4 ms·

>The gist: On hotter nights people get less sleep, this being especially the case for people who are poor (limited access to AC?) Forcing a large part of the w

by tjoff 4y ago

>The gist: On hotter nights people get less sleep, this being especially the case for people who are poor (limited access to AC?) Forcing a large part of the world where noone has an AC to get an AC (at least those that can afford it) is going to do wonders for the environment. I'm quite sensitive to heat and the quality of life improvements from an AC are immeasurable, though I live in an apartment and can't really get one (have a crappy portable one for emergencies). I suspect that the climate impact of the ACs are going to create a strong stigma against it where they are not strictly necessary.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>Forcing a large part of the world where noone has an AC to get an AC (at least those that can afford it) is going to do wonders for the environment Sure, but then why does the US get a pass on being super environmentally unfriendly by running heating or AC at full blast everywhere while also having buildings with very poor insulation (by European standards at least; the single pane windows with no outdoor blinds I had in Miami Beach would be illegal in most of EU) and no outdoor sun shades to block the sun energy entering the building, choosing instead to vent it out via AC after it had already entered, or just straight up wasting energy (Las Vegas casinos run the AC basically outdoors), while other, usually poorer countries, should just suck it up and learn to live without AC? I get that the US is capital and resource rich and can afford to be wasteful with almost everything, but the climate impact is still global.
- tjoff 4y ago
  Why would they get a pass? We are all doing a terrible job of it. Don't get me wrong, the US is worse than most but I don't see that as an argument for others to not give a fuck.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    >Why would they get a pass? Because it seems the US isn't doing much on this front IMHO, despite being the richest country in the world, therefore having enough capital to improve and set examples. Especially with Trump pulling the US out of the Paris agreement. Granted, Biden rolled that back, but still, the deed was done and it sent a bad message to the rest of the world on how the US feels about the environment on the world stage. >the US is worse than most but I don't see that as an argument for others to not give a fuck Because, usually rich countries should set an example first before talking down to poorer countries about saving the environment. Otherwise, how can we expect poor countries to want improve their environmental impact if even the rich countries who can afford the expenses that come with being environmentally friendly, don't actually give a fuck about the environment? This is the same inequality as fat-cats telling the working class they need to tighten their belts and suffer austerity to save the economy while they get more tax breaks, bonus payments and government handouts.
    - tjoff 4y ago
      I agree. But that still isn't an argument to not do what we can. And there are other rich countries than the US that do better. ... no it isn't enough but we are gaining momentum. And that is about the only positive thing I can say at the moment.
- dahdum 4y ago
  > the single pane windows with no outdoor blinds I had in Miami Beach would be illegal in most of EU) Was this a while back or very old building? My understanding is impact windows are required less than one mile from the coast. Beyond that insurance drives their adoption as premiums rise significantly without wind mitigation.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    2018 Miami Ocean Drive
- ekianjo 4y ago
  > I get that the US is capital and resource rich and can afford to be wasteful with almost everything, https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states The US has been reducing CO2 emissions year on year for a while now.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    And yet, according to that chart, it's still 50% to 150% more polluting per capita than some EU countries like France, Austria and the Netherlands.
    - ekianjo 4y ago
      what matters is the direction. You don't compare apples and oranges.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    It's still incredibly wasteful. I remember studying in the LA area not so long ago and I had to bring a sweater to class even though it was 30c+ outside
- moffkalast 4y ago
  The south of the US is at the same latitude as north Africa, so I think it's somewhat understandable.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    Sure, but that doesn't excuse the poor building isolation that would save a lot in energy if done to western standards.
- twothamendment 4y ago
  Building codes in the US are laughably sad. I've built 3 homes in 2 states and never built to code. I always encourage people who are building to view code as the minimum, but who wants a minimally good home? Apparently most people. The big builders want to put something up at the lowest cost. Building codes need to be raised to a higher level. It saves money in the long run and is better for everyone.
- citrin_ru 4y ago
  AFAIK most homes with poor insulation where build when energy in the US was dirt cheap (relative to the median income) and it was rational to save money on insulation and just blast powerful AC (human effect on global warming was not known/established back then). Retrofiring insulation into already built homes is not cheap.
kortilla 4y ago
> Forcing a large part of the world where noone has an AC to get an AC (at least those that can afford it) is going to do wonders for the environment. Heat pumps are better than any other kind of heater efficiency-wise. Getting a mini split is good for the environment whether or not you use it to cool.

by tjoff 4y ago

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

>Forcing a large part of the world where noone has an AC to get an AC (at least those that can afford it) is going to do wonders for the environment Sure, but then why does the US get a pass on being super environmentally unfriendly by running heating or AC at full blast everywhere while also having buildings with very poor insulation (by European standards at least; the single pane windows with no outdoor blinds I had in Miami Beach would be illegal in most of EU) and no outdoor sun shades to block the sun energy entering the building, choosing instead to vent it out via AC after it had already entered, or just straight up wasting energy (Las Vegas casinos run the AC basically outdoors), while other, usually poorer countries, should just suck it up and learn to live without AC? I get that the US is capital and resource rich and can afford to be wasteful with almost everything, but the climate impact is still global.

tjoff 4y ago
Why would they get a pass? We are all doing a terrible job of it. Don't get me wrong, the US is worse than most but I don't see that as an argument for others to not give a fuck.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >Why would they get a pass? Because it seems the US isn't doing much on this front IMHO, despite being the richest country in the world, therefore having enough capital to improve and set examples. Especially with Trump pulling the US out of the Paris agreement. Granted, Biden rolled that back, but still, the deed was done and it sent a bad message to the rest of the world on how the US feels about the environment on the world stage. >the US is worse than most but I don't see that as an argument for others to not give a fuck Because, usually rich countries should set an example first before talking down to poorer countries about saving the environment. Otherwise, how can we expect poor countries to want improve their environmental impact if even the rich countries who can afford the expenses that come with being environmentally friendly, don't actually give a fuck about the environment? This is the same inequality as fat-cats telling the working class they need to tighten their belts and suffer austerity to save the economy while they get more tax breaks, bonus payments and government handouts.
  - tjoff 4y ago
    I agree. But that still isn't an argument to not do what we can. And there are other rich countries than the US that do better. ... no it isn't enough but we are gaining momentum. And that is about the only positive thing I can say at the moment.
dahdum 4y ago
> the single pane windows with no outdoor blinds I had in Miami Beach would be illegal in most of EU) Was this a while back or very old building? My understanding is impact windows are required less than one mile from the coast. Beyond that insurance drives their adoption as premiums rise significantly without wind mitigation.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  2018 Miami Ocean Drive
ekianjo 4y ago
> I get that the US is capital and resource rich and can afford to be wasteful with almost everything, https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states The US has been reducing CO2 emissions year on year for a while now.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  And yet, according to that chart, it's still 50% to 150% more polluting per capita than some EU countries like France, Austria and the Netherlands.
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    what matters is the direction. You don't compare apples and oranges.
- lm28469 4y ago
  It's still incredibly wasteful. I remember studying in the LA area not so long ago and I had to bring a sweater to class even though it was 30c+ outside
moffkalast 4y ago
The south of the US is at the same latitude as north Africa, so I think it's somewhat understandable.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  Sure, but that doesn't excuse the poor building isolation that would save a lot in energy if done to western standards.
twothamendment 4y ago
Building codes in the US are laughably sad. I've built 3 homes in 2 states and never built to code. I always encourage people who are building to view code as the minimum, but who wants a minimally good home? Apparently most people. The big builders want to put something up at the lowest cost. Building codes need to be raised to a higher level. It saves money in the long run and is better for everyone.
citrin_ru 4y ago
AFAIK most homes with poor insulation where build when energy in the US was dirt cheap (relative to the median income) and it was rational to save money on insulation and just blast powerful AC (human effect on global warming was not known/established back then). Retrofiring insulation into already built homes is not cheap.

kortilla 4y ago

> Forcing a large part of the world where noone has an AC to get an AC (at least those that can afford it) is going to do wonders for the environment. Heat pumps are better than any other kind of heater efficiency-wise. Getting a mini split is good for the environment whether or not you use it to cool.