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!

If people paid attention to what is going on around them, they would look at this and how the President quietly goes about his business, while keeping in mind the blowhard's stances. Gore and Edwards are more famous for their environmental speeches than for their actions. Kyoto was a bad deal all around, not just for our country but for all countries. We should look for better (and more cost effective) ways to keep our earth clean. I am by no means a George Bush apologist, but the Republican congress didn't back him to the extent that they could have and he cops the blame. Anyway, the story will be the same about Bush (or any other Republican) until we get a Democrat President that the press can dote on, all the while he (or she) is hiding his true excesses.

Another little-known GWB green fact is that the F-250 pickup that Dubya and his staff drive around Crawford and the ranch is 100% powered by propane.

The presidential pickup is just one of nearly 350,000 propane-powered vehicles on the nation's roads today—most in fleet use. Nearly four million vehicles in 38 countries are powered by propane, making it the number one alternative motor fuel in the world. Compared to other alternative fuels, propane vehicles can go longer between fill-ups, oil changes, and engine overhauls. Propane is a clean-burning fuel, with 60 percent lower ozone forming emissions than reformulated gasoline.

The restoration of the Tigris-Euphrates Mesopotamian alluvial salt marshes ought to count for something, too.

Actually, parts of Greenland were quite green and lush at one time. Greenland was the location of a thriving Viking society becasue of it, from about 1100 to about 1400. The Earth's mean temperature then was a few degrees warmer than it is now - as evidenced the fact that in the 1300's England produced so much wine the French were thinking of banning its import.

The Greenland Viking society (and English winemaking amongst much else) was killed by the Little Ice Age which took only ten years to lower the Earth's mean temperature a mere handful of degrees, but with much colder winters. Throw in the effects of the Maunder Minimum in from around 1640-1850 and the Earth became colder still. The Little Ice Age departed as swiftly as it arrived and we are in the midst of another period of mild weather.

We don't know what caused the Little Ice Age or why it left. But Greenland certainly was greener back then than it is today.

That's the problem with Bush, even if he's green personally. He's the most powerful and most visible person on Earth, and all he does is personal things and he doesn't even talk about them.

He could literally change the course of the future, help nature and make the US more efficient and competitive, a leader in clean technology. Instead we just have to wait until he's out of office.

And Bush didn't kill Kyoto because it wasn't good enough. He killed it because it was too good. If he wanted something better, he'd have worked on it instead of doing everything to keep the status quo and silence the EPA and scientists.

Kyoto is a good first step because it is SOMETHING - better than nothing - and creating a framework to go much further later.

EXCELLENT, now compare this to;http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659

Now tell me who is the REAL enviromentalist!!!

Start taking responsiblity for your own carbonfoot print before you start demanding others to.

MNWalleye,
carbon footprint 6.45 per; www.terrapass.com

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?

the fact that a majority of the world's population would be displaced by rising sea levels if greenland becomes green again bother you in any way? but hey, more sun in iowa! woohoo!

bfos7215 you said it

Kyoto is a sham (I know you didn't say that, exactly, but I am just following logically from the flow of your post), but because it has so many good-sounding goals in it, everyone just assumes it's a great thing. But it's too flawed. No country can actually make the grade except, possibly, really small, rich countries like Sweden or Denmark. It's really a laundry list of quotas and mega-goals that are more important as feel-good items than as sound, Green policy. We have to be aware of the need for economies such as the USA's to continue to flourish. If they do not, all consideration of the environment will go bye-bye. It will be considered less important than surviving now, never mind forty or fifty years down the line.

That's a ridiculous false choice. I know that "the other side" tries to frame things as "economy vs environment", but it was never that. In fact, investing in clean tech can create jobs and whole industries, but not only that, it will cost more if we don't do something about global warming than what it would cost if we do something.

This is my first visit to your site - and I just want to thank you. I am truly impressed.

I've about given up on the Internet, particularly where politics (or religion) are involved. The Republican versus Democrat, liberal versus conservative, red versus blue paradigm is old, tired, frustrating, and exactly useless for exactly everybody.

Nobody - and I mean just about nobody - seems to realize that polarizing and dividing, and then preaching to the already converted, never accomplishes anything. If you actually want to DO something, you have to persuade people who don't already agree with you.

Frankly, I'm increasingly conservative after a liberal youth ... but neither side is particularly better or smarter in this regard. I actually found this link from a conservative site mindlessly bashing liberals, which linked to a liberal site mindlessly bashing conservatives ... where I found this link.

And I gotta tell you .... what I see here is like a breath of fresh air. An oasis of sanity in the middle of an asylum.

I assumed with a name like "Treehugger" I'd just find another leftist site more interesting in Bush-hating than accomplishing anything, even if meant failing to achieve their own goals.

And, yeah, sure there's the usual unthinking partisanship in the comments.

But, wow - the last thing I expected to find was this sort of rational reasoned, intellectual honesty. I can't believe you managed to say something positive about the President. I really can't.

And I can't believe I actually found a place on the Internet that seems to choose actually accomplishing their goal (in your case, environmentalism) over ideology.

Places like this - people like you - are so rare online. And because of it, you will accomplish a million times more, do a billion times more good, than most issue-oriented sites.

I probably loathe your politics. But because of that respect, I'm interested. I'm listening. And I'm impressed.

Keep up the good work, and thank you.

Have you guys visited and commented on clubofpioneers.com yet? Interesting site on clean energy - have fun & post your comments.

The article is fair, and I've read about his use of propane fuel in his vehicles, and some of the green things about his home before. His home is modest by most standards. Compare that to Al Gore's 3 homes, one of which is 10,000 sq. ft., in a very exclusive neighborhood in Nashville. He uses 20 times the national average of energy, and he just switched to green power in November 2006. Yet most of you would defend him because he has raised public awareness. Although that's important, it doesn't give him an "out" for not practicing what he preaches. I'd rather follow someone's example any day, than to hear them preach and then find out they're hypocrits. As far as Bush's environmental record, he could have used the bully pulpit more, and brought the most partisan in his party around on this issue. I'll admit that. But his stance on Kyoto was dead on. It would have been a burden on our economy, and would have possibly made the most miniscule difference. With everything, there has to be a balance. It is a difficult task to balance environmental issues (which most certainly will cost our economy in the short run, but even out and be productive in the long term) and keeping people working. What are you going to do with displaced workers in the oil industry? Or the auto industry? Of course they will be transitioned into new industries, but how many years will that take? Our economy as we know it will have to change, but this can't be done overnight, or you will wreck the very country you're trying to make better.

Sounds like Mr. Bush is ready in case this war bankrupts the USA. He'll still have freshwater while the rest of us die...

I think it is great that our president has an eco
friendly house. I am also happy that George
Bush has given more money per year to the
National Park Service than any other president in
history. As a person who believes that actions
speak louder than words, it is funny to compare
Bush's house to Gore's house. But then, Gore
and Clinton are no friends to the environment
(ask any of the redwood trees that were
chopped down at alarming rates when Clinton
helped his logger union buddies ...don't worry
Bush put a stop to that.)

According to Wikipedia, the Crawford Ranch is 10,000 sq ft, not 4,000. A recent email also mentions 4 bedrooms. So, are we to assume the secret service folk and foreign digitaries are bunking in the twin's room? And, as the home was wired for videoconferencing in 2003, what green power source runs that? I'm afraid we haven't been told the whole story.

Yes it is wonderful that these green ideas have been used, let's look at the possibilities: they could have been the idea of the designer, a security move to create a more self contained compound, or simple practicality (it would be a fortune to bring power and water in to a 1500+ acre facility).

How could the same man who spit on Kyoto, design a green Shangrila?

This whole story surfaced in an email comparing Gore's residence with Bush's. According to the Tennessean, Gore spends around $500 per month for "green" electricity. Granted, Gore's home is not as green as Crawford, but here's a guy making a move that we can ALL make. Had he spent $1.3 million for a new green home, critics would have slammed him for THAT! People would say "We can't afford to go green!".

It seems to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

I hear a lot of people say that George Bush
did not make the choice to go green. It was
the house designer's choice. Bush still paid
for it. He was willing to spend his personal
cash to make his house green while most
people opposed to him are NOT WILLING to
do with their money.

So I guess that it comes down to this: Bush is
willing to spend his own money to do his part
to make the earth more green, but is not willing
to spend other people's tax money. Bush's
opponents are willing to spend everyone else's
money to make the earth more green, but are
not willing to spend their own money. I
suppose that sometimes, the price of living in
a free society means that even if you believe
in a certain cause, it might not always be
right to FORCE those views on other people.
If 99% of the people in this country has a
burning desire to go green, AND WERE WILLING
TO SPEND THEIR OWN MONEY BEHIND THE
CAUSE, then more would get done and their
would be no need for the government to
force this issue. Donations could be collected
by green organizations and they could fund
more research and community wide
operations that could not be done individually.
This way, money is taken on a voluntary
basis and nobody is FORCED into anything.

...Just because I care about the environment
does not mean that I am willing to punch
someone else to the ground and forceably
take his money in order to donate it to green
causes.

I hear a lot of people say that George Bush
did not make the choice to go green. It was
the house designer's choice. Bush still paid
for it. He was willing to spend his personal
cash to make his house green while most
people opposed to him are NOT WILLING to
do with their money.

So I guess that it comes down to this: Bush is
willing to spend his own money to do his part
to make the earth more green, but is not willing
to spend other people's tax money. Bush's
opponents are willing to spend everyone else's
money to make the earth more green, but are
not willing to spend their own money. I
suppose that sometimes, the price of living in
a free society means that even if you believe
in a certain cause, it might not always be
right to FORCE those views on other people.
If 99% of the people in this country has a
burning desire to go green, AND WERE WILLING
TO SPEND THEIR OWN MONEY BEHIND THE
CAUSE, then more would get done and their
would be no need for the government to
force this issue. Donations could be collected
by green organizations and they could fund
more research and community wide
operations that could not be done individually.
This way, money is taken on a voluntary
basis and nobody is FORCED into anything.

...Just because I care about the environment
does not mean that I am willing to punch
someone else to the ground and forceably
take his money in order to donate it to green
causes.

I have never understood this entire issue.

There is no question that where the support comes from for the Democrats - as there is no question where the support comes from for the Republicans.

Yes - the Democrats are the part for the environment - and the Republicans are not?

How can that be possible - when as soon as you get out of the environment issue - Conservatives are considered backwoods blah blah blah by most liberals.

I know its a blanket statement - but the normal liberal is going to be living in a crowded city. The normal conservative is going to be living out in the country.

If all those flyover country Conservatives that are the backbone of the Republican Party are so anti-environment - then why do they by choice go out to the more natural area of the country to live?

It seems that many blast Bush on Kyoto, ANWR, and a few other hot button issues, but many times things done in our past to protect the environment have actually been harmful to people, the environments and/or the economy....DDT ban in Africa for one.

Kyoto failed 98-0 in the senate under Clinton/Gore to even get consideration. Why? Because it put the US in an unfair position to compete globally. Proof of that is seen today as China, a KYOTO signatory, has no emission restrictions because it is a 'developing country'...yet will pass the USA in emissions this year...Kyoto made no sense and is a failed bit, even the 'not so green' Gore back then knew it wasn't worth it.

ANWR is a step towards reducing foreign dependency and in turn reduce the number of oil tankers in our waterways. How many catastrophic events have we had with the Alaskan pipeline, and how many with oil tankers? The techonology is safe and should be taken advantage of. We wont displace or harm anything on the frozen tundra, and the environment will benefit. Maybe not as much as you would like, but more than if we keep tanking more oil in from S America and OPEC.

Bush gets a lot of grief from greenies, but so much information is regurgitated that the facts are burried with the political motives of those spreading the disinformation. Just like Kyoto being Bush's fault... we forget it failed 98-0 under Clinton/Gore.

To those using Wikipedia as your source for facts, caveat emptor. I just looked up a WWII topic and found the article there COMPLETELY wrong.

At last I have found a site which is not (often) calling names. That is so useless. Some of the greenest people I know are very conservative and vote accordingly, even for -gasp-GWB in the last election.

That place is a giant PR piece, not Bush's home. It's there first and foremost to create photo-ops of Bush being a "regular guy clearing brush, drivin' a truck." The fact that we know about the "green" elements of the house means that they were also put there for the sake of PR - of making real greenies go, "Gee, I guess this Bush guy isn't so bad after all." The function is to blunt critical analysis of his policies, which have billions of times more impact than his made-for-PR "home."

Plus, there's no way there's just one 4,000 ft^2 building on that property - simply to house security and support staff.

If Bush lives in that house and only that house after he leaves office, and lives with a small ecological footprint, then we can talk. My guess is that he'll no longer feel compelled to play his cowboy role and spend a lot more time being the global bon vivant that he actually is.

Q So this is environmentally friendly --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very much so for a couple of reasons. One, it's got a natural water collection devices all around it, and it's got a heater and cooling system that takes water and circulates it and transfers the cold water to the heat and the heated water to the cold, because the ground temperature -- the subterranean temperature stays constant.

So it's the same type of system that Vice President Gore put in the vice presidential house, which I didn't realize, but he did.

Q Those aren't solar panels on the roof, it just looks --

THE PRESIDENT: No, no, no, no. No, those aren't solar panels. That technology isn't quite worked out.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010825-2.html

Sad... What I se here is a perfect example of gross prejudice. "Character is what a man does when others aren't watching".

While Gore BOASTS of his environmental prowess, he spills more pollutants into the atmosphere in a day than GW does in a month, but so many of you are so obsessed with pure hatred for the good man, that you can't even credit him for this.

Like the Democrats of yore - who refused to recognize the intellect of the African - and perpetrated the acts of the KKK, we have new Democrats once again espousing hate and prejudice.

It seems to me that THE PRESIDENT has a far better environmental record that the former Vice President - who is conning you into paying him for the right to pollute - via his 'carbon offsets', so that the Richest can do whatever they please to the environment, while the poor are restricted to travel by foot. It sure looks like a ploy by the Liberal Left to keep the poor and minorities out of the competition for higher income and a better lifestyle.

Sad... What I se here is a perfect example of gross prejudice. "Character is what a man does when others aren't watching". While Gore BOASTS of his environmental prowess, he spills more pollutants into the atmosphere in a day than GW does in a month, but so many of you are so obsessed with pure hatred for the good man, that you can't even credit him for this.

Where to start? A perfect example of "gross prejudice" is saying that people are "obsessed with pure hatred" (which is a personal attack, not a description of their arguments) and that Bush is "the good man" (which you don't substantiate, just assume). It's also quite telling about you that somehow you think Bush's personal environmental effect is somehow limited to what his fake "ranch" does. So tell me, how much energy does it use? Do you have some actual numbers? And how much energy and waste is used in getting there? How much does Bush does the White House put into the atmosphere? Air Force One? How about that fighter jet Bush rode in onto the aircraft carrier?

That's all before we even begin to look at the consequenes of his policy actions, which are actually what matter.

Like the Democrats of yore - who refused to recognize the intellect of the African - and perpetrated the acts of the KKK, we have new Democrats once again espousing hate and prejudice.

Fatuous flamebait.

It seems to me that THE PRESIDENT has a far better environmental record that the former Vice President

Oh, it "seems" to you? I'm sure a lot of very wrong things "seem" to you. You've already demonstrated that beautifully.

who is conning you into paying him for the right to pollute - via his 'carbon offsets'

That's just jibber jabber now.

so that the Richest can do whatever they please to the environment, while the poor are restricted to travel by foot. It sure looks like a ploy by the Liberal Left to keep the poor and minorities out of the competition for higher income and a better lifestyle.

Fatuous Flamebait v. 2.0.

This is no longer a commentary, it is a culture war. I am turning off the comments.