Despite the building sector producing an additional 50 billion square feet in the past 15 years — housing, office parks, skyscrapers, hospitals, factories, schools, shopping centers and other commercial projects — its energy consumption actually dropped 5 percent and emissions fell 30 percent, data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show.
It should be noted that the title of this post is the content of the <twitter:title> tag in the canonical web page. If anyone knows how this appears in the printed form, I'd be curious. Anyway...
It should be noted that the title of this post is the content of the <twitter:title> tag in the canonical web page. If anyone knows how this appears in the printed form, I'd be curious. Anyway that's probably the reason why this titlet seems so goofy and makes me wonder what would be the correct modern interpretation of the age old admonition not to editorialize title. Truth be told, I'd rather Tildes does not devolve to Twitter's level of mindless sensationalism.
The energy conservation efforts sketched in this NYT article are interesting, and certainly some steps in the right direction. However, fathoming what it would take for the whole "building industry" to become effectively energetically sustainable is nothing short of mind-blowing. Start at the cement kilns, maybe ?
With all due respect for the NYT, the general daily press generally does a poor job when trying to address questions of energy or sustainability. When pandering and pimping to Twitter, it would seem that all attemps at intellectual honesty are forgone.
Let's face it : the world now has a problem of informational sustainability.
Of course, housing ten or eleven billion earthlings in buildings that are life-cycle carbon-neutral is a hard problem. Housing is about one-half of the carbon footprint of industrial and post-industrial nations.
I think you might be getting a little confused by the Washington Post's complicated web page rendering. The headline appears in a twitter:title meta property (not a tag) but also appears later in...
I think you might be getting a little confused by the Washington Post's complicated web page rendering. The headline appears in a twitter:title meta property (not a tag) but also appears later in an h1 tag as usual. There isn't a special headline for Twitter. It's the same headline.
Note that newspaper headlines have always been written to capture reader's attention rather than for strict accuracy; this isn't anything new. We're just more sensitive to clickbait nowadays.
I think "conservation" might be a better word than "sustainability" here, but usually I just copy the headline as-is.
Offtopic, but titles on Tildes can be changed. If you don't like a topic title, why not suggest a better one?
Anyway that's probably the reason why this titlet seems so goofy and makes me wonder what would be the correct modern interpretation of the age old admonition not to editorialize title. Truth be told, I'd rather Tildes does not devolve to Twitter's level of mindless sensationalism.
Offtopic, but titles on Tildes can be changed. If you don't like a topic title, why not suggest a better one?
From the article:
It should be noted that the title of this post is the content of the
<twitter:title>tag in the canonical web page. If anyone knows how this appears in the printed form, I'd be curious. Anyway that's probably the reason why this titlet seems so goofy and makes me wonder what would be the correct modern interpretation of the age old admonition not to editorialize title. Truth be told, I'd rather Tildes does not devolve to Twitter's level of mindless sensationalism.The energy conservation efforts sketched in this NYT article are interesting, and certainly some steps in the right direction. However, fathoming what it would take for the whole "building industry" to become effectively energetically sustainable is nothing short of mind-blowing. Start at the cement kilns, maybe ?
With all due respect for the NYT, the general daily press generally does a poor job when trying to address questions of energy or sustainability. When pandering and pimping to Twitter, it would seem that all attemps at intellectual honesty are forgone.
Let's face it : the world now has a problem of informational sustainability.
Of course, housing ten or eleven billion earthlings in buildings that are life-cycle carbon-neutral is a hard problem. Housing is about one-half of the carbon footprint of industrial and post-industrial nations.
I think you might be getting a little confused by the Washington Post's complicated web page rendering. The headline appears in a twitter:title meta property (not a tag) but also appears later in an h1 tag as usual. There isn't a special headline for Twitter. It's the same headline.
Note that newspaper headlines have always been written to capture reader's attention rather than for strict accuracy; this isn't anything new. We're just more sensitive to clickbait nowadays.
I think "conservation" might be a better word than "sustainability" here, but usually I just copy the headline as-is.
Offtopic, but titles on Tildes can be changed. If you don't like a topic title, why not suggest a better one?