3 ms·

On the topic of thousands needlessly dead, look at the UN's suggestions: Useless yapping about opening windows at night, protecting the vulnerable, limiting gl

On the topic of thousands needlessly dead, look at the UN's suggestions: Useless yapping about opening windows at night, protecting the vulnerable, limiting global warming to 1.5C, and not drinking caffeine. Is any of this "Call to Action" actually actionable? Obviously not; and it is pathetic. What should be actioned: - remove regulatory hurdles to AC installation - mandate such installation in residences that otherwise reach unbearable temperatures - make funds available to subsidize the installation or train more workers for AC installation That would 'protect the vulnerable'. Talking about opening windows at night or climate change does nothing, and is performative only.

tonyedgecombe 2mo ago
Big AC strikes again.
atoav 2mo ago
Yes and: doing things that fight the cause of the warming?
- user43928 2mo ago
  Sure, but this should be an afterthought here. You cannot talk about thousands dying today, neglect to mention the actionable solution, and talk only about climate action which will help on a time frame of decades to centuries.
  - bsian 2mo ago
    The thousands dying are just a means to an end. They don't really care about them.
  - atoav 2mo ago
    I grew up in the 90s and there was a book in climate in my shelf that talked about thousands dying today, nearly three decades back. At some point we should stop pretending this is a new and surprising danger and start treating it as the risk we willingly steered ourselves into. If you live next to a road and every other month a car crashed through your living room wall you'd probably fix the root cause after the first time it happened. If you are clever you fixed it even before it occurs. What you would not do is only deal with the damage caused month for month and pretend there is no need to address the root cause. The reason why many pretend our only option is handing out band aids while the blade keeps spinning, is because it is hard to imagine anything else, if your salary depends on you not addressing the problem. It feels more and more like watching a bus driver playing chicken against a solid, immovable concrete wall. It is obvious who wins, the only question is into which directions the scrap explodes most, while the driver eyes for the ejector seat. And all the kids pretend driving into the wall is the only reasonable option. It is possible for humanity to create unsurvivable conditions in our earths atmosphere. Should we do that if there is enough profit in it? If not, where would you draw the line and how would you set/enforce the limits?
    - nozzlegear 2mo ago
      > At some point we should stop pretending this is a new and surprising danger and start treating it as the risk we willingly steered ourselves into. And then what?
      - atoav 2mo ago
        Either accept it and perish or mitigate it obviously? What would you propose?
        nozzlegear 2mo ago
        What's interesting to me is that both of those options – accepting and perishing, or mitigating – would look no different than what we're doing right now. We've made remarkable progress with renewable energy since 2000 (my own state generates almost 70% of its energy from wind). The US isn't part of the climate accords, but the country is still embracing renewable energy at a breakneck pace despite the current admin's attempts to derail it. We need only compare our current emissions to those from 20 years ago to see the difference. So what I propose is that we've already accepted it, and wringing our hands saying "if only you'd all repent your ways and admit you were wrong by ignoring Al Gore!" might feel cathartic, but ultimately wouldn't result in much change if people did, indeed, truly repent.
    - sn9 2mo ago
      I would simply not sacrifice hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable (in Europe alone!) for unnecessary performative bullshit and let people install AC while massively subsidizing solar/wind/hydro/nuclear/etc.
      - atoav 2mo ago
        Ah yeah, the myth that a society can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Do you really belive we can't both address the root causes and install AC? Which other things do you believe a society can't do at the same time? Taxes and waste managment? Breathing and thinking?
justin66 2mo ago
I think we can all agree that if we just stop talking about climate change, maybe it will go away.
- user43928 2mo ago
  Do you propose climate action with effects that we will see in decades, if not centuries, is going to save the vulnerable who are currently dying by the thousands? I do not think that you believe so. How is it acceptable that the actionable solution is entirely ignored in favor of performative speech?
ballsac 2mo ago
[dead]
ragequittah 2mo ago
The UN suggestions [1] are pretty unambiguous. "Despite these drawbacks, AC remains crucial to protect populations at increased risk from high temperatures, as well as for refrigerating essential medicines and other health-protecting technologies. In the absence of other options, AC – or another equally effective active cooling technology – should be available to those who need it most as if it were a medical necessity." [1] https://mb.cision.com/Public/15083/4360202/b9c9bce2cff90dee.pdf https://mb.cision.com/Public/15083/4360202/b9c9bce2cff90dee....
- user43928 2mo ago
  Pretty unambiguously garbage, yes. AC is in no way mentioned in the linked article or the Call to Action that identifies "4 critical areas of action on caring for the vulnerable". You unearthed a PDF where air conditioning is mentioned in a QA side note, here's the part you omitted: > Why doesn’t the WHO just recommend wider use of air conditioning? Air conditioning (AC) is not a sustainable (in time or environmentally) societal solution for reducing hazardous heat exposure. It is inequitable and unaffordable for those with low incomes; it increases energy demands and heightens the risk of blackouts; it may promote individual and societal dependency and overcooling, and may impair heat acclimatization; and it contributes to both the urban heat island effect and climate change, thus worsening heat exposures in the medium and long term. So maybe, if you are lucky, they allow AC for the most vulnerable with a special exception. Does this stance sound to you like the UN is making the necessary recommendations to roll out AC widely to protect people? They are not nearly doing enough. It's like they are not even trying to do their job. I am honestly disgusted by how pathetically incompetent they are.
  - ragequittah 2mo ago
    So I think you disagree with the UN's analysis of things. That's different than the UN doing nothing to address what you're talking about. They say it should be treated as a medical necessity (which is strong wording) when necessary, but to roll it out to everyone isn't feasible or probably even possible in the near term. I appreciate you think it is feasible and have strong feelings about it, but I also suspect they may have done more research than you on the matter.

tonyedgecombe 2mo ago

Big AC strikes again.

atoav 2mo ago

Yes and: doing things that fight the cause of the warming?

user43928 2mo ago
Sure, but this should be an afterthought here. You cannot talk about thousands dying today, neglect to mention the actionable solution, and talk only about climate action which will help on a time frame of decades to centuries.
- bsian 2mo ago
  The thousands dying are just a means to an end. They don't really care about them.
- atoav 2mo ago
  I grew up in the 90s and there was a book in climate in my shelf that talked about thousands dying today, nearly three decades back. At some point we should stop pretending this is a new and surprising danger and start treating it as the risk we willingly steered ourselves into. If you live next to a road and every other month a car crashed through your living room wall you'd probably fix the root cause after the first time it happened. If you are clever you fixed it even before it occurs. What you would not do is only deal with the damage caused month for month and pretend there is no need to address the root cause. The reason why many pretend our only option is handing out band aids while the blade keeps spinning, is because it is hard to imagine anything else, if your salary depends on you not addressing the problem. It feels more and more like watching a bus driver playing chicken against a solid, immovable concrete wall. It is obvious who wins, the only question is into which directions the scrap explodes most, while the driver eyes for the ejector seat. And all the kids pretend driving into the wall is the only reasonable option. It is possible for humanity to create unsurvivable conditions in our earths atmosphere. Should we do that if there is enough profit in it? If not, where would you draw the line and how would you set/enforce the limits?
  - nozzlegear 2mo ago
    > At some point we should stop pretending this is a new and surprising danger and start treating it as the risk we willingly steered ourselves into. And then what?
    - atoav 2mo ago
      Either accept it and perish or mitigate it obviously? What would you propose?
      - nozzlegear 2mo ago
        What's interesting to me is that both of those options – accepting and perishing, or mitigating – would look no different than what we're doing right now. We've made remarkable progress with renewable energy since 2000 (my own state generates almost 70% of its energy from wind). The US isn't part of the climate accords, but the country is still embracing renewable energy at a breakneck pace despite the current admin's attempts to derail it. We need only compare our current emissions to those from 20 years ago to see the difference. So what I propose is that we've already accepted it, and wringing our hands saying "if only you'd all repent your ways and admit you were wrong by ignoring Al Gore!" might feel cathartic, but ultimately wouldn't result in much change if people did, indeed, truly repent.
  - sn9 2mo ago
    I would simply not sacrifice hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable (in Europe alone!) for unnecessary performative bullshit and let people install AC while massively subsidizing solar/wind/hydro/nuclear/etc.
    - atoav 2mo ago
      Ah yeah, the myth that a society can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Do you really belive we can't both address the root causes and install AC? Which other things do you believe a society can't do at the same time? Taxes and waste managment? Breathing and thinking?

justin66 2mo ago

I think we can all agree that if we just stop talking about climate change, maybe it will go away.

user43928 2mo ago
Do you propose climate action with effects that we will see in decades, if not centuries, is going to save the vulnerable who are currently dying by the thousands? I do not think that you believe so. How is it acceptable that the actionable solution is entirely ignored in favor of performative speech?

ballsac 2mo ago

[dead]

ragequittah 2mo ago

The UN suggestions [1] are pretty unambiguous. "Despite these drawbacks, AC remains crucial to protect populations at increased risk from high temperatures, as well as for refrigerating essential medicines and other health-protecting technologies. In the absence of other options, AC – or another equally effective active cooling technology – should be available to those who need it most as if it were a medical necessity." [1] https://mb.cision.com/Public/15083/4360202/b9c9bce2cff90dee.pdf https://mb.cision.com/Public/15083/4360202/b9c9bce2cff90dee....

user43928 2mo ago
Pretty unambiguously garbage, yes. AC is in no way mentioned in the linked article or the Call to Action that identifies "4 critical areas of action on caring for the vulnerable". You unearthed a PDF where air conditioning is mentioned in a QA side note, here's the part you omitted: > Why doesn’t the WHO just recommend wider use of air conditioning? Air conditioning (AC) is not a sustainable (in time or environmentally) societal solution for reducing hazardous heat exposure. It is inequitable and unaffordable for those with low incomes; it increases energy demands and heightens the risk of blackouts; it may promote individual and societal dependency and overcooling, and may impair heat acclimatization; and it contributes to both the urban heat island effect and climate change, thus worsening heat exposures in the medium and long term. So maybe, if you are lucky, they allow AC for the most vulnerable with a special exception. Does this stance sound to you like the UN is making the necessary recommendations to roll out AC widely to protect people? They are not nearly doing enough. It's like they are not even trying to do their job. I am honestly disgusted by how pathetically incompetent they are.
- ragequittah 2mo ago
  So I think you disagree with the UN's analysis of things. That's different than the UN doing nothing to address what you're talking about. They say it should be treated as a medical necessity (which is strong wording) when necessary, but to roll it out to everyone isn't feasible or probably even possible in the near term. I appreciate you think it is feasible and have strong feelings about it, but I also suspect they may have done more research than you on the matter.