The point is not that everyone should live in a passivhaus. The point is that better insulation can help reducing energy consumption. Not best: better. Those are two different words. No, you don't need a passivhaus, but the passivhaus example, which barely needs heating, is useful for demonstrating the efficiency of insulation.
> The point is that better insulation can help reducing energy consumption
Yes, that's a wonderful tidbit that fans love to say.
It's also about as relevant to the discussion at hand as giving tips of how not to spill your coffee on the deck to keep it dry is to a sinking boat.
You can't solve climate change with better insulation. Sorry.
Part of the problem with the discussion about climate change is that people who've never actually looked at the numbers feel the emotional need to take the position of an expert and explain what will help.
And yes, if a car is rolling down the hill at you, at some level, technically, throwing a grape at it will slow it down.
But not enough to matter.
When you take the time to put your solution in the specific context of the discussion, and take a look at how big the impact is, you realize "oh wait, no, this actually isn't a valid line of thought."
You might as well try to solve the national debt with a ten dollar bill.
You're missing way, way too many zeroes.
In order to stop climate change, we must go carbon negative. Energy reduction does not change carbon dynamic spread, and cannot solve the problem without reducing our energy spend to zero.
I enthusiastically recommend that you read some work by the academics before continuing. These are not new ideas, and they have been roundly and thoroughly debunked for decades.
It turns out that yes, we have thought of insulation. This was not a curve ball. Owens Corning has so thoroughly advertised it to us that by the time I said their name, we all shared a memory of their mascot, its song, and their theme color.
There is a reason that absolutely nobody who's got actual traction in the field is offering improved insulation as a solution.
The reason Passivhaus is a good example is simple: they claim a 90% reduction in carbon, and when they tried to get LEED certified, LEED said "actually you increase carbon, we're not certifying you."
You're listening to marketing, and trying to hold it up as engineering. Every time you attempt to google for this, please do yourself a favor, and check whether the text you're looking at is word for word identical to their marketing materials.
Try a university study. None of them say it's a benefit, and there have been tons.
Respectfully, no, weird houses that make carbon worse aren't going to fix this either. Thanks for understanding.
A lot of what you typed have nothing to do with my answer. You also seem to be making a lot of very uncharitable and unpolite assumptions about me that don't make sense at all, since I only posted one single message, so I'll assume you're under the impression that I am someone else. Sorry but I won't be dragged into an internet argument.
Seems like every time extremist solar fans try to say "I don't understand why everyone doesn't just do it my way, which doesn't work unless you engage in exotic housing outside of cities," and someone points out why that doesn't actually work, they take it like a personal attack
