Is George Bush a Closet Green?

i'm still in disbelief. and torn. this makes it so much harder to dislike the place haha. i'm torn. thumbs up or thumbs down? beats me, but some people seem to know

please please please... lets bring back the good treehugger writing ... to be a closet green requires more than rainwater harvesting, a small house and locally sourced stone but rather a conscientious awareness of the effects of your actions... G.W bush has a most appalling record on every ecological front, kyoto, oil sponsorship and lack of support for every environmentally progressive activity.

most of all inaction is worst than negative action, for negative action could not survive without lethargy whereas lethargy cannot produce as bad fruits by itself. Bush is in the position where he is able to effect more people and more environmentally progressive projects than any other person currently in existence but he does nothing. in fact he hinders our sustainable visions.

what sort of treehugger article is this?

I disagree with Jak completely. This site exists to encourage individuals to choose to live green lives. How can we begrudge the President for taking the advice due to other differences in ideology.

Mother Theresa spent a lifetime aiding those who suffered from leprosy and AIDS, but never advocated the use of condoms. Did it make her a bad person?

Exactly, gjd. It's a heck of lot better than John Edwards' monstrosity, that's for sure. And what's Elizabeth Edwards' excuse? "It's Energy Star rated!" Whoop-dee-doo! What kind of credibility is John Edwards going to have on environmental issues now, eh? "That's fine, I'll just cut my consumption to John Edwards levels then! Oh, wait, that's a net gain!"

Very insightful. I think Jak is a little offbase here. This is *very* good writing. The most valuable function that can be provided by an article is to dispel a prejudice or a misconception. If an article just feeds the reader's ego or preconceptions (on either side of the political spectrum), it really doesn't need to be read (or written). A politician leading by doing without looking for the photo-op....looks a lot like personal integrity to me.

I really thought no one else noticed the radical difference between John Edwards home zipping around the internet, and the Texas home of W. Why isn't it going around at the same magnitude. "Nothing to see here folks, just keep on moving !" Blogengeezer http://daflikkers.blogspot.com/

So this means that there is a positive side to "W" afterall! See... I told ya so. Remember, you heard it here first!

I just love 'TreeHugger'. The actual true diversity is great. The comments are very insightful. I have given 'TreeHugger' top link in my blog because of the articles and have described the comments section as "all over the grid." That is a complement on my very controversial blog at http://daflikkers.blogspot.com

I have to agree with Jak overall on this one. Sure his summer home is green and that's good. However he is President of the United States with a unique opportunity and responsibility to making the country a better place, including "greener." He has failed miserably at this. This is 6 years into a disastrous presidency (in more ways than just environmental) where the only good thing he has DONE, not just said like with oil addiction, is make official the marine protection area in Hawaii. 6 years and we are just finding out that his vacation home is eco-friendly. Please excuse me if I am unimpressed.

I think the perception of Bush being a *closet* green isn't completely accurate in the sense that he has never exactly hid his concern for the environment. (I know this won't exactly go over well, here. But, whatever.)

His speeches are full of talk about environmental progress. Not a lot has actually been DONE in his term to improve our negative impact on the environment, but it's hard to say if it's because him, how much focus Iraq has stolen from other important decisions, or the largely ineffective Republican congress that he presided over.

Regardless, quipping about his stance on Kyoto (which most "greenies" would actually admit is filled with so many flaws and holes that it's possibly an non-green agreement) and his oil ties really show a lack of insight.

He certainly wasn't effective in creating change or policy, but his speeches are definitely not inconsequential. A Republican decrying our dependency on non-renewable resources is very important in establishing a green national conscience

Interesting... it would be great if we could get (more) federal tax breaks for installing devices like this... and a forcing hand to develop plug-in vehicles, such as the Chevy Volt... all in steps though.

Well . . . so what? While his ranch is fairly substainable, that didn't translate to his environmental policies.

It's going to take a lot more than a thoughtfully-built ranch to offset Kyoto, Iraq, Katrina, seven years of disastrous policies on energy and forestry and pollution standards and he's still got 23 months...

W is green like a stop light.

Good point bfos7215 about stating that he hasn't hidden his love of the out doors, he has had 3 sun exposure moles removed since being president. But where are you getting the idea that he is anywhere near a 'green' president. The first thing he did was have Cheney meet with energy company execs to carve out a new Energy Policy.

Sorry, saying "America is addicted to Oil" and then putting research dollars back the levels they were BEFORE HE CUT THEM as his response to the addiction does not cut it. I would like the give the guy credit, the Hawaii thing is the only thing he has done. A pliable Republican congress that gave him everything he wanted. He can now declare US and ally citizens enemy combatants and hold them with out charge or trial because of that designation. He could have gotten them to do more on energy independence and other environmental matters, if he cared.

PS Good point on the distraction of Iraq, that war has monopolized much national focus.

3000+ Americans and untold thousands of Iraqis are dead because Bush started a war to steal Iraq's oil.
That is the truth and nothing will change that.
The grass is very green at Arlington National Cemetery.

If he were a normal citizen, I would say, yes, he was fairly green. But it isn't how much you do, its what percent. The vast majority of his actions show him to be in bed with oil companies and other destructive forces.

I've actually known about the smaller house for a while thats part of the reason I voted for him over Kerry who owns a ski lodge home that is made from the wood of and old barn.. that was shipped from europe. Among several others .. I guess if you are married to the ketchup queen you gotta live nice.

Honestly though this doesn't make him green.. he sitll hasn't done a whole lot in terms of renewables for the masses

It seems like a wonderful ranch. It really does. It's nice to see he has some hobbies and interests, especially so since it's related to something we here can appreciate. He can afford it, and it's nice he's putting the money into environmentalism, but I don't see why this makes sense as an argument or claim that Bush is good at all for the environment. He's fought to weaken environmental legislation, weakened the budget for endangered species protection, unsigned kyoto, proposed drilling in the arctic wildlife refuge... a myriad of dangerous acts against environmental wellness on a scale reaching as far into the future as they do in breadth today. He is a dangerous man... for a dollar he'll defile the earth because he knows his wealth will afford he and his family comfort when the lower and middle class families of America have to pay the world back for what's been done.

It is not important at all what his house is like. But his policy is! And this nightmare ends soon.. I hope that the USA get a new president who cares for the environment and uses his power to change something not just for himself, but for the whole country and the world..

What is your home like? What do you do to reduce pollution?

How many of us would raise a child by constantly calling him stupid, and meet demonstrations of intelligence by berating him for perceived failings in unrelated areas? How much influence do you think we'd have over the child once it grew-up?

To answer what I do:

I live in a major city with two other people sharing a sub 800 foot apartment. I line-dry my clothes, use only CFLs, eat locally by shopping at an urban market and a grocery store that sources from the region, cook my own fresh food, and drive a car that has averaged 42 MPG in its life no more than 100 miles/month on average.

Oh come on PEOPLE!!! What, do you think GWB chose the stone, geothermal system, rainwater harvesting system, and insisted on the southern orientation of the main windows? PUHLEASE!!! He happened to have a halfway enlightened architect who designed a house that pleased him aesthetically and happened to also have these features as a side note. This is what celebs and people of stature do: hire those who can make them look good in one way or another.

GWB doesn't have a friggin clue, other than he can tell his friends how green ONE of his homes is.

On a side note, anyone yet do a study to determine how much CO2 has been released as a result of military operations in the Gulf? I bet its a staggering amount.

Why does he need a clue? He hired someone who did. That counts too.

Enviromentalist or not, most seem to be missing the point that in this part of the country, these "green" initiatives are fairly normal on long-term ranches. ( I don't count the little ranchettes for the wealthy) Ranchers and farmers in Texas have by necessity been collecting rainwater, heating with the sun, and reusing materials for over 100 years.

4000 sq/ft for 2-4 people (daughters probably won't be moving back in anyway)? That's still a lot larger than is needed. My wife and I have a 1950's house that is 1950 Sq/ft. (basement will add to the space). We have one child and a 2nd will be added to the family and I think this is plenty big.

Federal Tax breaks? HA! That's the problem with this site. Everyone expects someone else to fund their green lifestyles. Until green technologies can make ECONOMICAL sense, the technology should be left to the people that are passionate enough to deploy technologies DESPITE the fact they cost more. If the technology develops to the point it can pay for itself, then it will be hit critical mass and begin to be standard equipment in homes and begin a retrofit craze. IMO - a technology funded by the government will not be long lived unless it is affordable to the masses WITHOUT government funding.

If I wanted to live in a Socialist state - I'd move to Europe. The US is so great because when something is needed, industry will meet the demand and force it to be economical - and then easily outpace the rest of the world. We may be slower to the game, but we will ultimately win - and we will do so because the market will demand it, the economics will be there and industry will respond. That's how we work.

"Federal Tax breaks? HA! That's the problem with this site. Everyone expects someone else to fund their green lifestyles."

I think most people here would be fine with no tax breaks of incentives for green if fossil fuels, suburbs, gasoline car companies and such weren't so heavily subsidized on many many levels and so many of their costs (pollution, smog, mercury poisoning, global warming, mining, etc) weren't "externalized" for the whole society to pay for them.

You make an interesting point, but saying that someone else is geting breaks, so should I is a somewhat misguided argument. If everyone were jumping off a bridge - would you? If someone else killed someone, does that make it right for you to do the same? You get my point.

Federal subsidies for big oil is a different issue completely. YES, IT IS AN ISSUE. But not an excuse to throw government money at even more people. Each issue needs to be taken independently, not as justification as to why you do something wrong.

The Democrats repealed the most recent subsidies. I applaud that - they began to address the issue I describe above. But then they threw 100% of the money at green tehcnology. Wrong answer. The Dems were screaming at the top of their lungs about balancing the budget - and the second they got their hands on $8+ billion, they spent it. This is a major issue on both sides of the aisle. Our government (both sides) love to spend money, we disagree on what to spend it on, so what do we do? Spend it on both. The process is just plain broken.

Like most stories about this (or any) president, the reacitons say far more about the readers than the subject of the article - we all see what we want to see. Personally, I'm a fan of W and have been for a while. When I found out about the house, it supported my positive sentiments. What I find most noteworthy about this whole news item is that he built this green house over _six years ago_ which a) puts him way ahead of the curve on green building issues and b) shows that the mainstream press is reluctant to point out anything that would show W in a good light.

Until green technologies can make ECONOMICAL sense, the technology should be left to the people that are passionate enough to deploy technologies DESPITE the fact they cost more

not always. sorry, but pollution and global warming don't fit into the free-market concept. its a negative externality that will *always* be cheaper to ignore by business.

sometimes there are times when things that cost more have to be implemented instead of the cheap easy way. tax breaks to encourage people and business to lower CO2 is pretty much necessary to make it economically advantageous. otherwise, business will just keep pumping crap into the air and the globe will keep warming.

A Republican worth his salt should be a conservationist, because "conserve" is the root word of "conservatism." If you have never heard of Rep America before, check them out:

http://www.repamerica.org/

I agree with bfos7215 that Bush has always advocated alternatives to oil, and that it is notable he does so. I just returned from a big general science conference in San Francisco, and some of the research that has been done on partisanship and perceptions of climate change is really fascinating. It is the vocal partisan wing of the Republican Party that is slowing down environmental progress -- not moderate conservatives, moderates, or liberals. Indeed Dr. Jon Krosnick of Stanford has concluded that the strong anti-environmental stance of partisan Republicans has made it unsafe for moderate Republicans to side with anyone outside of the Party -- even when the vast majority of Americans (over 80% according to national surveys!) state that they are concerned about the environment and believe that their government should do more. So it is possible that Bush is just trying to "spin" a greener energy agenda in a way that will be more palatable to partisan Republicans -- but it is too bad it is not going anywhere. I am not denying that he is an oil man, but the latest assessment report from the IPCC is truly horrifying. There are energy executives that see the writing on the wall, and Bush may be among them. Anyone that isn't freaking out about it is on a different planet (perhaps the Earth of 100 years ago that is in their heads, because it's not the planet we are on now... and certainly not the planet that we are giving to our children).

Krosnick has also concluded that partisanship among American voters is on the rise. This does not bode well for the environment. With things unravelling in Iraq, I am quite nervous about where American resources will be allocated over the next few years -- perhaps even decades (and more really needs to be pumped into energy R&D if we're going to put the brakes on climate change, as James S. notes).

I wonder how many Goverment contractors were used in the construction, and it's amazing the hobbies people have when the funds are unlimited. This is not a picture of what the average American can do to curb global warming.

no matter how green the house is, it being his second (or third or thirtysixth) makes it decidedly ungreen

I am also interested in the exact environmental effects of Iraq, and wars in general. Tanks, jets, helicopters and Humvees use huge amounts of fossil fuels. Bombs, fires, and artillery all mar the landscape. Not to mention the expense of a supply train (you think the army uses local goods?) and rotating troops in and out be airplane.

For an unnecessary war, it it way too high a price too pay. Not to mention that money wasted on a war can't be spent on going green.

Either that, or he just has a good architect...

I am surprised at the naivete expressed by some of the entries here. As pointed out by others, one must examine the full spectrum of actions and words when judging a person or seeking to understand that person's position (those two things, of course, are very different.) While Mr. Bush's house's features are laudable they can hardly outweigh the many, many decisions he has personally made to override the best interest of our nation's environment. It is not enough to give a speech in the affirmative for alternative forms of energy. One must look beneath the poli-speak and really see what the man is proposing and what he has done about it. To say he is not at fault now that he has offered some words on green issues is not entirely correct either. I would suggest a quick search on Google using the words "Bush's Environmental Record" to understand this administration's and Bush's own position on the environment. To even suggest this home, when put in perspective, makes Bush a closet "Green" is a frightening suggestion and totally untrue.

I think the reason he never talks about it is hes damned either way. If he talks about the house, everyone piles on him for what they "think" hes doing or not doing.... just like everyones doing here.

Its a cool house and its the wave of the future. I thought this was theTreehugger site.

I don't believe Bush has ever boasted about the house and, in fact, the media has rarely ever mentioned the green aspects of the home. Also, it's not his summer home, it's his only home.

It's interesting that Bush is damned no matter what he does. He has a green house but that doesn't matter because his policies supposedly don't align with environmentalists'. Even though those same environmentalists are willing to let the biggest polluters, China and India, off the hook.

Yet Al Gore, who has three homes, one of which uses 20 times the energy as the average American household, gets nominated for the Nobel prize and wins an Oscar because he talks the talk yet doesn't walk the walk. Go figure that the hypocrite gets the accolades.

Personally I don't want to be told what to do by a scold who won't practice what he preaches. But it seems like a lot of people do.

"no matter how green the house is, it being his second (or third or thirtysixth) makes it decidedly ungreen"

Um, you need to do some research on how many homes Al Gore owns.

BTW, this Right Wing Death Beast (actually Liberatarian, but all the lefties I know think that's the same thing) congratulates the commenters here who are mature enough to give Bush kudos for doing the kind of thing you all say we should be doing. It kinda grates on me that I drive a 40-mpg car and live in a small house that uses fifty bucks a month in electricity, but have "treehuggers" condemn me for not believing in an apocalyptic hysteria propogated by a guy who uses 26 times that amount for just one of his sprawling mansions.

I'm walking Gore's talk, and so too, apparently, is Bush. Be nice if Al would do the same.

Actually, Gore is doing fine despite the many smear campaigns:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/

Great posts. The only thing I'd like to add:
- Good on Treehugger for pointing out green habits, wherever they lie politically. If there's anything that should bring the two sides of the political spectrum together, it's that we've all got to live here.

- The Defense Department and the UN have been working quite a while with the new Iraqi government, including building environmental policy into their new constitution (something we didn't even do), and establishing the Iraq Ministry of Environment. It was one of the first cabinets established. The Mesopotamian Wetlands, destroyed in the 90's by Saddam, are being restored as well. Lots more info here if you're interested.

Sheep caused the Sahara, not SUV's. Besides, won't it be nice when Greenland becomes green again (as it once was) and the Siberian plains (and vast areas of Canada) are able to produce vegetation? More sun, more evaporation, more rain, more vegetation... Why are "greenies" always so negative about global warming? Was the ice age really better?

yeehaw!

IN RESPONSE TO >>> "Sheep caused the Sahara, not SUV's. Besides, won't it be nice when Greenland becomes green again (as it once was) and the Siberian plains (and vast areas of Canada) are able to produce vegetation? More sun, more evaporation, more rain, more vegetation... Why are "greenies" always so negative about global warming? Was the ice age really better?"

Sheep caused the Sahara? If you're referring to overgrazing then yes, that's a part of the desertification problem that North Africa has, however poor management techniques and water diversion probably have more to do with it. No one suggested SUVs have anything to do with it.

Greenland was NEVER green (well not in human history) It was called green to divert invaders from Iceland which is, in fact, quite green.

As for the misguided statement about Canada (there is loads of vegitation there, and if weather gets warm enough to melt the permafrost it's going to be a massive wetland/swamp which will be even less "useful" to humans) . the issue is not simply "global warming", it's a complex litany of things that we are doing to overload our planet's stability and life support systems. We won't kill the planet, but if we dont start living like it's the 21st century we may very will kill ourselves!