Of course, since Gore pays extra to buy energy from "green" sources, how much electricity he uses is pretty much irrelevant. After all, it isn't electricity that pollutes, but rather it is certain electricity-production methods. So: thank you for proving the point that you don't have to live a deprived lifestyle in order to live a green lifestyle...

No, it's Bush that's proving that "you don't have to live a deprived lifestyle in order to live a green lifestyle." In fact, he is living well.

Gore, on the other hand, although he may obtain his electricity from the waste gasses of sow-bug colonies, has no idea how to live like a philosopher. He is a parvenu, he is nouveau.

What does it mean to "live like a philosopher"? In order to be consistent, Gore merely has to live in a manner that produces no carbon. By buying 0 carbon electricity, he does that. Where is the contradiction?

Since you are a university graduate, I should not have to explain this. But "philosopher," used in a general sense, refers to the commonalities of classical philosophers. Whether they be Cynics or Pythagoreans or Platonists or what have you, they are assumed to be attempting to rise above simple animal greed, above excessive attachment to material wealth, and above hunger for the praise and envy of others.

If I need to bolster my ego by building a bigger and more ostentatious house than those around me, or by seeking the adulation of crowds, then I lack the detachment and self-knowledge that a philosopher cultivates. (As do masters in Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Taoist, and many other traditions.)

To create a house is to write ones personality large. I'd say the message of these houses is that Mr Bush, when the time comes, will head home and most of the time live contentedly on his own acreage. And that Mr Gore will continue to thrash about the world trying to be important and get headlines.

We shall see how things work out.

I don't see why I, or anyone, should hold Gore to 3000 year old philosophies that were supplanted by Christianity-- a religion Gore actually adheres to.

Nonetheless, this is all tangential to your stated point: "Algore's (sic) virtue lies in being a believer, not in actually caring about the environment." Since he manages to consume 20 times the electricity of the average American, but (as I believe you have conceded) he does not create more greenhouse gases in doing so, this point is incorrect. "Greens" won't care, not because he says the right things, but because he does the right things...

Its not about the appearance of "virtue", but about the outcome of lower greenhouse gases...

Well, I suspect that the green electricuty is a sham, and it just means that somebody else buys more non-green electricity. But even if it isn't, every stick, every brick, every tacky detailof that house was made at a cost in greenhouse gasses.

And being Green is about lots of things besides greenhouse gasses. There are plenty of other forms of polution, and many forms of overuse of natural resources.

Oh, and there's that teensy little matter of $1,080 per month for natural gas. PER MONTH! We don't spend that much in a year. Natural gas + Oxygen = heat and.......what? Hmmm?

My point about Greens not caring remains. If Bush had built Gore's house, they would excoriate him for it. Leftists would be howling. You would sneer at him. And Greens are never going to give Bush a word of praise for having an extremely small ecological footprint.

Because they are frauds.

Cold Mountain is a house
Without beams or walls.
The six doors left and right are open
The hall is sky blue.
The rooms all vacant and vague
The east wall beats on the west wall
At the center nothing.

Borrowers don't bother me
In the cold I build a little fire
When I'm hungry I boil up some greens.
I've got no use for the kulak
With his big barn and pasture -
He just sets up a prison for himself.
Once in he can't get out.
Think it over -
You know it might happen to you.

From Cold Mountain Poems, by Han Shan
trans. Gary Snyder

"I don't see why I, or anyone, should hold Gore to 3000 year old philosophies that were supplanted by Christianity"

What the hell are you talking about? Many of those "supplanted" 3,000 year old philosophies were actually absorbed and enhanced by Christian philosophers and theologians. I haven't finished my bachelor's degree and probably never will, but even I know that.

And you can talk about the nonsense that Gore's huge energy-suck of a house is "okay" because he buys imaginary "carbon credits" until you are blue in the face, but it won't change reality.

The fact that Bush has an ecologically sound, low-energy-usage home while Gore doesn't, and Bush doesn't go about bragging about his green bona fides while we can't get Gore to shut up about his, is quite telling. The senator doth protest too much, in the way guilty people have of doing.

I suppose, sir, that once you have assumed your conclusions, argument no longer exists to find truth, but is rather a exercise in empty rhetoric...

I'm not sure what you are referring to since there are two or three threads of argument here. But I haven't assumed my conclusions, I've put forth logical arguments that can be falsified, and facts that can be checked.

If we are discussing whether Gore's house is "green" I've advanced an argument—there's more to being green than just greenhouse gasses—and quoted specifics, such as his natural gas usage.

If we are discussing whether "Greens" are shams, I've given, among other arguments, specific statements and predictions that could turn out to be wrong, thus refuting me. For instance I predict that Greens will give Bush no credit for living in a more "natural" and ecologically less harmfull way than Gore. If I'm wrong, show me an example!

If you are going to accuse me of unfair arguments, you need to be more specific, or how can I defend myself?

Also, I wasn't "holding Gore to 3000 year old philosophies," I was explaining the phrase "living like a philosopher," since you are unfamiliar with it. It is current English (or at least it was current before the recent decades of decay) and it can refer to anyone seeking a life of simplicity and detachment. And, again, I did not assume this as a conclusion, I gave specifics, including a specific prediction.

'Of course, since Gore pays extra to buy energy from "green" sources, how much electricity he uses is pretty much irrelevant. After all, it isn't electricity that pollutes, but rather it is certain electricity-production methods.'

Andrew,

That's not true.

Gore's house gets its electricity from Nashville Electric Service, which gets its power from the Tennessee Valley Authority, which produces most of its power from coal-burning plants.

Perhaps you mean that he purchases 'carbon offsets' from Generation Investment Management, a company he founded and owns. In other words, he pays himself money to counsel other investors on 'investing green'. Carbon offsets are unregulated and of dubious (read: zero) environmental value.

The two homes are metaphors for their owners.

Bush's home embodies simple virtues. It respects the terrain he loves. It is comfortable but not luxurious. It is the home of a man who does not need to impress anyone.

Gore's home is self-indulgent and grandiose. It makes greedy demands on the environment, which are 'offset' by an ostentatious pretense to virtue, and by a scam intended to confuse the ignorant.

Andrew,

Another thing to bear in mind is that so many "green" sources of electric power aren't so green on close inspection.

It's true enough that sources such as wind, solar-thermal, solar-electric, and hydro-electric don't emit carbon-dioxide in the course of service. But it's also true that one hell of a lot of carbon dioxide gets emitted in the course of their manufacture, installation, maintenance, and replacement once they wear out.

I don't have any exact numbers at hand, so don't ask me for a detailed analysis.

I also can't tell you how many times I've run into people who insist that if we'd only convert the entire country to solar-electric power, why we'd never ever have to burn coal or oil to generate electric power. It ain't so, of course, and I try to tell them that, but it's like trying to argue with a brick wall. They seem to have the mindset that holds that it's people like me who have "assumed [our] conclusions", whose "argument[s] no longer exist[] to find truth", and who engage in an "exercise in empty rhetoric".

I'd run the numbers for you in a back-of-the-envelope calculation, but John's comment section is perhaps to small for that essay. :)

I only wish to point out that the eco-freaks have a poor grasp of such points, and that they're pretty much innumerate. Their innumeracy becomes painful to watch when they obviously don't know the difference between a kilowatt and a kilowatt-hour.

Hale, Stephen den Beste some great posts a while back on the brute facts. Here are a couple of them: Link link

The ironies of this subject are many and delicious. Charlene just reminded me of a dear liberal friend of ours, who does not recycle. Not at all. While the Weidners, crass earth-snuffing Republicans though we are, carefully seperate recyclables and compost. (SF has a great system, with three wheeled containers for each house, and special trucks that can grab them up and empty them into the right compartments.)