7 ms·

This article briefly touches on an interesting fact, which is despite popular opinion, George W. Bush is a not-quite-closeted environmentalist who loaded his pe

This article briefly touches on an interesting fact, which is despite popular opinion, George W. Bush is a not-quite-closeted environmentalist who loaded his personal home with alternative energy sources like solar, a geothermal heat pump (which are not cheap to install), and rainwater collection. https://www.geothermalgenius.org/blog/george-bush-goes-green-with-geothermal https://www.geothermalgenius.org/blog/george-bush-goes-green... https://www.netafimusa.com/492d96/contentassets/e04072012ace4629a7068c57ceb9d74f/george-bush-ranch.pdf https://www.netafimusa.com/492d96/contentassets/e04072012ace...

pirate787 5y ago
And Al Gore famously had a heated pool and sidewalks. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=29068...
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Environmentalism doesn't have to equal asceticism.
  - LeifCarrotson 5y ago
    It kind of does? I mean, you don't have to be uncomfortable, you can like Bush buy an expensive heat pump to efficiently keep your home warm in winter and cool in summer...but it's more than a bit hypocritical to push the average homeowner with his 3-bedroom ranch to install extra insulation, turn the heat down, and install LED bulbs when your heated pool uses more energy per month than their home uses in a year.
- monocasa 5y ago
  I'm not seeing heated sidewalks in your citation, and part of the large reason for the bill was that he went out of his way to get the energy from renewable sources back in the early 2000s when that came at a premium from grid suppliers. And his energy bill even then was <$2k/month for a hundred year old ten bedroom mansion which is not that nutty.
  - themaninthedark 5y ago
    Look, I try to reduce the amount of energy I use for both environmental reasons as well as to save money. His energy bill amount is not what is staggering, it's his energy usage amount. >that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours. Also, his pool costs almost the same amount as his house per month. >During that time, Nashville Gas Company billed the family an average of $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 2006, and $640 for the main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      > His energy bill amount is not what is staggering, it's his energy usage amount. I mean, he was overpaying versus standard energy costs by insisting on renewable sources, so the usage can't be staggering and the bill not be. And your citation show that he's actively taking steps to reduce his energy usage year over year. $640 in 2005 versus $536 in 2006 means he had a >15% year over year reduction in his house's energy bill for a hundred year old house. He's obviously either cutting back actively on energy usage from simply using less, or making investments in his hundred year old house's energy efficiency or (probably) both. Just because he hadn't gotten to the pool yet isn't that big of a deal to me (particularly when he's going out of his way to power that pool usage out of renewable sources).
      - themaninthedark 5y ago
        Sorry, I didn't copy everything but the pool is heated via gas. >Nashville Electric Services records show the Gores in 2006 averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in 2005. >Nashville Gas Company billed the family an average of $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 2006, and $640 for the main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005. I am not aware of a renewable gas service but they might exist. Pulling out his power usage from the electrical breakdown, we can see that he is still using 16,200kwh of power ~1.5 times the national average. I don't care how much he is paying for is energy, I care that he is using energy in a wasteful manner(especially while telling others not to do the same). By excusing him by saying that he because he pays more that it is acceptable is the same as claiming that it is ok for someone pour bio-oil out because it was made using a green process. One of the main reasons that Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic Church was because they sold indulgences. Meaning, if you were rich and you sinned, you could pay to be forgiven. That is a shitty philosophy, no matter if you view it from a religious, legal or environmental perspective.
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
Alas from a policy standpoint, Bush's two terms occurred in likely the most crucial window for averting global warming, and the policy was not up to snuff. Admittedly so were the Clinton years, and he didn't exactly change the course aside from the usual Democrat "words not action" on environmentalism. Plus alt energy is a great tech for the libertarian/offgrid people. It doesn't necessarily mean they're all gung-ho on green tech at a policy level. Schwartzenegger was basically the only GOP politician that was a vocal environmentalist while he was in office, and it wasn't just to appease the California voting base, he probably limited his political career by advocating strongly for global warming policies.
- beachy 5y ago
  Putin may yet turn out to have the most positive effect of anyone in history on weaning the world from our fossil fuel addiction. I'd love to see him get an award for that (posthumously).
  - MaxHoppersGhost 5y ago
    Russian oil can just be replaced with American or Saudi oil. They produce a lot but I don’t think this helps reduce demand for oil other than high prices making green alternatives relatively cheaper. Higher prices also means that more people invest in oil and gas exploration and drilling.
    - pvarangot 5y ago
      High prices also lead to more destructive and less understood methods of extraction like hydrofracturing, that uses a shit ton of water and may lead to immediate but long lasting environmental impact.
      - MaxHoppersGhost 5y ago
        Incorrect. Low prices created fracking. Fracking was invented to get oil out of formations that otherwise weren’t economic to drill. This is basic knowledge if you know anything about fracking. This takes away any credibility you have regarding environmental impacts of fracking.
croes 5y ago
This doesn't make him an environmentalist, more an egoist.
pvarangot 5y ago
> not-quite-closeted environmentalist Or a prepper!
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
  I was gonna say, when it comes to putting your money where your mouth is on this topic, I know far more conservatives because they're self-proclaimed preppers. It goes to the desire to be self-sufficient. When it comes to affordable, off-grid power sources, most go solar.
danans 5y ago
The biggest impact a former (or current) president can have is to use their position to influence the current debate. It's great that GW Bush has an efficient electric home, but he's hardly used his voice and platform to speak out in support of renewable and zero carbon energy sources and fighting climate change. If he had done so, perhaps a significant percentage of the population wouldn't perceive reducing use fossil fuels as a threatening identity politics issue, and rather as something that is better in the long run for their pocketbooks and the environment. This may have something to do with his being a former oil executive, governor, and prominent resident of Texas, a major fossil fuel producing state, and therefore not having an interest in promoting anything that would challenge the bread and butter industry of his state and many other fossil fuel based economies around the world. It's never too late for him to start speaking up against fossil fuels, though! It would be a great service to his country and the world if he did.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Climate change yes, but climate change is a bipartisan issue, despite what corrupt politicians and media corporations would have you think. The majority of all voters want more action on climate change. It is presented as a partisan issue to give politicians an excuse for their inaction on behalf of their owners, while laying the blame on the common people -- privatize profit and socialize responsibility, as usual. Now what would be great is if he had proactively spoken out against war, coups, etc., and admitted he was wrong and those wars were failures. Who knows, he may even have got a few people across the aisle to reconsider their pro intervention stance and prevented much horror and tragedy and further destruction of the west's moral standing caused by subsequent administrations. Although I guess he's just as deep in it with the war industry too.
  - danans 5y ago
    > Climate change yes, but climate change is a bipartisan issue, despite what corrupt politicians and media corporations would have you think. If this were the case, most Republican politicians would be running on a carbon emissions reduction platform, but that's manifestly not the case. The vast majority are either silent on the issue or openly mock the idea of its existence. The only other explanation is that there is a tacit understanding between them and their voters that they privately take climate change seriously but just don't want to discuss it openly, which is an extremely far fetched explanation. It's not impossible for conservatives to take climate change seriously and confront it openly - look at the current UK government for example. Likewise, it's not a given that a far-left leader takes climate change seriously - look at Venezuela. It matters where the bread is buttered. > Now what would be great is if he had proactively spoken out against war, coups, etc., and admitted he was wrong and those wars were failures Agreed, but as the Ukraine war has again shown us, fossil fuels are the glue that binds climate change and wars of aggression, so I'm not so sure that we can separate the two so easily.
Fatnino 5y ago
Heat pumps are only expensive to install because the installers know that can get away with it. It's basically the same skills needed to install and air-conditioner.
- assttoasstmgr 5y ago
  > Heat pumps are only expensive to install because the installers know that can get away with it. > It's basically the same skills needed to install and air-conditioner. Uh you're thinking of a conventional air-source heat pump, which is just an A/C run in reverse to generate heat. A geothermal heat pump, which is being discussed here, has much higher efficiencies by taking advantage of ground temperature being relatively constant and burying pipework deep in the soil (sometimes a few hundred feet deep) and circulating the heat-transfer fluid through it. A geothermal heat pump, including installation, can range from $12,000 to $45,000 [1] [1] https://www.carrier.com/residential/en/us/products/geothermal-heat-pumps/cost-buying-geothermal-heat-pump/ https://www.carrier.com/residential/en/us/products/geotherma...
  - elric 5y ago
    Shouldn't those be called ground source heat pumps? Geothermal energy requires quite a bit of extra depth, no?

pirate787 5y ago

And Al Gore famously had a heated pool and sidewalks. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=29068...

nitrogen 5y ago
Environmentalism doesn't have to equal asceticism.
- LeifCarrotson 5y ago
  It kind of does? I mean, you don't have to be uncomfortable, you can like Bush buy an expensive heat pump to efficiently keep your home warm in winter and cool in summer...but it's more than a bit hypocritical to push the average homeowner with his 3-bedroom ranch to install extra insulation, turn the heat down, and install LED bulbs when your heated pool uses more energy per month than their home uses in a year.
monocasa 5y ago
I'm not seeing heated sidewalks in your citation, and part of the large reason for the bill was that he went out of his way to get the energy from renewable sources back in the early 2000s when that came at a premium from grid suppliers. And his energy bill even then was <$2k/month for a hundred year old ten bedroom mansion which is not that nutty.
- themaninthedark 5y ago
  Look, I try to reduce the amount of energy I use for both environmental reasons as well as to save money. His energy bill amount is not what is staggering, it's his energy usage amount. >that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours. Also, his pool costs almost the same amount as his house per month. >During that time, Nashville Gas Company billed the family an average of $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 2006, and $640 for the main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    > His energy bill amount is not what is staggering, it's his energy usage amount. I mean, he was overpaying versus standard energy costs by insisting on renewable sources, so the usage can't be staggering and the bill not be. And your citation show that he's actively taking steps to reduce his energy usage year over year. $640 in 2005 versus $536 in 2006 means he had a >15% year over year reduction in his house's energy bill for a hundred year old house. He's obviously either cutting back actively on energy usage from simply using less, or making investments in his hundred year old house's energy efficiency or (probably) both. Just because he hadn't gotten to the pool yet isn't that big of a deal to me (particularly when he's going out of his way to power that pool usage out of renewable sources).
    - themaninthedark 5y ago
      Sorry, I didn't copy everything but the pool is heated via gas. >Nashville Electric Services records show the Gores in 2006 averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in 2005. >Nashville Gas Company billed the family an average of $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 2006, and $640 for the main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005. I am not aware of a renewable gas service but they might exist. Pulling out his power usage from the electrical breakdown, we can see that he is still using 16,200kwh of power ~1.5 times the national average. I don't care how much he is paying for is energy, I care that he is using energy in a wasteful manner(especially while telling others not to do the same). By excusing him by saying that he because he pays more that it is acceptable is the same as claiming that it is ok for someone pour bio-oil out because it was made using a green process. One of the main reasons that Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic Church was because they sold indulgences. Meaning, if you were rich and you sinned, you could pay to be forgiven. That is a shitty philosophy, no matter if you view it from a religious, legal or environmental perspective.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

Alas from a policy standpoint, Bush's two terms occurred in likely the most crucial window for averting global warming, and the policy was not up to snuff. Admittedly so were the Clinton years, and he didn't exactly change the course aside from the usual Democrat "words not action" on environmentalism. Plus alt energy is a great tech for the libertarian/offgrid people. It doesn't necessarily mean they're all gung-ho on green tech at a policy level. Schwartzenegger was basically the only GOP politician that was a vocal environmentalist while he was in office, and it wasn't just to appease the California voting base, he probably limited his political career by advocating strongly for global warming policies.

beachy 5y ago
Putin may yet turn out to have the most positive effect of anyone in history on weaning the world from our fossil fuel addiction. I'd love to see him get an award for that (posthumously).
- MaxHoppersGhost 5y ago
  Russian oil can just be replaced with American or Saudi oil. They produce a lot but I don’t think this helps reduce demand for oil other than high prices making green alternatives relatively cheaper. Higher prices also means that more people invest in oil and gas exploration and drilling.
  - pvarangot 5y ago
    High prices also lead to more destructive and less understood methods of extraction like hydrofracturing, that uses a shit ton of water and may lead to immediate but long lasting environmental impact.
    - MaxHoppersGhost 5y ago
      Incorrect. Low prices created fracking. Fracking was invented to get oil out of formations that otherwise weren’t economic to drill. This is basic knowledge if you know anything about fracking. This takes away any credibility you have regarding environmental impacts of fracking.

croes 5y ago

This doesn't make him an environmentalist, more an egoist.

pvarangot 5y ago

> not-quite-closeted environmentalist Or a prepper!

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
I was gonna say, when it comes to putting your money where your mouth is on this topic, I know far more conservatives because they're self-proclaimed preppers. It goes to the desire to be self-sufficient. When it comes to affordable, off-grid power sources, most go solar.

danans 5y ago

The biggest impact a former (or current) president can have is to use their position to influence the current debate. It's great that GW Bush has an efficient electric home, but he's hardly used his voice and platform to speak out in support of renewable and zero carbon energy sources and fighting climate change. If he had done so, perhaps a significant percentage of the population wouldn't perceive reducing use fossil fuels as a threatening identity politics issue, and rather as something that is better in the long run for their pocketbooks and the environment. This may have something to do with his being a former oil executive, governor, and prominent resident of Texas, a major fossil fuel producing state, and therefore not having an interest in promoting anything that would challenge the bread and butter industry of his state and many other fossil fuel based economies around the world. It's never too late for him to start speaking up against fossil fuels, though! It would be a great service to his country and the world if he did.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
Climate change yes, but climate change is a bipartisan issue, despite what corrupt politicians and media corporations would have you think. The majority of all voters want more action on climate change. It is presented as a partisan issue to give politicians an excuse for their inaction on behalf of their owners, while laying the blame on the common people -- privatize profit and socialize responsibility, as usual. Now what would be great is if he had proactively spoken out against war, coups, etc., and admitted he was wrong and those wars were failures. Who knows, he may even have got a few people across the aisle to reconsider their pro intervention stance and prevented much horror and tragedy and further destruction of the west's moral standing caused by subsequent administrations. Although I guess he's just as deep in it with the war industry too.
- danans 5y ago
  > Climate change yes, but climate change is a bipartisan issue, despite what corrupt politicians and media corporations would have you think. If this were the case, most Republican politicians would be running on a carbon emissions reduction platform, but that's manifestly not the case. The vast majority are either silent on the issue or openly mock the idea of its existence. The only other explanation is that there is a tacit understanding between them and their voters that they privately take climate change seriously but just don't want to discuss it openly, which is an extremely far fetched explanation. It's not impossible for conservatives to take climate change seriously and confront it openly - look at the current UK government for example. Likewise, it's not a given that a far-left leader takes climate change seriously - look at Venezuela. It matters where the bread is buttered. > Now what would be great is if he had proactively spoken out against war, coups, etc., and admitted he was wrong and those wars were failures Agreed, but as the Ukraine war has again shown us, fossil fuels are the glue that binds climate change and wars of aggression, so I'm not so sure that we can separate the two so easily.

Fatnino 5y ago

Heat pumps are only expensive to install because the installers know that can get away with it. It's basically the same skills needed to install and air-conditioner.

assttoasstmgr 5y ago
> Heat pumps are only expensive to install because the installers know that can get away with it. > It's basically the same skills needed to install and air-conditioner. Uh you're thinking of a conventional air-source heat pump, which is just an A/C run in reverse to generate heat. A geothermal heat pump, which is being discussed here, has much higher efficiencies by taking advantage of ground temperature being relatively constant and burying pipework deep in the soil (sometimes a few hundred feet deep) and circulating the heat-transfer fluid through it. A geothermal heat pump, including installation, can range from $12,000 to $45,000 [1] [1] https://www.carrier.com/residential/en/us/products/geothermal-heat-pumps/cost-buying-geothermal-heat-pump/ https://www.carrier.com/residential/en/us/products/geotherma...
- elric 5y ago
  Shouldn't those be called ground source heat pumps? Geothermal energy requires quite a bit of extra depth, no?