress as well ...a simple matter of " public right to information"...of the year of 1993...look it up for yourselves,and by no way am I affiliating myself to any/all political parties.....this was an attempt to make the gen.populace pause and just "think Hmmm",the research is well founded btw...Thank You.. :)

[Grom 0]

I think that any ideas that enter the political arena ought to be considered carefully. If those ideas hold out, they will eventually become policies, and policies affect many areas of our lives. Al Gore can do as he wishes, even if it means he's a hypocrite in some people's eyes. What I'm more concerned about is the policies that may result of well-meaning goals. Promoting personal stewardship and responsibility would go a lot farther than forcing "the rich" and "corporate America" to conform to environmental science-driven regulations, which can change as often as the direction of the wind. Promoting personal stewardship over burdensome government regulation would lessen the politicization that current environmental policy suffers from.

 

Edit: I couldn't help but posting this: http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2627 (Note: This is a satire piece by one of the few great satirists out there)

[Cptn Corizon 0]

And Al Gore hasn't challenged people to be more environmentally friendly? That was *the whole point* of AIT.

[Travis Kroells 0]

"Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it."

 

Yes but at the rate we're being fruitful, and subduing the Earth there soon wont be one left to subdue. I just don't see how anyone can't look at the hard numbers and understand that we are killing our planet. I enjoyed an inconvienient truth the most because it wasn't a "Republican's suck" movie. We're all responsible for this planet, and it's future.

 

We're the only species on the planet with the intelect, and ability to radically alter our mother Earth, and hence it is our responsiblity to protect it for future generations. Global warming shouldn't be a political issue, it should be a personal issue. I can't stand how people pass it off as being a "Liberal" thing. I don't believe in global warming because I'm liberal, I hate Bush, or that I think people drilling for oil are "bad men" I believe in global warming because I've seen the numbers, and I live in an area where I could remember blizzards in October, and now we're lucky to get one or two good snowfalls a year.

 

We are killing our planet, and for everyone that doesn't believe, or wants to wait to see the outcome know that there will be a point where we can't turn back, and we might live to see the end of our world.

[HyperDrive 0]

I've been living in Munich for the last five weeks, and when it comes to pollution and being eco-friendly, there is no comparison between here and Louisville, KY.

 

I'd first like to mention trash, recycling, and so on. All German households must recycle. They take plastic bottles back to the store, and receive a deposit for them. They seperate plastic, paper, biodegradible from their trash. The biotrash is, essencially, buried in the backyard. No problems. The paper and plastics are taken to recycling nodes, where most will get deposits back for them (usually only fifteen cents or so, but this becomes a couple of Euros pretty fast). The "other" trash is collected once a week, but the garbage collectors will only take one can of predetermined size.

 

Now, the reason this is done here, primarily, is because the inner-European countries don't have enough room for dumps or any other mass collections of garbage. A side effect of this, of course, is that they do not waste as much recyclable material. (As a side note, Germany does not have trash cans on street corners. They have bins that are divided into three sections: paper, plastic, and everything else. This requires no extra effort on the part of the person throwing something away, and helps the environment. It makes perfect sense to have these in the States, too.)

 

The problem in America is that we have no self-sustaining reason to actually do this. We have plenty of room for landfills, and it requires much less effort just to throw things away. However, this requires more plastics and papers to be produced. Production of these materials adds to air pollution, while not recycling these materials leads to wasting and ground pollution. Personally, I think recycling in the US should be further endorsed, but it is not anywhere near the top of the campaign list.

 

The campaign list, of course, has more to do with topics of global warming, so on and so forth. While I don't agree with a good portion of science in AIC, the fact is, it is still air pollution that is dangerous to our environment (and ourselves). The reason the US gets such a bad wrap for this is because, basically, we drive everywhere, and we have lax environmental standards. People in other countries ride bikes, or use more public transportation.

 

Ok, so why don't Americans use more public transportation? Simple. America doesn't have sophisticated public transportation systems. Large cities have subway systems, but these often don't travel as far out of the city as needed, and it is more convenient for a person to drive than wait 15 minutes for the next bus or train. And, as for public transportation, other countries can use trains. America is far to large to use trains to really get anywhere in a decent amount of time, so that possibility is completely out. (Especially if a train from NYC to Chicago takes 15 hours for $100, and a flight takes about 1 hour and costs $60.)

 

As for bikes, well, they're just insanely dangerous. We don't have bike routes in most cities. For that matter, riding a motorcycle is becoming more and more dangerous, because drivers don't look out for them. The same holds true for bikes, and I for one do not want to risk getting killed on a bike by a driver not paying attention. And, I will freely admit that I would, put simply, rather drive myself. I can work on my own schedule, and get back to life much quicker. (I couldn't count the hours of my life I have wasted, in only five weeks, while waiting for an S-Bahn to come to my suburb.)

 

So, what is this entire post trying to emphasize? Americans don't have any other means of travel, so we must use cars. Also, Americans have no reason, other than the environment, to recycle. And lastly, energy and gas here are cheap, so money is not an issue in conserving energy.

 

It comes down to, then, our government. For America to ever actually be successful in helping the environment, the government must start, essentially, forcing people to do it. The growing number of activists in the States already recycle and conserve, so it wouldn't be an issue for them. However, many people who don't conserve go through a lot of power, and waste a lot. Even a small, simple mandate, such restricting the number of trash cans you can set out every week, would be incredibly effective. This would force people to start recycling more, because they wouldn't have any other way of getting rid of it (except burning, which is illegal in most populated areas for obvious health concerns). And, naturally, raising the prices of electricity and natural gas, but that wouldn't be neccessary if people would simply concerve what they have. (For comparison, a gallon of fuel in Munich runs about $7.00 a gallon, and electricity is about double the price per watt as it is in the US.) In America, if gasoline prices rise, we'll pay for it anyway. If electricity prices rise, we'll start turning off lights when leaving the room, turning the air conditioner off when it is 70 degrees outside, etc.

 

There are ways for America to become much more environmentally friendly, but I simply don't think that asking the people to recycle and conserve is enough. When recycling and conserving become a norm, it won't be a problem, but I think we need the government to push us to that point.

 

I go back to Kentucky in a week. I'm quite interested to see how I will react when I see a milk jug in the trash can, or something similar. I'm fairly certain that I will put more effort into recycling, simply because it isn't that difficult to do, it helps the planet that provides for me, and I've grown use to it.

 

Sorry this was so long. I know that, before I lived in Germany, I had no idea how many resources I wasted. Honestly, I think anyone who came and lived in Europe for only a couple of weeks would realize how much some of these things help. It has definitely changed my outlook on several things, most of which I never even thought about before.

 

Anyway, I hope at least some of this makes sense. Even if you don't agree with Gore and AIT, which I don't particularly agree with a lot of it, there is no reason why you shouldn't take care of the environment you live in. I mean, we keep our private homes clean, so I don't see any reason not to keep the public around us clean, too.

[Grom 0]

It comes down to, then, our government.

 

I'm with you dude in everything but this conclusion, and I realize I'm probably in the minority on these forums for disagreeing. Many Americans look to Europe as this sort of idealistic place. Naturally there are some things that Europe does that appears to be more effective than what we do in America. But at what cost? The kind of nanny-state mentality that you're advocating has far-reaching effects. Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America noted that America's strength was built on its strong sense of community and its sense of individual freedom. Indeed, early America was strongly influenced by the English common law system, which had roots in the reformation. The American man, influenced by a basic national morality, prided himself in self-regulation and his contributing role as a member of an individual community.

 

Over the past century, however, the view of liberty and the role of government, classically understood, has been at odds with a new strain of thinking. This strain challenges the long-held belief that you and I ultimately know what's best for ourselves. Instead, we should allow supposed "experts", or maybe better put, politically ambitious bureaucrats, to make decisions about how we should conduct our daily lives. Others may disagree with me, but I still believe that I know what's best for me more than my government. ::shrug::

 

I believe that if we want to affect change for the good in the nation, it should start from the bottom up, not the top down. It should start by you and I influencing those around us, building coalitions, building a sense of community. In time, the need for regulation and legislation will lessen, and in some instances, dissapear, because you've built the philosophies into the culture.

 

::tosses his cent in (the IRS took the other)::

[Dumbass 0]

It isn't that we think government is better at running our lives. It is that we think government is better at running our next-door neighbor's lives.

[HyperDrive 0]

I agree that, if the American citizens want it, they are much better at rallying together than people in other states. However, American citizens don't want to deal with more, they want to deal with less. Unfortunately, our want for not having to deal with things is much more powerful than our want to help the world around us. But, I do believe, if you were to ask nearly any American, he or she would be in favor of recycling and helping our environment. However, many fewer would be interested in actually being part of that help. It would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to ask your American neighbor or friend to increase his or her workload for any reason, let alone for the good of an environment that, for the time being, is working for them just fine.

 

I don't think that a government should run the lives of the people, but they should create mandates when it is necessary to help future lives and generations. With my children suddenly in the picture, I am much more willing to support our government in creating new environmental mandates. This would be a major change, and would be imbedded in the philosophies of future generations, but never our current one.

 

By no means do I look to Europe as my idealistic place, but when another culture has a better idea in place than your own, it would only make sense to start using it yourself. And, as for our so-called experts, also unfortunately, they have other selfish issues to get past, and simply cannot be trusted. I wouldn't exactly trust a "scientist" employed by a political party.

 

I see where you're coming from, Grom, and I would agree with you, if I believed the American people would change this on their own. But, I don't think they will (for a wide array of various reasons, some better than others). I think government interaction is vital, should people be serious about actually wanting to help the land.

[Cptn Corizon 0]

As Micheal Moore recently noted: There's nothing wrong with looking at other country's and seeing what they're doing right, and adopting those policies, while not doing what they're doing that's not working.

 

The Europeans have done a lot right in the way of environmentally sound policies, while keeping their industry up. (Germany for example has the third highest GDP in the world, Japan, another country doing well on the front of Environmentally friendly policies, is number 2.) And there's no reason to not adopt some of their policies.

 

On the more broad political note, I'd like to respectfully note that the assertion of "you and I know what's best for us" is a very 'Western' point of view considering for the largest portion of history in the world, the government decided everything for the people with out their input, and one that doesn't take into account historical context.

 

To say the government cannot regulate how you dispose of your trash, for example, is to reject all government interaction. That's silly idea. Government is a needed entity to regulate society. Essentially, its back to social contract theory (to which a great portion of our constitutional theory is based upon.) The very nature of government is often to preform tasks that individuals alone can't accomplish.

 

I don't disagree with your sentiment that we should work from the bottom up. In fact that's a major key point in Mister Gore's appeal to Americans, but the sad truth is that is simply not enough to effect meaningful change, especially when it comes to the large corporations who are the biggest polluters. They have to be regulated by the government in order to achieve that goal.

 

PS: Without government subsidies, your every day life would be nearly impossible, so don't knock the IRS that hard.