Did you know that setting massive fires helps the environment? No? Well, me neither, but that's what numerous environmentalist extremists believe.

Yesterday morning, arsonists torched the construction site of a housing development in a community outside of Washington, DC. The conflagration comes on the heels of some very public objections to the building of the houses by environmentalists. Want to take a guess who did this and why?

Interestingly, the US Forest Service intentionally sets fires in forests to clear out underbrush. Their claim is that their controlled fires help the environment by burning off fuel in the form of dead wood and other plant debris that could destroy entire forests.

It's interesting that in this sense, causing a fire does seem to have some environmental benefit, but so-called 'environmentalists' who destroy private property really are not protecting the environment. Indeed, one could say that all the chemicals that are burned in the course of destroying buildings are environmentally detrimental.

But then eco-terrorists have not been known for their probity, have they?

I have a theory that these eco-thugs don't really care about the environment. They use "the environment" as an excuse to destroy property and spread anarchy.

There is nothing contradictory about causing damage to construction companies in order to prevent further urban sprawl. Releasing a few pollutants into the air with the fire causes a negligible amount of damage to the environment, whereas urban sprawl causes a great deal and is pretty permanent. You're being an intellectual dolt by calling the eco-terrorists idiots. It feels as if you were channeling Sean Hannity in your post.

Obi Juan, why did you burn down those houses?

Urban sprawl harms the environment. Harming the environment is not sufficient justification for arson or destroying private property.

To the eco-terrorists it is a justification. It's no better or worse a justification than militant prolifers use for destroying private property.

Anything can be construed as a justification for something else; the question is whether the justification is sufficient. It is folly to argue that saving the environment from urban sprawl is sufficient justification to destroy private property.

Real estate developers routinely purchase insurance to recoup their losses in the event of destruction of their property; these developers will build again. No coherent message is sent by destroying their property, and no environmental good comes about as a result. Eco-terrorists who think otherwise are naive or stupid or both; a property developer is not going to stop building his buildings merely because someone else tries to burn them down. The financial incentives inherent in real estate development are too great.