Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Al Gore's house in Nashville, Tennessee

... vs George Bush's house in Crawford, Texas
See also: Al Gore's new $9 million villa in Santa Barbara, California (click)
Gore mansion: 20x average household

Gore's average monthly electric bill topped USD 1359. Add USD 1080 per month for natural gas. In total, it makes more than USD 30,000 per 2006 for his house at 312 Lynnwood Blvd. in the City of Belle Meade, adjacent to Nashville, TN. The house is in the middle of the map. Of course, the money from the previous sentences don't include air travel, especially not with his Gulfstream private jet.

Update, December 2007: Al Gore has hired dozens of workers and SUVs and managed to reduce his power consumption by 11%, from 20 times the average household to 18 times the average household. Congratulations. ;-)

Update, June 2008: Actually, the information from Al Gore above was wrong. Gore's electricity consumption increased by 10% rather than decreased after the renovations.

Gore's house in Nashville

It's not just a consequence of Gore being a visible man. George W. Bush's house in Crawford, Texas is a model of environmental rectitude.

Bush's Crawford ranch

That's a typical difference between the leftists and rightwingers. Leftists want others to reduce their lives and to pay. Leftists want themselves to benefit. And the rightwingers are those who actually create the values and live the right and modest lives, if I simplify a tiny little bit. ;-)

Is Al Gore willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk? ;-) See

Video: Al Gore's opportunities and profits.

Another comparison of Bush's house and Gore's house


HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over USD 2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON'T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient truth."

Additional favorite climate articles on The Reference Frame


  1. It's a bit disappointing that Al Gore does not practice what he call people to do. But he is a rich man, doesn't a rich man deserve to live a lifestyle slightly more luxurious than an average American? I am sure you can find plenty of people at his income rank paying much more in electricity.

    On the other hand, I am also disappointed that Bush does not promote people to do what he practice himself: A more sustainable lifestyle.

    Bush, of course, is not an environmentalist. His design of his ranch has nothing to do with protecting the environment, but has everything to do with sustainability. He can live well within his ranch and be self sufficient if TSHTF and the grid breaks down.

    Bush, as an oil man, knows about oil. He knows how important oil is to modern society. And he knows that we are running out of oil in a few decades. Matthew Simmons met and talked with Bush on several occasions. Bush is completely Peak-Oil aware, and he accept the Peak Oil theory. No question about it. Publicly he says nothing. But privately he is preparing his family for post peak oil. And he even purchased land in Paraguay. Those are facts.

  2. This guy's only _suspected_ of being a leftist:

  3. "It's a bit disappointing that Al Gore does not practice what he call people to do. But he is a rich man, doesn't a rich man deserve to live a lifestyle slightly more luxurious than an average American? I am sure you can find plenty of people at his income rank paying much more in electricity"

    NO HE DOESNT !!! Gore criticizes large profitable businesses and corporations for living the same way he does. Cant large profitable corporations deserve a lifestyle more luxurious than an average American? What is the difference? It is not that he is living a more luxuirious lifestyle, his home is not as environmentally sensitive as Bush's home. Both are luxurious. Same crap from the left. Just like Hillary condeming the war that she voted for!

  4. Well, I agree that rich people "deserve" - or more precisely, "can afford" - richer lives but frankly speaking, I don't think that Al Gore deserves to be a rich man, and I don't think that rich man have the right to dictate other rich men to live more modestly than they do themselves.

  5. The price of gas has gone up
    double since Bush came into office and the war on Iraq has helped to cause this.

    Bush administration cuts energy plans Discussion at PhysOrgForum
    Conservationists are reportedly upset by a Bush administration plan to
    reduce the budgets of several energy-efficiency research programs.

    Included is a U.S. Energy Department program that in 2004 saved 122
    million barrels of oil, worth about $9 billion, The Christian Science
    Monitor reported Wednesday.

    Also being subject to spending cuts is the government's Industrial
    Technologies Program that saves the United States $7 worth of energy
    for each dollar it spends, ITP proponents told the newspaper.

    Those projects are among about a dozen Energy Department efforts that
    will be trimmed or eliminated in a $115 million cost-saving move.

    The reductions, designed to help the government's budget problems, are
    being implemented despite the administration's stated eagerness to
    fund research into alternative energy sources such as wind, solar,
    nuclear and hydrogen power.

    "This is the worst time to be cutting these programs," William
    Prindle, deputy director of the American Council for an
    Energy-Efficient Economy, a Washington think tank, told the Monitor.
    "At this point in time, with high energy prices and pressures, you'd
    think maybe we'd want to invest in a suite of energy-efficiency
    programs that make a dent right away."

    The administration's request funds solar water heating research at
    just $2 million and concentrating solar power at just $9 million. It
    is important that Congress recognize the vital contributions that
    these technologies can make to our energy security, by providing
    funding for concentrating solar power and solar heating / lighting
    programs at $25 million and $15 million, respectively. Moreover, the
    budget does not include a long-term extension of the Federal solar
    investment tax credits, which is the single most important policy
    affecting solar development. We urge Congress to enact an eight-year
    extension of the Federal solar investment tax credits as contained in
    H.R. 550., the Securing America's Energy Independence Act of 2007,"