Yes, but never for meat. I use it when I make toffee, bake bread and some other things.

AFAIK, there’s only three Star Wars films. Episode IV, V and VI.

“Let’s keep the costs public and the profits private!” they said.

Your link refers to a BBC article which I read. It compares cities with other cities, making the argument that the bigger cities produce less carbon dioxide emissions than smaller cities. The source of data here is a bit mixed but mainly it relies on governmental data for cities of 135,000 people or more. It’s hardly rural when there are high-rises. It’s also a bit unclear on how emissions are calculated. It includes industrial emissions for the place where the goods are produced, not where the goods are consumed. Generally, consumption is equal to emissions. If a millionaire flies in a private jet, the emissions shouldn’t be attributed to those who make the plane or pump oil out of the ground. It’s the millionaire who is consuming the plane and fuel that is the polluter.

The BBC article isn’t written by a journalist. Its written by a Paul Swinney who “is director of policy and research at Centre for Cities, a think tank dedicated to improving the performance of UK city economies”. The article should be viewed as an opinion piece.

In the other source, WNYC Studios, there’s a professor Cindy Eisenhower who’s being interviewed. She says, and I quote, that “in reality we’re finding that – many studies emerging that would suggest that if we account for all the things that people buy, uhm, that cities oftentimes have higher footprints despite the efficiency gains that relates to living in really dense settlements.” Listen to the interview that your source links to at https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/urban-versus-rural-carbon-emissions

This is a great example of why secondary sources shouldn’t be trusted without verifying what they say. The author of the article you linked clearly misunderstood the interview. What the professor is saying is exactly what my municipality found: that even if people living in rural areas have higher transport emissions in their day-to-day life, a single trip abroad by plane may produce as much emissions as a full year of traveling to work by car. The direct transportation emissions in rural areas are completely offset by higher consumption and overhead emissions in cities.

My municipality made a study where they looked at the carbon footprint of residents in three different areas. Those with the highest carbon emissions lived right in the city center, next to where they work. The ones in suburbs were right in the middle with respect to carbon dioxide generated by their lifestyle. Lowest were those living 30 km or more away from the city center.

I drive to get to work, nothing else. I don’t drive to the store, I don’t buy clothes, I don’t fly to holiday destinations. I don’t need or want to, since I have everything I love right outside my door. Those who live in cities are statistically those who need to make the largest changes to their lifestyle if we are to save the planet.

I’ve got a horse but there’s no stables outside my workplace. Walking 50 km to work would take the whole day.

Lately I’ve been using Sent.

My dad had problems with Ubuntu since the snaps didn’t communicate well. For example opening links in Thunderbird using Firefox.

I would recommend mint just to avoid the snaps.

I looked into this claim a couple of years ago. I couldn’t find any well executed study that showed this. It’s mainly a talking point that people who argue for circumcision claim is true, but I couldn’t find any scientific support for this.