An article in today at NewsMax.com illustrates the difference between eco-posturing and a sincere commitment to sensible energy use:
Bush's House More Eco-Friendly Than Gore'sGore's posturing earns him accolades and awards from like-minded blowhards and Dubya's actual deeds are ignored while he's constantly derided as nothing short of an eco-terrorist.
President George Bush may be a nemesis of the global green movement and Al Gore its hero, but the president's home is arguably far more environmentally-friendly than the home of the man he defeated in the 2000 election.
Bush's "Western White House" in Crawford, Texas, has been praised as "an eco-friendly haven" while the former vice-president's home in Nashville, Tennessee was criticized this week for heavy power consumption.
"In politics, people don't always practice what they preach," Marlo Lewis, Jr., a senior fellow at the conservative Competitive EnterpriseInstitute (CEI), told Cybercast News Service on Wednesday.
Bush has been criticized harshly by environmentalists for his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol and its mandatory cuts on emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming.
By contrast, Gore on Sunday won an Academy Award for his documentary focusing on the impact of climate change. He recently announced a series of music concerts on seven continents in July to drew further attention to the cause.
"It's interesting that Bush seems to actually practice conservation, while Gore seems to want to buy his way out of his obligations," said Lewis, referring to the purchase of offsets for carbon emissions attributed to the high power use in Gore's 20-room mansion.
An April 2001 article in USA Today described the president's 4,000-square-foot single-story limestone house in Crawford as an "eco-friendly haven."
I challenge all you leftist environmentalists out there to read the whole thing and then justify the hypocrisy to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment