- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
- technews@radiation.party
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
- technews@radiation.party
YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end “$600 less than cable” ads::Google to “modify or cease” ads after industry review board rejects appeal.
Paper filters make coffee taste better, the carbon impact of paper filters is negligible and the production of paper products at least sequesters carbon from the atmosphere for some time before they become composted.
French press and espresso, IMO, taste far better than pourover with paper. I also prefer metal mesh with pourover, as it allows for more of the oils to seep into the carafe. But it’s just a matter of opinion. :)
Remember the whole trail of paper carbon impacts! Trees get cut to make them. Then they have to be cut/manufactured in a big factory, which uses energy. Then shipped to your stores, using gasoline. Finally you throw them away where they sit in a landfill (the most negligible part).
You’re over here talking about elephants in the room having a conversation about the carbon footprint of a coffee filter while ignoring the much higher carbon cost of growing roasting and transporting the actual coffee. You vaguely reference studies of heart disease from paper filters but dont cite them. Were they bleached paper filters? I have no idea. Either way the filter removes carcinogens, are you arguing that the carcinogens are actually needed? You’re argument seems to boil down to “who cares”, and if thats the case why do you care to reply to my comments? Look if you wanna talk im open to having a conversation that isn’t as stupid as this one, but this is one of the dumbest nonpolitical exchanges ive had in a while.
So you DO get my point, yeah? Elephants in the room should be considered first and foremost. Drinking non-paper filtered coffee every day is trivial to your risks of getting cancer compared to so many other things in our environment. I hope it clicks for you. :)
You don’t have a point :)