Jazsta

I can see how it's strange on the surface, but ultimately the carbon emissions wouldn't be there if the polluting activity was not funded. So to whom would the carbon emissions be attributed otherwise? Just the CEO?

The study's primary metric appears to include both supplier and producer emissions proportional to income and investments. What alternative do you suggest?

They literally need to meet airtightness requirements to meet the Passive House standard. It's tested with a blower door test to check the air exchange rate at a prescribed negative pressure. You may be referring to a loose definition of passive house, instead of the standard, though. Airtightness is not "awful" as you suggested - mechanical ventilation provides fresh air

I can see why you would think that happens, but it either doesn't happen, or it does and the shit water gets washed away by the continuous spray of clean water just like taking a shower.

I actually don't mind it, especially in the summer. You can get heated ones that cost more. Maybe my anus isn't that temperature sensitive?

How does getting in the shower save time over the 10 seconds it takes to spray your bhole?

A bidet. You can install it yourself in 20 minutes and enjoy a lifetime of cleaner buttholes and save on tp.

Thanks for putting out what is at least an interesting and engaging graphic for us to comment on! I myself have two of the three reactions you listed

Yeah, this is a pretty appalling graphic that maybe seemed good in theory but is hostile to the reader in practice.

It's time for this unfortunate headline to go away. I see a variation of this posted in nearly every thread about climate and emissions, a complex topic that the average person understandably doesn't know much about beyond some headline that stuck with them. Snopes has a good article debunking The Guardian's grossly misleading headline.

To see the actual sources of GHG emissions, at least in the US, the EPA has good resources. In short, agriculture is 10% (methane from cows fits here), transportation is 28%, electric power generation is 25% (fossil fuel power plants generating electricity), residential and commercial buildings are 13% (in practice, the building sector overall is about a third of emissions after attributing the emissions from the electric power slice. Residential and commercial buildings use 75% of the power generated in the US), and finally industry is 23% (again, a bit more factoring in their share of the electric power emissions. Industry uses about a quarter of all power in the US).

As you can see, emissions, or at least GHG emissions, are spread across the economy. Some industries are heavy polluters (e.g. cement manufacturing), but that's ultimately to make products for the market, even if they do have plenty of room to improve efficiency and reduce emissions, as do all other areas of the economy, especially buildings.

I can't wait to switch mine to induction as well. I always run the fume hood with gas but it still feels like it's not capturing most of the fumes

Do you strictly have to deprive others of content to be stealing? Taking away potential revenue, stealing someone's design, etc. are also forms of stealing. If a gaming company lifts some art someone shared and put it in their game without compensating the artist or getting permission, would that not be stealing? They're not taking away that content from anyone else - so is that ok?