Gore isn't all that green...But Bush is!

[Rk Crlr]

Sorry about the formatting, cut and pasted weird
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27164
Michael ReaganFrontPageMagazine.com | March 1, 2007This whole thing with global warming and its leading apostle Al Gore is just more of the political left?s habit of talking the talk but never walking the walk. Gore has proven time and again to be a complete hypocrite. He preaches the need to eliminate man-made pollution. On his website advising people to fight global warming by discovering what their so-called carbon footprint is, he says, ?You may be surprised by how much CO2 you are emitting each year,? and advises that you should ?calculate your personal impact and learn how you can take action to reduce or even eliminate your emissions of carbon dioxide.? Mr. Gore, however, does not practice what he preaches. He wants you to curb your lifestyle drastically, but on the record he?s doing everything he doesn?t want you to do, and doing it extravagantly. Consider his house in Tennessee. According to The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, Nashville Electric Services records obtained by the Center show the Gores in 2006 averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in 2005. Over the past two years, the gas and electric bills for his 20-room mansion and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours. Nashville Gas Company billed the family during the same period an average of $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 2006, and $640 for the main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005. That averages out to be $29,268 in gas and electric bills for the Gores in 2006, $31,512 in 2005. "If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn't care," says Drew Johnson, the Center's 27-year-old president. "But he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules." Compare this with President Bush?s practices as a homeowner. According to a story in the April 29, 2001, Chicago Tribune, ?Bush loves ecology -- at home,? the president?s house is a model of ecological purity. ?The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude, wrote freelance reporter Rob Sullivan. ?Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this ?eco-friendly? dwelling use about 25 percent of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize. ?A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.? Gore talks the talk, the president walks the walk. Gore and his leftist buddies pat themselves on the back and tell us what they think we ought to be doing, but they are not going to follow the rules they lay down for us. Al Gore excuses his own excesses by saying he is buying "carbon credits," to offset his massive use of electric power and jet planes. Buying "carbon credits" allows him to pollute to his heart?s content, because he?s adopted a "carbon neutral" life whereby any emissions for which he is personally responsible are allegedly offset by buying ?green credits? such as parcels of forests that eat up CO2. He doesn?t do solar, he doesn?t use wind power, he doesn?t change his lifestyle or go bio-diesel, he doesn?t do any of the things he insists the rest of us must do to save the planet from being barbecued -- he just buys carbon credits and goes on his merry way spewing pollution in all directions. This is so outrageously asinine on its face; it alone should awaken the American people to the fact that they are being had by Mr. Gore and his fellow global warming fanatics. Instead of getting an Oscar Sunday night, he should have been laughed off the stage

[HillBillyMan]

:D
Love it.

[Unlimited04]

Gore lives in Nashville, TN, and therefore has city water.
Bush lives in BFE on a ranch in Texas, therefore has a cistern.

It gets into freezing temps in TN, it does not in Texas.

Anyone that has a cistern knows it doesn't rain enough in Ohio, let alone enough in Texas to fill a cistern or even keep up with water demands of a house. Most people with a cistern either have a well or truck in water from the city.

I notice they don't quote Bush's electric bills for the same time periods. They just say his house is somehow "eco-friendly" without explaining why.


Who cares anyway...their all politicians and they all suck.

http://www.casadice.com/signs/images/outside_sign006.jpg

[el-cheapo]

I like BUSH:D :eek:




oh wait your talking about the president:shrug:
I say impeach them all:flipoff2:

[Budman]

Gore lives in Nashville, TN, and therefore has city water.
Bush lives in BFE on a ranch in Texas, therefore has a cistern.

It gets into freezing temps in TN, it does not in Texas.

Anyone that has a cistern knows it doesn't rain enough in Ohio, let alone enough in Texas to fill a cistern or even keep up with water demands of a house. Most people with a cistern either have a well or truck in water from the city.

I notice they don't quote Bush's electric bills for the same time periods. They just say his house is somehow "eco-friendly" without explaining why.


Who cares anyway...their all politicians and they all suck.

http://www.casadice.com/signs/images/outside_sign006.jpg


If you had read the article, the cistern is for irrigation. I am sure he has a well as well, but Using a cistern for irrigation is a great way to save water. When I was in AZ, the golf course on base started using grey water to irrigate. The savings were in the millions of gallons a week of water.

It is a good thing. as for the new fangled heating system, I just watched a special on that stuff, and it is prettty cool. Problem is you have to drill a hole in the ground that is like 300 ft deep. It is spendy.

[TheCopperCowboy]

So, comparing the monthly average energy usage of 10,000 square feet at approx. $1400.00 a month in comparison to say, my house, would give me a monthly billing of $420.00. About double of what I pay for electric and propane. Mind you, this is with 2 adults and 2 children. I'm sure a mansion would have a wait staff for cooking, cleaning, maintenance, and Gore also has a live-in security detail. So, the energy useage seems to be just right, if not, on the low side. Just divide the size of your house against 10000 square feet. Now, the second house in comparison features a 4000 square foot house, built recently in a different climate zone. It does sport the latest technology for cooling and the cistern for irrigation is a common practice, providing it rains often enough in Texas, otherwise you're drawing from a water source. I believe it's apples and oranges, but without comparable numbers, it's just garbage. :mad:

[Unlimited04]

It does sport the latest technology for cooling and the cistern for irrigation is a common practice, providing it rains often enough in Texas, otherwise you're drawing from a water source. I believe it's apples and oranges, but without comparable numbers, it's just garbage. :mad:

my point exactly.

I did read article, water for irrigation or not, No rain = no water, not enough info :flipoff2: :shrug:

[Rk Crlr]

I don't think it is. Gore and Bush could live anywhere they want. Bush seems to have done more towards living a more ecoloigically sound personal life when he is regarded as a horrible waste by the greenies and hollywood lefties.
Yet the supposed leader of the Greenies gets a pass by spending more money, but actually doing very little.
If whoever is supposedly not using as much carbon pts just because Gore paid extra then couldn't they have not used the same points anyway? Sounds to me like the buying of carbon pts to offset your own use is similar to how the rich could pay some poor guy to stand in the draft line for them in the civil war. That guy got to be shot at while the rich guy didn't have to do squat. I guess that makes those rich people veterans!

[Jesus Christ]

Per the title of this thread... "Gore isn't all that green...But Bush is! "

all I have to say is "Ewww... no man likes green bush"

[Eryl Flynn]

It seems to me that Bush is doing all he can while Gore may not be. Gore should step up and make the same commitment he expects of others. That means also no private flights, he should fly comercial airways. The amount of fuel wasted and CO2 produced by private planes is pretty high.

But I never expected much from Gore or his word.

[Yota]

Well the Lord has spoken. /thread

[Budman]

So, comparing the monthly average energy usage of 10,000 square feet at approx. $1400.00 a month in comparison to say, my house, would give me a monthly billing of $420.00. About double of what I pay for electric and propane. Mind you, this is with 2 adults and 2 children. I'm sure a mansion would have a wait staff for cooking, cleaning, maintenance, and Gore also has a live-in security detail. So, the energy useage seems to be just right, if not, on the low side. Just divide the size of your house against 10000 square feet. Now, the second house in comparison features a 4000 square foot house, built recently in a different climate zone. It does sport the latest technology for cooling and the cistern for irrigation is a common practice, providing it rains often enough in Texas, otherwise you're drawing from a water source. I believe it's apples and oranges, but without comparable numbers, it's just garbage. :mad:

my point exactly.



I did read article, water for irrigation or not, No rain = no water, not enough info :flipoff2: :shrug:

If you read a little closer, you will see that sink and shower water also goes into the cistern and is filtered. It is called Grey water. Also you get the water off your house and barn roofs, so it does not take much rain to get many many gallons of water.

When I was a kid all our buildings had barrels on each corner the the gutter water ran into. Our barn roof would produce 100 + gallons of water in a 1/2 in rain. The house would almost fill two 55 gallon drums in that amount of rain as well. Now run this into an underground holding pond where evaporation is not a factor, and add to it all your shower and sink water, and that is a lot of irritgation water.

Now I am not arguing one way or the other on Bush/Gore. Just trying to educate on the benifits of "Grey water".

[Budman]

Now if you want to get into the bush vs Gore green debate, all you have to do is look at the size of thier houses. Gore's house is 2.5 times as big as bushes house. I would say they "Need" the same amount of space to house security etc. So, what does that tell us???

[teamextreme]

Now I am not arguing one way or the other on Bush/Gore. Just trying to educate on the benifits of "Grey water".

Except that it's illegal in Colorado, catching run-off in a cistern that is.

[thewoobie]

While I agree that Bush has taken steps to live an 'eco-friendly' life including some systems in use on his ranch not mentioned in the article, there is one thing to consider. In the instance of the cistern, there may be existing laws preventing the capture of water runoff from a building roof. Such is the case here in Colorado. Due to our water rights bylaws, you cannot legally capture the water for future use. It must go into the ground and continue on it's way downstream. I don't know what the laws are in Tennessee but it's possible there are similar circumstances. Just a thought, Matt

Edit: too slow

[Ford Prefect]

It seems to me that Bush is doing all he can while Gore may not be. Gore should step up and make the same commitment he expects of others. That means also no private flights, he should fly comercial airways. The amount of fuel wasted and CO2 produced by private planes is pretty high.


X2



But I never expected much from Gore or his word.


X200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.999-



.

[CLYDE]

While I agree that Bush has taken steps to live an 'eco-friendly' life including some systems in use on his ranch not mentioned in the article, there is one thing to consider. In the instance of the cistern, there may be existing laws preventing the capture of water runoff from a building roof. Such is the case here in Colorado. Due to our water rights bylaws, you cannot legally capture the water for future use. It must go into the ground and continue on it's way downstream. I don't know what the laws are in Tennessee but it's possible there are similar circumstances. Just a thought, Matt

Edit: too slow
No such laws in Tn that Im aware of,, plenty of water there, And I can recall seeing many of the old farms there with cisterns now that i think about it.

[CLYDE]

I can tell ya that the people of Tn dont like gore anymore, he had his shot, and pretty much alienated everyone there as senator.

[nvrdonexj]

VIVA' LA GORE!!!!!!!!

Noble Prize nominee!!!
(WTF) oh yeah, the Noble commitee is a leftist political organization now, like the major news networks.

Presidential wanabee!!!

Hypocritic greenie!!!

S#!^, even I know to turn off the lights in a room when I am not in it. Gore is just another blow-hard political puppet, who is the mouthpiece for his financial contributors.

[ColoradoXJ]

anyone happen to know how long those systems have been in place at the bush compound? i'm not trying to say that its all for show, just wanting to know.

and it is difficult to compare areas as different as TN and TX. rainfall, climate, energy use for different purposes on the property... grey water is a great thing, it is starting to be used by some local municipalities around here for parks irrigation. geothermal heating is wonderful too. i'm all for those.

[sames]

anyone happen to know how long those systems have been in place at the bush compound? i'm not trying to say that its all for show, just wanting to know.

and it is difficult to compare areas as different as TN and TX. rainfall, climate, energy use for different purposes on the property... grey water is a great thing, it is starting to be used by some local municipalities around here for parks irrigation. geothermal heating is wonderful too. i'm all for those.


even if it is just for show, why doesn't a$$hat Gore at least try to SHOW that he practices what he preaches?

[TheCopperCowboy]

How can anybody be more green while severely cutting programs designed to save energy? Bush is the man at the switch. Waste is his middle name. :mad:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2007/2007-02-05-02.asp

[ColoradoXJ]

it might not be practical to run some of the same things on his property. :shrug: you are talking about 2 VERY different geologic areas. i've never jumped on the gore bandwagon, and as i've said, i think he's a bad posterchild for the climate change thing.


ps- bush is NOT green because he has a few features at his house. he has the opportunity to do so much more with cleaner energy, yet he fails to do so. maybe his house is 'eco-friendly' but the cattle he ranches are NOT nor is the fossil fuel industry he favors.

[Budman]

it might not be practical to run some of the same things on his property. :shrug: you are talking about 2 VERY different geologic areas. i've never jumped on the gore bandwagon, and as i've said, i think he's a bad posterchild for the climate change thing.


ps- bush is NOT green because he has a few features at his house. he has the opportunity to do so much more with cleaner energy, yet he fails to do so. maybe his house is 'eco-friendly' but the cattle he ranches are NOT nor is the fossil fuel industry he favors.

He eats steak, and that helps with stopping Global Warming.

[ColoradoXJ]

He eats steak, and that helps with stopping Global Warming.

donno. when i eat steak, i definitely do my share of releasing methane into the atmosphere. unless i trap it (and my g/f) under the sheets... you know, the dutch oven. do your part to keep greenhouse gasses outta the air, dutch oven your significant other :D

[TheCopperCowboy]

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/xp-29925

Gas guzzlers could keep on truckin'
Rather than conserve, the Bush administration seeks to lower the bar on fuel economy.

The price of oil comes down to this: The more the market demands, the more those who have it can gouge those who don't.

Since the United States relies on foreign sources to feed more than half its insatiable appetite, one would think the federal government would encourage conservation. One would be wrong.

In the wake of last week's presidential signing of an energy bill that rewards consumption rather than conservation, the Bush administration now intends to abandon plans to hold Hummers and jumbo SUVs to fuel efficiency standards.

Imagine what would happen to the price of oil if instead of jumping at the mere perception of production or refineries hitting snags, the demand decreased because a Chevrolet Suburban that consumes 13 miles per gallon was forced to go an additional 14 miles per gallon.

That is essentially what occurred the last time oil prices pinched Americans. In 1975, President Gerald Ford signed into law the Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations, or CAFE standards. Cars then were blowing through gas at the rate of today's Suburbans. Automakers, under the threat of severe penalties, were required to raise the miles per gallon to 27.5 by the mid-'80s. They met the goal, then remained stagnant.

Today, while 40 percent of the nation's oil supply is consumed by automobiles and light trucks, including SUVs, many vehicles are exempt from CAFE because trucks in the 1970s weren't as plentiful and were considered workhorses, not the family's gad-about-town choice.

The Bush administration is working to revise CAFE standards, but rather than sticking with what works (of averaging an automakers' entire fleet), the working proposal continues to exclude the guzzlers and creates tiers of targets for assorted vehicle sizes. This shift is sure to appease automakers that won't be penalized for failing to install the existing technology necessary to cut fuel consumption.

The proposal can still be revised, especially if Congress and the millions of drivers forced to pay for others' wasteful consumption demand higher standards.

[Jeepindog]

That can't be right. I mean, what would Bush care about people buying oil? It's not like he has any personal stake in it. :shrug:

(That was sarcasm for anyone who might have a fever, be on cold medicine, or just didn't know.)

[Steve]

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/xp-29925

The operable word in the linked article is editorial. :rolleyes:

[TheCopperCowboy]

The operable word in the linked article is editorial. :rolleyes:

Oops! You caught me, sort of like that Gore piece. ;)

[al24]

Entire article is interesting.

Published on Sunday, April 29, 2001 in the Chicago Tribune (http://chicagotribune.com/)
Bush Loves Ecology -- At Home
by Rob Sullivan
The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude. Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.
A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.
No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.
This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford.
Yes, the same George W. who believes arsenic and drinking water might not be such a bad combo, the same man who reneged on his campaign promise to lower carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, the same man who is doing everything in his power to fling open the Alaskan Natural Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.
How does the President reconcile an eco-friendly abode for his own family with his persistent stand against anything that smacks of an environmentally friendly agenda for the nation as a whole? The answer to that perplexing question is a real mystery.
Perhaps sound ecological practices are only for those who can afford them: as a self-proclaimed strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution, Bush must be aware that clean air and clean water are not guaranteed in that glorious document. Perhaps in Bush's Brave New Corporate World, clean natural resources are merely commodities in a free-market economy: if you can pay for them, fine; if not, tough. The rest of us will just have to put up with more toxic dumps and more public lands being turned over to logging, mining and oil companies.
According to David Heymann, the house's architect and associate dean of the University of Texas architecture department, Heymann designed the house so that "every room has a relationship with something in the landscape that's different from the room next door. Each of the rooms feels like a slightly different place."
In a USA Today interview, Heymann said, "There's a great grove of oak trees to the west that protects it from the late afternoon sun. Then there is a view out to the north looking at hills, and to the east out over a lake, and the view to the south . . . out to beautiful hills."
I suppose in George W.'s architectural world only the rich and powerful have views; vistas that the public owns as part of its shared heritage are up for lease and sale.
Heymann also termed the house "stunningly small." Really? Would it be stunningly small for a single mother in South Central Los Angeles? How stunningly small would it be for an immigrant Latino family in San Antonio Maybe in the rarified heights where second homes are the norm, 4,000 square feet is small and on a stunning scale as well, but in Main Street America that much elbow room is pretty big for the first and only home.
But then most of us can't reconcile what might at first glance appear to be inherently irreconcilable. Maybe some day, like our noble president, we will be able to make that kind of staggering mental feat. That is, if we ever stop misunderestimating ourselves.
Rob Sullivan is a freelance writer based in Los Angeles.
Copyright 2001 Chicago Tribune

[Snotty]

Its called choices. GW makes a choice on how he lives at home. He has a modest house and has taken the steps to conserve without making a big stink about it. On the other hand, Gore has not taken any steps to change his lifestyle, but wants to dictate and take away my choices.

I see this as it is, Gore is Hypocrite and does not practice what he preaches. But then again, is that really new information on the Gore camp?

And come on people, do you really think that people like AL24 :flipoff2: are going to give GW any slack at all with the amount of hate they have for that man? The only thing the GW could do is die, and even then I don't think that would be enough to appease the GW haters.

[bsaunder]

That can't be right. I mean, what would Bush care about people buying oil? It's not like he has any personal stake in it. :shrug:

(That was sarcasm for anyone who might have a fever, be on cold medicine, or just didn't know.)

thanks:beer:

[bsaunder]

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/xp-29925

Gas guzzlers could keep on truckin'
Rather than conserve, the Bush administration seeks to lower the bar on fuel economy.

The price of oil comes down to this: The more the market demands, the more those who have it can gouge those who don't.

Since the United States relies on foreign sources to feed more than half its insatiable appetite, one would think the federal government would encourage conservation. One would be wrong.

In the wake of last week's presidential signing of an energy bill that rewards consumption rather than conservation, the Bush administration now intends to abandon plans to hold Hummers and jumbo SUVs to fuel efficiency standards.

Imagine what would happen to the price of oil if instead of jumping at the mere perception of production or refineries hitting snags, the demand decreased because a Chevrolet Suburban that consumes 13 miles per gallon was forced to go an additional 14 miles per gallon.

That is essentially what occurred the last time oil prices pinched Americans. In 1975, President Gerald Ford signed into law the Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations, or CAFE standards. Cars then were blowing through gas at the rate of today's Suburbans. Automakers, under the threat of severe penalties, were required to raise the miles per gallon to 27.5 by the mid-'80s. They met the goal, then remained stagnant.

Today, while 40 percent of the nation's oil supply is consumed by automobiles and light trucks, including SUVs, many vehicles are exempt from CAFE because trucks in the 1970s weren't as plentiful and were considered workhorses, not the family's gad-about-town choice.

The Bush administration is working to revise CAFE standards, but rather than sticking with what works (of averaging an automakers' entire fleet), the working proposal continues to exclude the guzzlers and creates tiers of targets for assorted vehicle sizes. This shift is sure to appease automakers that won't be penalized for failing to install the existing technology necessary to cut fuel consumption.

The proposal can still be revised, especially if Congress and the millions of drivers forced to pay for others' wasteful consumption demand higher standards.
So the editorial writer seems to think that gas prices will remain high only because there are gas guzzlers and that the price will be reduced if there are no gas guzzlers.

What this person seems to not really understand is the whole supply and demand vs commodity traded pricing. Vehicles are very much driven by the supply and demand principal - as most of the domestic makers have regrettably found out with the higher gas prices.
Gasoline on the other hand is a traded commodity, as is the oil that is used to make it. Since it is a traded commodity, it isn't fully subject to supply and demand - that is only one part of the equation (for those that are not failure with commodities, think of its price being set just like the stock price of a company.) Yes, lack of supply will generally drive up the price, but lack of demand will not necessarily drop the price as supply will be adjusted. Also and catastrophe, change in leadership, weather pattern, heck the right person sneezing in the world - and the price of oil will adjust; which may or may not effect the price of gas.

The reality of the situation is - our society in general will not adopt higher efficient vehicles unless there is a financial incentive to do so. This goes for both the consumers and the manufacturers. You can push the system by putting guzzler taxes on vehicles; however if done across the board, then it very much effects the people that use heavy vehicles for their lively hood - and it's that loophole that the editorial writer is complaining about (CAFE standards generally don't apply to vehicles >6k lbs). There is nothing new about this, however the writer apparently thinks that is is something that needs to be rectified. Little does the writer realize that if the cost of owning such a vehicle were to go up - everyone would still be bearing the cost of it as all the businesses using such vehicles will just pass the cost onto the consumer.

[HillBillyMan]

Its called choices. GW makes a choice on how he lives at home. He has a modest house and has taken the steps to conserve without making a big stink about it. On the other hand, Gore has not taken any steps to change his lifestyle, but wants to dictate and take away my choices.

I see this as it is, Gore is Hypocrite and does not practice what he preaches. But then again, is that really new information on the Gore camp?

And come on people, do you really think that people like AL24 :flipoff2: are going to give GW any slack at all with the amount of hate they have for that man? The only thing the GW could do is die, and even then I don't think that would be enough to appease the GW haters.


It will never matter what proof you show or actions proven. They will always defend Gore and his type. Simply because they are NOT Bush. They hate him so much that they seem to have lost all reasoning ability.
I don't even bother anymore.

[Rk Crlr]

I doubt any of us expect to change their minds. We just like to rub the hipocracy in their noses :D

[TheCopperCowboy]

I was trying to show the differences between a 10,000 square foot house and the energy uses of an entire nation. Even if Gore razed his domicile and hired the same contractor who built the Bush house comparision, Bush, in turn, allowed the USA to become a collective nation of energy wasters. One man versus the entire nation? No contest. Again, an apple and a whole bunch of oranges, but he's the decider and a greenhorn. :D

[HillBillyMan]

I was trying to show the differences between a 10,000 square foot house and the energy uses of an entire nation. Even if Gore razed his domicile and hired the same contractor who built the Bush house comparision, Bush, in turn, allowed the USA to become a collective nation of energy wasters. One man versus the entire nation? No contest. Again, an apple and a whole bunch of oranges, but he's the decider and a greenhorn. :D


You are trying to be funny right? :rolleyes:

He just sat back and allowed it to happen?
This was a collective nation of energy wasters LONG before he came along.
There was just as much energy being wasted when Clinton was in office but I don't see you stepping up and making that point.
I am just sick and tired of people spewing at the mouth and pointing the finger at him when the exact same problems were here when YOUR Pres was in office.
Easier to forget that point and just blame him for everything just because you dislike him and happen to fall on the other side of the fence from him.
Wish people would pull their heads from... where ever they may be and admit that both the Dems and Reps have screwed up a LOT of things in the past/present/ and yes the future.
Stop crying like a child and pointing with the accusation of "He did it".
Man up and point the finger at your own guys and gals as well and say they did it too.
Until then your statements don't hold much merit with me.

[TheCopperCowboy]

...and to this date, nothing has changed. What will actually have to happen before any world leader effects change? If it's all about the economy, how can you be a consumer when there is nothing to consume and the enviroment is lethal? I can give a rats ass about 6 years ago, let alone 6 days ago. For somebody looking for a positive legacy, the window of opportunity is closing, again.

Please note that no names were mentioned in this post. :cool:

[Steve]

CopperCowboy, do YOU waste gas or any other form of energy? I'm betting you can't answer that question with a no, so please tell us how that's GWB's fault, 'cause I'm missing it. As for Bush "allowing" us to waste energy, that dog simply don't hunt.

Until either fuel becomes so expensive that people want to conserve, or the government rations it, we as a nation will continue to use a lot. So, which are you for, huge taxes on all forms of energy or the government telling you how much you can have and what you can use it for?

[TheCopperCowboy]

I'm for conservation and have already written a new business model as such. Compact flourescent bulbs are just a start, along with occupancy sensors, load demand centers, low voltage lighting, and electronic time clocks. We are in the process of purchasing a larger electrical contracting business and will have a Photovoltaic Division hopefully geared up and rolling by the summer. It is already a multi-billion dollar industry in California and will continue to grow as conditions worsen. Am I doing my part? I will be, and will also have other consumers using less dirty energy and saving money if conventional power generating fuel prices fluctuate. Yeah, I can say I will be doing MY part. :cool:

[HillBillyMan]

Will someone please let me know exactly where Gore is buying those credits?
Would they happen to be from a Company that he owns?
If so then isn't that a small conflict?
Making it look like he is doing a bang up job and all the while simply putting $$$ back into his own pocket.

[Clint]

I'm for conservation and have already written a new business model as such. Compact flourescent bulbs are just a start, along with occupancy sensors, load demand centers, low voltage lighting, and electronic time clocks. We are in the process of purchasing a larger electrical contracting business and will have a Photovoltaic Division hopefully geared up and rolling by the summer. It is already a multi-billion dollar industry in California and will continue to grow as conditions worsen. Am I doing my part? I will be, and will also have other consumers using less dirty energy and saving money if conventional power generating fuel prices fluctuate. Yeah, I can say I will be doing MY part. :cool:

You mean as goverment legislates, and you are doing something as it relates to business because it can make you money, but thats not what Steve asked....

[TheCopperCowboy]

http://www.iisd.ca/journal/natsource.html

Linkages Home
Linkages Journal THIS PAGE WAS UPDATED ON: 01/18/02


Volume 3
Number 4
26 October 1998


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GREENHOUSE GAS MARKET 2001: THE FUTURE IS NOW!
Natsource, Inc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It?s happening right now

The new millennium will see full scale trading of greenhouse gas emission (GHG) reduction credits and right now smart businesses are preparing to take advantage of the global GHG market. Boardrooms around the world are reviewing strategies to both combat risk and capitalize on emerging market opportunities. On the one hand potential liability is being assessed and planned for, while on the other hand managers are looking to build new sources of revenue through the creation of emission credits in their production processes. The greenhouse gas emissions market is a brand new source of competitive advantage. Heads Up!

As part of an integrated approach to the issue of GHG emission limitations, utilities are introducing clean and efficient technologies, switching to cleaner fuels, and investigating power generation through methane capture. Heavy industries such as petroleum are introducing internal emissions trading systems, investing in renewable energy sources, and investigating the opportunities for CO2 sequestration in forests around the world.

However, direct intervention in the production process is frequently expensive, time consuming and requires significant management capacity. As a result, and in addition to these efforts, many businesses are starting to use emissions trading as a quick and cost effective route to achieving risk management objectives. Trades can be structured for immediate or future settlement, option contracts can provide flexibility without obligation, and swaps can occur between GHG and other emissions offsets such as SO2 and NOx. Trading is the most efficient tool available to business managers as they adapt to a limited GHG emissions environment.

Nuts and bolts

In December 1997, most OECD and East European countries agreed to binding emission targets and negotiated a legal framework that enshrines this undertaking ? the Kyoto Protocol. In essence, industrialized countries (in effect their major emitter industries) must reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases by at least 5% below 1990 levels over the commitment period 2008-2012. So how can business respond to these regulatory changes without being hit with crippling and rigid compliance costs?

Recalling the economic fundamentals of "gains from trade", a general trade in greenhouse gas emission credits will be most efficient when those buying emission credits pay someone else to reduce emissions who can do it more cheaply that they can. For example, already efficient US power generators may well find that they can earn far more emission reduction credits for their money by purchasing credits in countries with less developed energy industries. The Kyoto Protocol allows three main routes to acquiring emission reduction credits on the international market:

Industrialized countries can simply purchase emission reduction credits from other industrialized countries. A developing country may also engage in this form of emission trading if it voluntarily adopts an emissions target.

The Joint Implementation (JI) program means that investment in projects that reduce emissions in industrialized and Eastern European countries can earn emission reduction credits. These credits may then become available for international trading.

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is not yet clearly defined but is intended to provide emission reduction credits for appropriate project investment in developing countries. Investors earn credits provided the relevant projects provide "benefits" to the host country. However, crediting is only allowed up to a certain percentage of the investor?s own overall emission target. On the positive side, and in contrast to the above systems, CDM emission reduction credits accrue for the whole period of 2000-2012 (not just for the commitment period 2008-2012).

These three mechanisms provide the basic menu of options available to businesses for trading in emission reductions. Each option carries different transaction costs and risk factors. For example, at present, the price of credits purchased through a CDM approach may well be cheaper than credits purchased on the open market between industrialized countries. This difference is primarily due to greater risk and uncertainty associated with the CDM process. In a perfect market the price of all credits will tend to equalize.

Firming up market rules

The greenhouse gas market has been established in principle, with a new commodity - the metric ton of CO2 equivalent emissions. We have a good idea of how the market should develop and transactions are taking place on that basis. But it is clear that a good deal of work still needs to be done to fill some of the gaps and reduce the remaining uncertainty under the Protocol. Business likes to know all the rules of the game before it gets right out on the pitch and there are a few major clarifications that would make the players a good deal more comfortable.

First of all, business needs clarity on the timeframe for GHG emission reductions. The Kyoto Protocol has effectively specified an emissions cap for each industrialized and Eastern European country that will enter into force across 2008-2012. In order to prepare to meet this limit domestic action now needs to be taken in the short term to structure national emission targets and time frames and decide on the national level initial allocation of allowances. The legislative wheels are already turning in the US and in Europe to give companies regulatory "credit" for early action to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, but this process must be sped up. Business leaders recognize that regulations requiring emissions reductions are probable over the next decade and the sooner the outline of an early trading framework is established, the sooner they can start engaging the market to meet their compliance requirements.

Second, the design of the trading system must be clarified. Who is responsible for the integrity of emission reduction credits? In the US SO2 market the seller is held liable for the integrity of the permits sold. If such a seller liability system were established for international GHG emissions trading, a business purchasing allowances would not have to worry whether the business selling the allowances actually met its commitments. Under such a scheme all permits would be worth the same regardless of who sold them and the market would be likely to have good liquidity. Under a buyer beware system of shared liability, allowances would have different risks and thus different prices depending on the seller?s reputation. These uncertainties would be likely to reduce market liquidity. Further design issues are the ability to bank credits forward, and the ability to borrow credits from future compliance periods to meet temporary compliance shortfalls.

Third, implementation issues must be firmed up. A reporting system must be established to track both emissions monitoring results and emissions trading activity. Transparency should be promoted and ensured through public availability of the relevant data. For example, the successful US SO2 emission trading program uses a publicly open Allowance Tracking System that is posted on the Internet. This level of transparency allows close scrutiny of transactions and contributes to high compliance levels.

Certification of emission reduction credits must be standardized and the criteria made widely available. This is necessary to ensure that credits are homogenous and that the tradable unit is therefore clearly defined. In the case of investment in emission reduction projects, advance certification must clearly specify the intended emission reductions, but there is an additional need to verify that the project proceeded as planned and the reductions were indeed made.

Given the uncertainty in verification, a liability system to deal with "bad trades" must be developed. In the US sulfur dioxide trading system, the seller is liable if they oversell their credits or the credits are worthless. Under a GHG trading system it has been suggested that the buyer and the seller share liability. It?s argued that in many cases the buyer may be in a better position to scrutinize the integrity of the credit. Opponents to a shared liability system argue that the buyer is in less of a position to ensure the integrity of the credit and should not be liable for the seller?s irresponsibility.

[TheCopperCowboy]

Early birds catch the worms

In advance of final legislation on mandated greenhouse gas reductions, business is preparing to hedge against future price and liquidity risk in emissions credits. However there are several other major benefits of early entry into the greenhouse gas emissions market:

Trading allocates scarce business resources efficiently; not just financial resources but management capacity and technical expertise.

Trading captures innovation and creativity, and energizes staff.

Trading promotes the early development of emission reducing technology.

Trading provides early experience in using markets to meet compliance requirements.

Trading provides an opportunity for positive public relations and a strong image of environmental responsibility

In view of these incentives, several trades have already taken place.

For example, in early 1998, the Canadian firm Suncor Energy Inc. purchased 100,000 tons of CO2 credits with an option to purchase a further 10 million tons of reductions over a 10 year period from Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. The deal has a potential value of $10CDN million. In late 1997 Canada's Ontario Hydro bought 10,000 tons of CO2 credits from a pool of credits belonging to Edison International's Southern California Edison Co. In addition, an example of an inter-pollutant transaction took place when Arizona Public Service Company swapped 25,000 tons of SO2 emission allowances for 1.75 million tons of greenhouse gas emission credits from Niagara Mohawk Power.

In addition to independent trades, industry is working with local and federal governments to promote pilot early trading systems. A key incentive of these pilot trading systems is the recognition of trades by government as credit for early action. For example, in Canada the Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Trading Pilot (GGERT) credits verifiable early action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions against any further obligations. The pilot system helps the development of the technical and administrative infrastructure required to support full-scale emission reduction trading and gives business a valuable opportunity for practical experience.

The media coverage of UNFCCC COP4 at Buenos Aires and the growing recognition across the business community of the need for action has meant that an increasing number of firm bids and offers are being tendered. This trading activity will grow rapidly as clarification of trading rules in the FCCC process continues.

The role of the honest broker

The greenhouse gas market environment is fast evolving in response to domestic and international regulatory developments. The broker plays a crucial role in devising market solutions that allow business to comply, at minimal cost, with the new regulations. The broker also provides the avenue for well placed business to seize greenhouse gas market opportunities and capture new sources of revenue to complement core business activities.

Since the greenhouse gas market is young and exceptionally flexible there is a considerable need for brokers to play a creative role in matching buyers and sellers. It?s up to the broker to develop innovative transaction structures, serve as a vital source of price information, and advise on the changing regulatory environment.

A crucial aspect of risk management is diversification and the broker is uniquely placed to develop portfolios of various greenhouse gas instruments that meet business? needs (e.g. immediate and forward settlement, options, interpollutant swaps, investment opportunities in international emission reduction projects, and credit sharing).

Transaction Structures

Through a variety of deal structures, smart brokering helps firms hedge their risk and capture opportunity:

Immediate Settlement: Payment is made within 3 to 5 business days of the confirmation that title to the reductions has been transferred to the buyer.

Forward Settlement: May be structured as pay now (discounted) receive later or as pay later, receive later. The second transaction type is often restricted to those with investment grade credit. Credit problems often may be solved through negotiation

Streams: Both immediate and forward settlement is available for streams of allowances of consecutive vintages.

Call Options: Options provide a level of flexibility and risk management that can not be provided through other types of transactions, by giving the purchaser of the option the right but not the obligation to buy at a specified price for a for a specified premium.

Inter-pollutant and Inter-commodity Swaps/Bundling: This structure includes the exchange of SO2 and NOx allowances for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Credits. These structures may enable a company to avoid capital gains or losses, for example in the US, if the IRS rules that these transactions will be treated as "like kind". GHG transactions may also be structured by bundling reductions with other commodities such as coal or wholesale power.

Doing the right thing

First of all, emission trading lowers the cost of attaining the Kyoto greenhouse limits and gives business the incentive to use resources as efficiently as possible. This is good for the environment.

Second, the cost savings from emissions trading may be considerable, depending on the amount of gains from trade that can be captured as international markets are explored. This gives compliance flexibility as well as revenue opportunity to business.

Third, international emissions trading separates who pays for emission reductions from who undertakes the reductions. Countries with lower abatement costs and higher emission ceilings will generate a valuable commodity to export. Developing countries will have the opportunity to sell emission reductions to developed countries and generate badly needed investment capital. This is good for development and global economic efficiency.

Emission trading provides smart business the opportunity to compete in a dynamic new market place.

Natsource, Inc. is the leading broker in existing environmental emissions markets for SO2, NOx and VOC Allowances, brokering close to $1 billion in emissions transactions. This market position has led to Natsource representing several companies interested in the fast emerging greenhouse gas market. Natsource is a full service energy brokerage company with expertise throughout the energy industry and the ability to bundle transactions across different commodities. Natsource has established a specialized greenhouse gas trading desk that stands ready to help clients both manage risk and capture revenue opportunities in the emerging global GHG marketplace.

[TheCopperCowboy]

Now, let me tell you how this works. You own a coal fired horse shoe factory. I own a goose down pillow factory. Both companies are about the same as far as employees, size, gross income, but your company spews toxic smoke into the atmosphere during the work week. You will either have to cut production, install pollution controls, OR offset your carbon credits by buying some of mine, since all I'm doing is plucking geese all day. With that being done, I take on some of your pollution output, but you just cut your output in half. Do you know where this new rule came from? :rolleyes:

[Rk Crlr]

So we are reducing emmsions how with this crap? The shoe factory hasn't decreased emmissions and the goose plucker wasn't creating any?!?!?

[TheCopperCowboy]

That's right, and the pillow factory made a little profit. :D

[HillBillyMan]

Like I said. Just what company is Gore buying these credits from? HIS OWN.
Just one more nail in his coffin in my eyes.

[TheCopperCowboy]

...and why shouldn't he make a profit? :shrug:

[HillBillyMan]

Let me see????
I am going to stand up and tell everyone else that they need to stop creating so much pollution and should change their way of life to accomplish same.
While I, on the other hand, will continue to create as much pollution as I ever have and just buy credits from one of my OWN companies to cover it and make it look like I am doing the right thing.
All the while I am doing nothing to stop pollution and simply moving money from one of my pockets to another.

Last I heard that would make me a deceitful, hypocritical, liar.

Oh! Wait! I think that is what some of us have been trying to say about the man all along. Please explain to me how anyone in their right mind can honestly defend such actions as anything other that what I stated.
You can't get any more blatant than that.

[TheCopperCowboy]

Because, sometime in the future, we'll all get the point. :idea:

[Rk Crlr]

Point being...
has hasn't done squat to help the environment.

[al24]

Will someone please let me know exactly where Gore is buying those credits?
Would they happen to be from a Company that he owns?
If so then isn't that a small conflict?
Making it look like he is doing a bang up job and all the while simply putting $$$ back into his own pocket.

Like I said. Just what company is Gore buying these credits from? HIS OWN.
Just one more nail in his coffin in my eyes.

Let me see????
I am going to stand up and tell everyone else that they need to stop creating so much pollution and should change their way of life to accomplish same.
While I, on the other hand, will continue to create as much pollution as I ever have and just buy credits from one of my OWN companies to cover it and make it look like I am doing the right thing.
All the while I am doing nothing to stop pollution and simply moving money from one of my pockets to another.

Last I heard that would make me a deceitful, hypocritical, liar.

Oh! Wait! I think that is what some of us have been trying to say about the man all along. Please explain to me how anyone in their right mind can honestly defend such actions as anything other that what I stated.
You can't get any more blatant than that.

Hypocritical, yes.
Stupid yes.
Liar?
What'd he lie about?
Have you ever been in business for yourself?
Ever moved money back and forth between corporate and personal?
And gee when did you people become anti business?
Anti profit?
Or is it only because it's someone you hate?
:shrug:

[HillBillyMan]

Only because it's someone who talks out both sides of his mouth. If it is so important to do what he is putting out there, then actually DO something about it himself. Not simply pay for credits which are actually to a company that you already own.

He is standing up and making it look like he truly cares about our environment by paying for all these credits. when in truth it is nothing but a big scam to keep his $$$ and make it look like he is the big man and really helping out.
He hasn't done a thing to actually lower the pollution he puts out.
If he can't man up then shut up. IMHO.
Talk is cheap. Actions get things done.

[Waifer2112]

And come on people, do you really think that people like AL24 :flipoff2: are going to give GW any slack at all with the amount of hate they have for that man? The only thing the GW could do is die, and even then I don't think that would be enough to appease the GW haters.

Naw, that wouldn't be any fun. How could we continue to blame him for all that is nearly 8 years after he leaves office?

Wait! I just thought of something. If W. were to be assasinated, you could always blame it on Clinton! See, full circle.

[Rk Crlr]

Come on now....Bill wouldn't do that....



Hillary however......

[Waifer2112]

An update to this story...




Gore completes renovations to Tenn. home



NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Al Gore, who was criticized for high electric bills at his Tennessee mansion, has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly.

The former vice president has installed solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs.

"Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.

The rest of the story here. (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GORE_TENNESSEE_HOME?SITE=CODER&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-12-14-07-04-33)

So is he walkin' the walk yet?

[tysonxj]

An update to this story...

[B]Gore completes renovations to Tenn. home

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Al Gore, who was criticized for high electric bills at his Tennessee mansion, has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly.

So is he walkin' the walk yet?


Somebody is seriously confused if your (their) quote is right. "and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly."

BS.

"The only way to solve this crisis is for individuals to make changes in their own lives," he said. (glad he came around to the whole personal responsibility thing with only a little nudging)

[Gags]

Early birds catch the worms

In advance of final legislation on mandated greenhouse gas reductions, business is preparing to hedge against future price and liquidity risk in emissions credits. However there are several other major benefits of early entry into the greenhouse gas emissions market:

Trading allocates scarce business resources efficiently; not just financial resources but management capacity and technical expertise.

Trading captures innovation and creativity, and energizes staff.

Trading promotes the early development of emission reducing technology.

Trading provides early experience in using markets to meet compliance requirements.

Trading provides an opportunity for positive public relations and a strong image of environmental responsibility

In view of these incentives, several trades have already taken place.

For example, in early 1998, the Canadian firm Suncor Energy Inc. purchased 100,000 tons of CO2 credits with an option to purchase a further 10 million tons of reductions over a 10 year period from Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. The deal has a potential value of $10CDN million. In late 1997 Canada's Ontario Hydro bought 10,000 tons of CO2 credits from a pool of credits belonging to Edison International's Southern California Edison Co. In addition, an example of an inter-pollutant transaction took place when Arizona Public Service Company swapped 25,000 tons of SO2 emission allowances for 1.75 million tons of greenhouse gas emission credits from Niagara Mohawk Power.

In addition to independent trades, industry is working with local and federal governments to promote pilot early trading systems. A key incentive of these pilot trading systems is the recognition of trades by government as credit for early action. For example, in Canada the Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Trading Pilot (GGERT) credits verifiable early action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions against any further obligations. The pilot system helps the development of the technical and administrative infrastructure required to support full-scale emission reduction trading and gives business a valuable opportunity for practical experience.

The media coverage of UNFCCC COP4 at Buenos Aires and the growing recognition across the business community of the need for action has meant that an increasing number of firm bids and offers are being tendered. This trading activity will grow rapidly as clarification of trading rules in the FCCC process continues.

The role of the honest broker

The greenhouse gas market environment is fast evolving in response to domestic and international regulatory developments. The broker plays a crucial role in devising market solutions that allow business to comply, at minimal cost, with the new regulations. The broker also provides the avenue for well placed business to seize greenhouse gas market opportunities and capture new sources of revenue to complement core business activities.

Since the greenhouse gas market is young and exceptionally flexible there is a considerable need for brokers to play a creative role in matching buyers and sellers. It?s up to the broker to develop innovative transaction structures, serve as a vital source of price information, and advise on the changing regulatory environment.

A crucial aspect of risk management is diversification and the broker is uniquely placed to develop portfolios of various greenhouse gas instruments that meet business? needs (e.g. immediate and forward settlement, options, interpollutant swaps, investment opportunities in international emission reduction projects, and credit sharing).

Transaction Structures

Through a variety of deal structures, smart brokering helps firms hedge their risk and capture opportunity:

Immediate Settlement: Payment is made within 3 to 5 business days of the confirmation that title to the reductions has been transferred to the buyer.

Forward Settlement: May be structured as pay now (discounted) receive later or as pay later, receive later. The second transaction type is often restricted to those with investment grade credit. Credit problems often may be solved through negotiation

Streams: Both immediate and forward settlement is available for streams of allowances of consecutive vintages.

Call Options: Options provide a level of flexibility and risk management that can not be provided through other types of transactions, by giving the purchaser of the option the right but not the obligation to buy at a specified price for a for a specified premium.

Inter-pollutant and Inter-commodity Swaps/Bundling: This structure includes the exchange of SO2 and NOx allowances for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Credits. These structures may enable a company to avoid capital gains or losses, for example in the US, if the IRS rules that these transactions will be treated as "like kind". GHG transactions may also be structured by bundling reductions with other commodities such as coal or wholesale power.

Doing the right thing

First of all, emission trading lowers the cost of attaining the Kyoto greenhouse limits and gives business the incentive to use resources as efficiently as possible. This is good for the environment.

Second, the cost savings from emissions trading may be considerable, depending on the amount of gains from trade that can be captured as international markets are explored. This gives compliance flexibility as well as revenue opportunity to business.

Third, international emissions trading separates who pays for emission reductions from who undertakes the reductions. Countries with lower abatement costs and higher emission ceilings will generate a valuable commodity to export. Developing countries will have the opportunity to sell emission reductions to developed countries and generate badly needed investment capital. This is good for development and global economic efficiency.

Emission trading provides smart business the opportunity to compete in a dynamic new market place.

Natsource, Inc. is the leading broker in existing environmental emissions markets for SO2, NOx and VOC Allowances, brokering close to $1 billion in emissions transactions. This market position has led to Natsource representing several companies interested in the fast emerging greenhouse gas market. Natsource is a full service energy brokerage company with expertise throughout the energy industry and the ability to bundle transactions across different commodities. Natsource has established a specialized greenhouse gas trading desk that stands ready to help clients both manage risk and capture revenue opportunities in the emerging global GHG marketplace.

Nice. Thanks for the info:beer:

[TheCopperCowboy]

An update to this story...




Gore completes renovations to Tenn. home



NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Al Gore, who was criticized for high electric bills at his Tennessee mansion, has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly.

The former vice president has installed solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs.

"Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.

The rest of the story here. (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GORE_TENNESSEE_HOME?SITE=CODER&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-12-14-07-04-33)

So is he walkin' the walk yet?

I'm glad someone picked up on this story today. Saved me the trouble of fishing it back to the top. Now, the only difference is that Gore more than likely used his commissions from his carbon trading company to pay for the upgrades and improvements to his house while the taxpayers bought GWB's green trophy house for him to show off. :mad:

[Gags]

I'm glad someone picked up on this story today. Saved me the trouble of fishing it back to the top. Now, the only difference is that Gore more than likely used his commissions from his carbon trading company to pay for the upgrades and improvements to his house while the taxpayers bought GWB's green trophy house for him to show off. :mad:

You know what, for those who critisize Gore think about this...How much time does anyone here have to devote to specifically making their home the greenest in the land? I mean f@ck, yeah there are a lot of things that I would like to do and plan on doing but as in all things "TIME, CHANCE, and MONEY" play a huge role...In this situation so does an amount of learning new things I had never really cared about before. It's doesn't mean we don't care about the environment and if we claim to love the plant the way it is, we have to be the perfect model of green...Right away. Like it or not, Gore brings significant attention to what, in fact, is going to be a significant problem that we must deal with. Our planet system provides us with enough energy sources to have a symbiotic relationship not a parasitical one.

Our Science has a great challenge that we have the talent to be able to accept.

I have to support Gore for what he is helping to do.

[Whitey]

Hijack here;

Think I missed something about opening old threads after so many days?

Must have been abolished ............. :shrug:

[Steve]

Now, the only difference is that Gore more than likely used his commissions from his carbon trading company to pay for the upgrades and improvements to his house while the taxpayers bought GWB's green trophy house for him to show off. :mad:

:wtf:

WTF, do you just spout whatever absurd thought appears in your brain? GWB's ranch in TX was not bought by taxpayers' money unless you count his salary as such. Dude, your credibililty gets worse by the day, and that's hard to do.

Oh, and this thread was locked. Waifer wanted to know if it could be unlocked instead of starting a new thread. I obliged. :)

[ColoradoXJ]

looks good to me. as was pointed out earlier in response to one of my posts criticizing g-dub, it doesn't really matter HOW it's getting done, as long as it is... anything helps. :thumbsup:
from a policy proposal i wrote last year:
Currently, households alone contribute 17% of all greenhouse gas emissions, with commercial and industrial buildings adding another 37% (EPA).

According to the EPA?s Energy Star website, in 2005 alone, enough energy was saved to avoid greenhouse emissions equivalent to 23 million cars, while saving $12 million in utility bills. This is up from the 2002 results, which saved enough energy to power 15 million homes, avoided greenhouse emissions equivalent to 14 million cars, and saved $7 billion in total energy costs (Kubasek, 2005).

Except that it's illegal in Colorado, catching run-off in a cistern that is.

correct. however, municipal water may be collected and re-used (grey water) because the law states municipal water is 100% consumptive. this does not apply to farms, commercial, etc.

No such laws in Tn that Im aware of,, plenty of water there, And I can recall seeing many of the old farms there with cisterns now that i think about it.

riparian vs. prior appropriation water laws... as long as there is no significant depletion of flow or quality, then it's fine in riparian states

[Whitey]

Oh, and this thread was locked. Waifer wanted to know if it could be unlocked instead of starting a new thread. I obliged. :)

:hail: Such power is awesome! :silly:


That was good of you, wasn't sure and thought I'd missed something, imagine that! :D :P



















.

[Willy36]

im gonna put this simply. global warming is a natural cycle. as recently as medieval times, the average temperature was about 2 degrees higher than it is now. as recently as 1600, it was about 5-6 degrees cooler. </thread>

[ColoradoXJ]

uh huh. the thread is not so much about AGW as it is just about energy conservation, and walking the walk...