I also understand the dilemma of whether pure property crimes can/should be considered arson. It's a conundrum. -- catnmus

What a stupid post.

A building was intentionally set on fire. Unless this is being done by the fire department for practice, it's arson.

ikuiku, I misspoke. I meant to say it was debatable whether it was TERRORISM. Obviously it was arson. Sorry for the confusion.

Seems you are still a bit confused.

But if she WAS standing lookout that night, then she participated in the destruction of property with the intention of intimidation to achieve an ideological objective.

How do you arrive at that interpretation? The stated, and indicated, goal of most criminal activism of this sort is to stop the activities that the activists wish to see an end to. That's not textbook terrorism. That's textbook vandalism. -- Amity

Any act of violence, whether directed at persons or property, done to further a political agenda is terrorism. Vandalism is wanton "destruction" simply for the "hell of it." Burning down a building because you do not like the activities associated with it is done to intimidate the people undertaking the activities connected to the building. Vandalism would be spray painting "Stop genetic research" on the building.

. . . the fact that almost no one is employing all this white magic suggests that it really isn't available.

All the technology is there; the biggest obstacles are the will, and training workers to build higher performance homes.

-- djoelt1

A perfect, if minor example, are compact florescent bulbs. Our experience to date in our house has been rather mixed - in other words, we've had to replace about 1/4 of them not long after they were installed. That's a much higher and more expensive failure rate than incandescent bulbs, which still provide a much better quality of light. Then there is the disposal issue with CFB.

I agree that there are a lot of things at the margin that can be done to cut energy consumption by homeowners and by commercial interests - every house in the sun belt should have some solar power, and there is no reason to not require all high rise commercial buildings to have solar arrays.

But the fact of the matter is that our houses, even though larger, are much kinder on the power grid than they were three decades ago. Houses may "consume" power generated by carbon producing energy sources, but it's still easier to eliminate those power sources, particularly coal and oil, than it is to retro fit hundreds of millions of structures throughout the country.

But we are humans, goddammit. Let's not forget that we have strode across the surface of the moon, a feat which was unimaginable just 60 years ago. We have, as a species, accomplished astonishing things. -- Diddlypop

I agree. I think it is feasible to radically alter our energy consumption in a couple decades thus avoiding the collapse (the good parts anyway) of civilization as we know it. However, the nation with the most to lose and with, historically, the greatest capacity to address the problem is also the biggest obstacle to accomplishing anything. Walt Kelly said it best: We have met the enemy, and he is us.

The only way the transition to a non-carbon base powered infrastructure in this country will ever come to pass is with strict government intervention of a magnitude not seen since the Second World War. -- sceptical

And given the fiddling while Rome burned and, hey, let's start a disastrous war too! attitude of the current administration ("Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy" - Dickhead Cheney), and the fact that none of the candidates running for president has made this one of the two central features of his or her platform (along with getting out of the Middle East), I have little hope for my children's future.

Happy Friday!

This article while well intentioned misses the point. For every gallon of gas saved in developed nations through conservation and alternative energy, the developing economies in China and India will use two. -- Freed

Of all countries, that an authoritarian one like China didn't dictated from the top down what kind of post-"communist" future it had - in one hand I hold steady growth and sustainability, and in the other hand I hold the past in aping the late industrial age that we pretty much missed out on when we where "purging" and "re-educating" tens of millions of our comrades in the '50s and '60s. The Chinese can't buy cars fast enough. Marx would piss on Mao, Chou, and Deng's graves if he had a chance.

"No gasoline-powered car assembled in North America would meet China's current fuel-efficiency standard. -- zzz05

Most of the cars sold China are the same cars being sold in the U.S. The one major exception being pick-up truck. MB, BMW and Land Rover all sell very well to the nouveau rich in the People's Republic. GM and Ford both sell mid-sized cars there.

http://www.gmchina.com/english/index.jsp

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2007-12/04/content_6296588.htm

Plastic bags are by and large unneeded. Yes, it's a shame that subsistence farmers lost their subsistence factory jobs. But I believe the greater good is being served.

. . . make this movie about 25-years ago. As many others have pointed out, the Stones ceased to be interesting about the time of punk and its aftermath. I would say Some Girls would have been a nice swan song. However, Mick Jagger may be the neediest and greediest ever middle-class kid pretending to be on the edge. As Neil Young sings, it's better to burn out than rust. One can only wonder what sort of make-up magician keeps them from looking all red and orange in public.