The sentiment I was referring to is twofold: first, that A/C necessarily expends fossil fuels; second, that regulation (which, incidentally, indeed almost alway

The sentiment I was referring to is twofold: first, that A/C necessarily expends fossil fuels; second, that regulation (which, incidentally, indeed almost always does "pull the ladder up" for third-world nations) is the only way to reduce fossil fuel consumption. And because the article is rambling, supporters of various remedies from AC unit regulation to thermostat regulation[0] (where regulators centrally control temperatures "only in emergencies") to even outright quotas or bans can each cite this article as justification. The unintended consequences of these are IMO anti-human. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/us/11control.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/us/11control.html