Env: A Tale Of Two Houses

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Desertrat, Nov 21, 2007.

  1. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #1
    House #1: Twenty rooms plus eight baths. A pool, pool house and a guest house. All heated by natural gas. A utility bill of roughly $2,400 per month.

    House #2: Four bedrooms in its 4,000 square feet. A geothermal heat pump utilizes groundwater of 67 degrees for cooling and heating. No fossil fuels used, other than indirectly via the electricity. The HVAC system uses one-fourth of that of conventional systems. Rainwater and all wastewater are treated on-site and used for irrigation of native trees, shrubs and grasses.

    House #1 belongs to an environmentalists' darling. House #2 belongs to one who's commonly vilified for a lack of environmental consciousness.

    'Rat
     
  2. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #2
    In house #2 lives the President of the United States, the head of state and head of government of the United States. Commonly referred to as the "leader of the free world", he is the head of the world's most powerful and influencial nation, and commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful army.

    In house #1 lives some guy, who sometimes talks in front of a camera.
     
  3. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #3
    We could talk about how certain people's policies do exponentially more damage than all the clean livin' in the world could compensate for.
    Lots of major illicit drug smugglers never touch the stuff themselves.
     
  4. pdham macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #4
    Why do some people want to turn the discussion about climate change into a debate over who uses more electricity. It is irrelevant what type of house Gore lives in. Is he a hypocrite? In some ways yes. Does that change the importance of his message or the science behind it? Absolutely not.

    Give it up. I can see no useful point about climate change being made through this sort of comparison.
     
  5. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #5
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard this story before, and Gore pays more money per month to get his energy from green sources such as solar and wind.
     
  6. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #6
    The whole argument is sort of lame once you consider that Bush's "taxi" is a Boeing 747 and that his post-presidency transportation will be mostly by private jet.

    The rich poor divide in the US is growing though and we've probably never had such a class based society since the Robber Baron era. Since class in the US is based solely on wealth, do the wealthy have the right to waste energy simply because they can afford it?

    There are plenty of wealthy right and left wingers who simply don't care if their monthly electric bill reaches into the $1,000s. It's not left/right, rather rich and poor.

    I feel sorry for those idiots who've purchased mc mansions or faux chateaux. Just as all those massive and inefficient victorian era houses have been turned into apartments or simply torn down, I think we'll see the same thing for the monster houses of this era.
     
  7. Desertrat thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #7
    My gripe is generally with those who talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

    As far as the rich/poor divide, I like a system that lets the poor bootstrap themselves up toward getting rich. By and large, the U.S. system has enabled that. Even in constant-dollar terms, the number of millionaires has increased notably in the last decades.

    Just 'cause somebody's rich, though, doesn't justify pissin' away natural resources. It's less a rich/poor thing, maybe, than Madison Avenue's advertising effects on defining "the good life".

    By many standards, I'm wealthy. Not millionaire wealthy, but danged comfortable. But my own carbon footprint has always been fairly low, and mostly it's been by choice. I'm just not "eat up with the I-wants". As much as I recycle and make do with good used stuff, the only folks who've really profited off me are a few beer joints and Mr. Budweiser. No big deal; a lot of us Depression Babies think that way.

    As far as "taxi", the head of Greenpeace or the Sierra Club, if President of the U.S., would travel in AF-1. No choice in the matter. But maybe he wouldn't tie up LAX for two hours during a fancy haircut. :D:D:D
     
  8. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #8
    To be fair, Bush inherited that house, it wasn't constructed through an active attempt to use "green technologies." So, he doesn't get the same consideration he lived in the same thing in Texas.

    Furthermore, this is just another variation of the old ad hominem. Will your opinion change of Gore once his house is fully vetted with solar arrays?
     
  9. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #9
    Do you normally form gripes based on chain emails rat?
     
  10. Desertrat thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #10
    The Bush house is in Crawford. Built since he bought the property, SFAIK. The newspapers started talking about the acquisition sometime around the tail end of his governorship or the early part of his presidency.

    From Wikipedia: "Bush is not, however, a Crawford native; he is a native of Connecticut who purchased a ranch in Crawford in later life."

    Inherited? Ya wanna try again?

    Chain email? Nope. Go to Range Magazine's website. http://www.rangemagazine.com , although I read it in the hard copy, not from their site. I didn't look to see if the squib was on the website.

    Gore + solar panels? Yeah, now that he's caught flak. It doesn't take a week to retrofit a complete solar system that would run his entire operation. Just money. He easily could have had a system installed back when he first started running his mouth. How long back was that?

    I looked at solar when I built my house in 1993. It would have cost me the equivalent of some fifteen years' worth of grid supply, including the battery maintenance/replacement. I either do all the maintenance myself or pay somebody to travel 240 miles, from Odessa. Not cost effective when you're sixty years old. But I'm danged sure not ignorant of the how-to on installation.

    'Rat
     
  11. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #11
    It's been circulating as a spam email since An Incovenient Truth won it's Academy Award.

    I just read that climate change article from Range Magazine is one of the most ridiculous things that I've ever read. I can see exactly why you've got a gripe with Gore. Reading those four pages is nothing more than feeding your hate. It's not informative, it's just an sensationalist opinion piece designed to get you hackles up. Climate change as it is presented in that article is a complete fallacy. No wonder it's so easy for the author to knock it down.

    I know this will fall on deaf ears but Scientific evidence can only be rebutted with scientific evidence. Conspiracy theories, ad hominem attacks, opinion pieces, appeals to authority, strawmen and all the other logical fallacies under the sun don't retort scientific evidence. Even if it is printed in a cowboy-centric periodical.
     
  12. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #12

    The spam email that you link to says that the chain letter you speak of is TRUE.

    I don't think rat is disputing climate change despite what the range magazine says. This is about the person who champions the cause to stop global warming is furthering the damage unapologetically. Yet none in this thread will say anything like "yeah, why isn't Gore practicing what he preaches?"

    Wouldn't you say that Al Gore doesn't live the life he demands of everyone else? Or is it okay with you?
     
  13. pdham macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #13
    Really 'rat what is your point? I know from other posts you have written that you don't dismiss the reality of climate change, so what are you trying to prove? Al Gore may well be a hypocrite, I am pretty sure many of us have said that before. But what do his actions, or the efficiency of Bush's ranch, have to do with the message about climate change, and what good do you see in griping about them?

    Are you just trying to take a jab at liberals and be divisive for the sake of political rhetoric? Or is there some underlying importance about Gore's carbon footprint versus Bush's.

    Because the way I see it, we, meaning the human race, need to address the issues inherent with climate change and unbridled resource use. It doesn't matter if you sit on the left or right of the aisle we all use the same earth. And changing this into a democrat versus republic debate is not only ridiculous but irresponsible.
     
  14. pdham macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #14
    Numerous people on these boards have said at various times that we wish Gore would address some of what appears to be obvious disconnects between his message and his lifestyle.

    Are you willfully ignoring the fact that Gore is ultimately irrelivant to the issue of climate change, or are you intentionally hijacking the issue to divert attention from the root of the problem?
     
  15. Desertrat thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #15
    Show me where in this thread or in any other thread here where I've ever derided the idea of climate change. Show me. I freely admit to having initial doubts about homo sap's causality, but that's a "So what?" bit of trivia. I don't jump on anybody's bandwagon, whether scientific or political.

    The deal about Gore's house has been written up in the media in several formats--newspapers, magazines. What was new to me was the Crawford house. I had not known of the eco-differences vs. conventional houses.

    If you're gonna talk the talk, walk the walk. I've been walking the walk since I got out of the Army in 1958. Sure, sometimes on account of economics, but quite often by deliberate choice. Carbon footprint? How big is a $50./month kw-hr footprint? How much energy didn't get used on account of me being happy with my 1985 pickup that I've had since new? Or building a house that you can darned near heat with a match or cool with an icecube?

    Walk the walk.

    'Rat
     
  16. pdham macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #16
    As I said in my post: "I know from other posts you have written that you don't dismiss the reality of climate change.."

    And that is exactly why these types of arguements are so frustrating to me. The camp that likes to disbelieve the realities of climate change tend to use these personal arguements to divert attention from the real subject. So I expect someone who does recognize the reality of our situation not to get pulled into partisan rhetoric that only serves to polarize people.

    I admit I react strongly to this subject, but we could be doing somehting about this now, and instead it seems like most people would rather debate the energy usage of Al Gore than talk about what can be done to solve the problem.

    I know you have addressed your own footprint 'rat, but then talk about what others can do to do the same thing. By promoting these irrelevant arguements about how Gore lives you are indirectly giving people an excuse to not change themselves.
     
  17. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #17
    If anyone inherited one of the homes in question, I'd assume it must be Gore. His father was a Tennessee senator.
     
  18. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #18
    Thank you, I believe thats what rat was getting at.

    In a thread about Al Gore's failure to "walk the walk" is it really me who is diverting the issue?
     
  19. Kashchei macrumors 65816

    Kashchei

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2002
    Location:
    Meat Space
    #19
    Jefferson owned slaves yet wrote "All men are created equal." Lincoln was initially against emancipation, yet eventually freed the slaves. Both men were not 100% pure, and we remember the overall good that they did. Gore may not be the most environmentally conscientious person, yet the positive good he has done for this cause is undeniable.

    After debunking the argument of DesertRat/ObeyGiant (one they undoubtedly heard from Rush rather than coming up with on their own), let me just point out the futility of a logical argument with right-wing ideologues. It is clear that logic plays no role for such people; rather, they look for any evidence, no matter how flimsy or spurious, and repeat it ad infinitum. They conveniently sweep under the rug any evidence that contradicts their ideology. The best part of this mindset is the inability to see the hypocricy of their argument.
     
  20. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #20
    What bothers me most about these types of arguments is that we as a country have allowed the right to say whatever they want, while they ignore evidence.
     
  21. imac/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #21
    Do you think there is room for Gore's face next to Lincoln at Mt Rushmore?

    All kidding aside, this is a rather rude generalization. First, I don't think you debunked any argument with your analogy. You did bring up a different point, but saying that you debunked it is giving yourself a little bit too much credit. You did not debunk anything in the argument that Gore does not "walk the walk." Secondly, 'Rat already stated where he got his information, so the comment about Rush is simply wrong. Thirdly, I don't see any evidence that has been swept under the rug in anyone's argument. Simply put, Gore doesn't walk the walk and Bush's home is more environmentally friendly.
     
  22. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #22
    I think his point was that while Gore's house may not be great, and it isn't for sure- who has more power to do something about climate change on a large scale, Bush or Gore? I think we all know the answer to that. These arguments are used oftentimes to deflect from what we already know to be true.
     
  23. Kashchei macrumors 65816

    Kashchei

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2002
    Location:
    Meat Space
    #23
    You are correct, I did not argue the point on the carefully-selected battleground Desert Rat chose (you'll note that I conceded the point that Gore is not the most conscientious environmentalist). Instead, I tackled the larger point of how this sort of specious argument is convincing for those who are selective in their view of the truth, like yourself. On your second point, I noted that Desert Rat undoubtedly did not think of this himself, and you confirmed my point.
    Your final point (I don't see any evidence that has been swept under the rug in anyone's argument. Simply put, Gore doesn't walk the walk and Bush's home is more environmentally friendly) is perfect confirmation of my argument. You are unwilling or unable to argue on a larger field since you know, consciously or subconsciously, that your argument does not hold water. So rather than see the inherent contradictions of your argument, you insist on repeating this one point over and over.

    Right-wingers, like yourself, are swept up in the emotional argument, and it frustrates you that liberals aren't similarly convinced. This is why you demonize them; they just don't "get it." If you can't see the hypocricy of the current administration, then party loyalty has replaced logic and there is no hope for you. If there were a time machine, I would happily send you back to 1933 Germany. You would fit right in.
     
  24. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #24
    I'm glade he hasn't gone off the deep end like Ed Begly.
     
  25. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #25
    Being true doesn't stop it being a widely distributed spam email that was collected over six months ago by Snopes. Follow the further links on snopes, it discusses Gore's energy usage in more detail (and his rebuttals) as well as being picketed by environmental groups who also think he's a hypocrite.

    This is my point exactly. You're so caught up in your political viewpoints that's it not so much about the reality of the scientific evidence, rather it's jumping up and down for your political persuasion. You're shooting the messenger - the scientific evidence as it stands demands that we do our best to reduce the impact of our emissions, not Gore. He isn't a scientist, he's an ex-politician millionaire (now with a Nobel Peace Prize) with his own agendas, some egotistical and possibly some altruistic. But that doesn't change the reality of the scientific evidence for climate change one iota.
     

Share This Page