Sad that even President Bush has fallen for enviro-wacko ism.
Being thrifty and conserving energy is not "enviro-wackoism".
We recently put in a new heating/air system, and if we could have afforded it we would have gone geothermal.
Why throw away money on excess energy usage?
I don't think he has "fallen" for anything. I do think we all need to be a little more careful but President Bush went a little further while Gore continues to BLOAT (in more ways than one.)
So...I guess YOU just burn stacks of dollar bills in your stove....
This exemplifies good "stewardship" and wise use.
I am not surprised.
All most all home design measures that use the earth and the sun as directly as possible for the home's energy mean (a)smaller bills paid to utility companies, (b)smaller demand on "big" utility companies.
If someone can afford the initial additional costs, there is usually some point in which that cost is offset by the continued lower costs paid to purchase energy for the home. When that is depends on just how far the "green" effort went and what its specific applications cost. For instance, most measures that raise the R-value (insulation) of walls and windows, pays off before most people sell the house. Solar and geothermal measures add greatly to first-time costs, but diminish greatly the monthly utility bills.
However, in almost all cases, from geothermal to solar, because people that could afford to do it (make the greater investment initially) have done it, the technology continues to improve and more people now think they can afford it than did people ten or twenty years ago - because the applied technology has continued to get cheaper.
At least Bush did it himself, instead of (as Gore would have) mandating that all homes do it (ignoring the present state of the technology and its costs, and imposing the additional costs on everyone).