https://archive.is/sQ5oV Spain has some of the highest rates of AC, but regions like Galicia are still suffering because they were historically cooler and have less cooling. The French Left coming...
Western Europe experienced its warmest June on record, with much of the region experiencing "very strong heat stress" - defined by conditions that feel like a temperature of 38 degrees Celsius or more, [EU's Copernicus Climate Change Service] said.
. . .
Researchers from European health institutes reported in 2023 that as many as 61,000 people may have died in Europe's sweltering heatwaves in 2022, according to new research, suggesting countries' heat preparedness efforts are falling fatally short.
Spain has some of the highest rates of AC, but regions like Galicia are still suffering because they were historically cooler and have less cooling. The French Left coming out swinging against air conditioning has been strange to me.
I don't understand many European countries' opposition to AC as energy production becomes cheaper and easier. Increased air conditioning would prevent thousands of deaths, and it's perfectly paired with cheap solar.
When you can have a heat pump with a coefficient of performance of 3-5, it's rather astounding that one would be happy to heat a building with a fossil fuel furnace polluting the environment all...
When you can have a heat pump with a coefficient of performance of 3-5, it's rather astounding that one would be happy to heat a building with a fossil fuel furnace polluting the environment all winter and producing less heat for more energy input.
Here's a technology that provides heating and cooling, does it with only electricity input, and is dramatically more efficient. That's heat pumps.
In the San Francisco Bay Area, we have spare the air days where you can’t use fireplaces because of the smoke they produce. There are exceptions if your only heat source is a fireplace, but that...
In the San Francisco Bay Area, we have spare the air days where you can’t use fireplaces because of the smoke they produce. There are exceptions if your only heat source is a fireplace, but that is relatively rare. I just found out in France it’s almost the opposite. People don’t consider the smoke and smog that wood fires produce, and wood heating is considered better for the environment than the alternatives. I didn’t know how to respond. That is just objectively wrong. It’s maybe better than coal, but that is the most you can say for it.
The energy used in wood heating is, in isolation, carbon-neutral by definition (assuming stabilized usage over time). After all, the carbon in the fuel comes directly from pulling carbon out of...
The energy used in wood heating is, in isolation, carbon-neutral by definition (assuming stabilized usage over time). After all, the carbon in the fuel comes directly from pulling carbon out of the air. Maybe that's what's causing the confusion.
The harvesting, processing and transport of it is most definitely not carbon neutral though, and of course the impact to air quality is plainly negative. Those are the sorts of confounding factors that people often don't consider when making gut judgments about sustainability, especially when traditions are involved.
Well, I have ACs (and I'm Italian). The point is that AC will raise the cities heat because (well) they pump the heat outside... so it's not actually a problem of energy, it's that the cities with...
Well, I have ACs (and I'm Italian). The point is that AC will raise the cities heat because (well) they pump the heat outside... so it's not actually a problem of energy, it's that the cities with more air conditioner are warmer, as a side effect of them...
It doesn't though, at least not appreciably. AC moves kinetic energy from one place to another; it doesn't actually generate more of it to any great degree. The heat they do create comes entirely...
It doesn't though, at least not appreciably. AC moves kinetic energy from one place to another; it doesn't actually generate more of it to any great degree. The heat they do create comes entirely from running pumps to compress coolant and fans to move air, which are not significant sources of heat when considered alongside the giant nuclear fusion furnace pumping radiation down on the landscape.
This article seems to suggest that research has shown that mass installation of AC in Paris could warm Paris by up to 4°F (~2.2°C* for us normal folk). On why Paris authorities are reluctant to...
This article seems to suggest that research has shown that mass installation of AC in Paris could warm Paris by up to 4°F (~2.2°C* for us normal folk). On why Paris authorities are reluctant to encourage uptake of AC:
...Third is the urban heat island effect, which is more severe in Europe’s denser, grayer cities than it is in America’s more suburban metropolises. Even if they rely on clean power, A/Cs heat the air outside as much as they cool the inside. That means the comfort of those with air conditioning feeds the discomfort of those without. Researchers at the French National Center for Weather Research have concluded that if Paris doubles its A/C use by 2030, it could raise outdoor temperatures in the city by 3 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit. As a result, policymakers have been very reluctant to encourage A/C adoption except in vulnerable places like nursing homes.
To be clear, I have no real stakes in this discussion. I don't know all that much about climate science or policy. I can't read French either, so really can't speak to the validity of the source, but thought it was interesting and would be interested in hearing your thoughts.
*Edit: revised from 2.7°C to 2.2°C, which I think is now correct (feel free to let me know if I'm wrong). I don't understand this cursed unit of measurement ;p
Looks like the study is saying that AC doesn't actually increase heat, it just moves it from the places people with money are to where the poors hang out, which is a fair enough critique. I can't...
Looks like the study is saying that AC doesn't actually increase heat, it just moves it from the places people with money are to where the poors hang out, which is a fair enough critique.
I can't help but think that heat is coming either way though, at least if climate modeling is anything to go by. It's probably past time for France and the rest of Europe to give a serious think on how they're going to ensure access to shelter, and I doubt a blanket rejection to AC as a concept is the best way to accomplish that.
That corporations and governments are doing nothing about climate change and will never do anything about it because it doesn't make GDP go up right now.
That corporations and governments are doing nothing about climate change and will never do anything about it because it doesn't make GDP go up right now.
Which is pretty ironic considering how much money is to be made – potentially – in climate change prevention (as well as fighting it for some aspects once it’s too late). We (most governments,...
Which is pretty ironic considering how much money is to be made – potentially – in climate change prevention (as well as fighting it for some aspects once it’s too late). We (most governments, some companies) just don’t set the right incentives, for the most part. At least solar is winning now due to cost efficiency, but stupidly we (I mean specifically Germany) stopped producing photovoltaic panels en masse in, like, the mid 2000s and early 2010s. So that revenue stream is probably dried up for us for good.
But in principle the point remains. There is so much money to be made around all things climate change. Even the CO₂e emissions certificates is a gigantic market given the right legal frameworks.
That last sentence is the key to it. The amount of money to be made by climate change. We have made it a commodity in itself. Big oil/tech/military keep polluting and then also profit from the...
That last sentence is the key to it. The amount of money to be made by climate change. We have made it a commodity in itself. Big oil/tech/military keep polluting and then also profit from the pollution and so the cycle continues. Sure we can make money by not doing it and investing in tech that helps the whole thing but without climate change that tech is worth less.
Basically we gotta stop viewing it through a capitalist lense. The best solutions dont involve profit.
It’s not even necessary, I’d say (although it would be cool of course :P). If we were to properly price in the costs of damaging the environment and increasing emissions, these few dozen companies...
Basically we gotta stop viewing it through a capitalist lense. The best solutions dont involve profit.
It’s not even necessary, I’d say (although it would be cool of course :P).
If we were to properly price in the costs of damaging the environment and increasing emissions, these few dozen companies would go bankrupt and the “market forces” would’ve solved the issue. The problem is that to price it in at realistic amounts, government action to an (at least currently) unrealistic level would be required.
Canada implemented a carbon tax, but it was mostly repealed because of wide spread voter discontent with increased prices. People don't want to pay more to solve climate change, even if it's...
Canada implemented a carbon tax, but it was mostly repealed because of wide spread voter discontent with increased prices. People don't want to pay more to solve climate change, even if it's $5/month...
Iv been seeing this a lot with science communicators. I'm sure that China is doing a great job at curbing their emissions but who is profiting from it? The average person or the corporation that...
Iv been seeing this a lot with science communicators. I'm sure that China is doing a great job at curbing their emissions but who is profiting from it? The average person or the corporation that is most likely connected to a government official?
This is actually something iv been meaning to look into as its being framed as a massive success which I'm sure it is but I feel like it needs to be viewed in the context of how China operates. I'm no professional on this topic so I'd rather researcher it more before coming to a more concrete conclusion. I will say this. No government has given me reason to believe their claims on climate change mitigation.
Where the money goes doesn’t matter. And I’m arguing that they are doing it for profit motives not out of the good of their hearts. I’m saying self-interested entities are building solar. Thus the...
Where the money goes doesn’t matter. And I’m arguing that they are doing it for profit motives not out of the good of their hearts. I’m saying self-interested entities are building solar. Thus the US and other powers should as well.
We can both agree that the other global powers should be doing more and not just solar but other technologies. In the case of China(and probably any major organisation) it does matter where the...
We can both agree that the other global powers should be doing more and not just solar but other technologies.
In the case of China(and probably any major organisation) it does matter where the profit is going because we can't ignore the fact that it's most likely going to an authoritarian state. Also who are the self interested entities you are referencing?
Since we are getting into the weeds on this topic, here are some links for any other users following along.
This second one is particularly relevant to our current chat. In the first paragraph, it mentions:
"The country’s energy transition continues to reflect two seemingly opposing trends: rapid deployment of renewables—surpassing its 1,200 GW wind and solar capacity target six years ahead of schedule—and a surge in coal power construction, with 2024 marking the highest level in a decade due to the 2022-2023 permitting boom."
If you refer back to a previous comment I made about how climate change itself has become a commodity. The solar panels are only valuable because there is a need for them and to continue that need they have kept up their coal production. These are some broad strokes as the energy transition for a state as big as China is hella complex.
Also on a side note as these topics can get heated id like to say that I think we both can agree we are on the same mark here and would like to see more investment in green energy/renewables.
What isn't clear from this reporting is how many of these are excess deaths, vs just moving forward deaths that would have happened in the next few weeks/months anyway
What isn't clear from this reporting is how many of these are excess deaths, vs just moving forward deaths that would have happened in the next few weeks/months anyway
I think that's a very uncharitable interpretation of what I said. What exactly makes you think I am wanting to shrug off deaths? edit to expand on this: Reuters is quoting scientists, but the...
I think that's a very uncharitable interpretation of what I said. What exactly makes you think I am wanting to shrug off deaths?
edit to expand on this: Reuters is quoting scientists, but the information in the story is abstract and limited: in particular it's not actionable. Everybody knows that heat waves kill people. The models the scientists are using will take into account who is most at risk. Those people need to see that so that they have a reason to buy air conditioning units that overcomes their bias against it.
Interesting thought, but weeks/months sounds quite substantial to be losing. And I think that by focusing on a 10 day period, many/most accelerated deaths will already be accounted for. As in, how...
Interesting thought, but weeks/months sounds quite substantial to be losing. And I think that by focusing on a 10 day period, many/most accelerated deaths will already be accounted for. As in, how many people that were on the cusp of death managed to make it through "x..10" days of heat, but then the heat killed them after the period?
This is just standard epidemiology... these sorts of events cause both excess mortality (people who die now who would otherwise have died much later) and displaced mortality (moving forward deaths...
This is just standard epidemiology... these sorts of events cause both excess mortality (people who die now who would otherwise have died much later) and displaced mortality (moving forward deaths that would otherwise have happened in the near future).
It's bad (useless, really) reporting not to go into detail. The answer is air conditioning (long-term it's emissions controls, but we all know how that's going...). How do you overcome our European bias against AC? Show people that they are in danger from these events. If you don't give people the information they'll just handwave it away and not take any action.
To provide a counterpoint to the other responses: thank you for pointing this out. Understanding statistics in these contexts is crucial for informing people on how to proceed, but it’s very easy...
To provide a counterpoint to the other responses: thank you for pointing this out. Understanding statistics in these contexts is crucial for informing people on how to proceed, but it’s very easy to misunderstand them in a subtle way that would not promote the appropriate response. It’s also literally life and death, so examining them at all can be a minefield.
https://archive.is/sQ5oV
Spain has some of the highest rates of AC, but regions like Galicia are still suffering because they were historically cooler and have less cooling. The French Left coming out swinging against air conditioning has been strange to me.
I don't understand many European countries' opposition to AC as energy production becomes cheaper and easier. Increased air conditioning would prevent thousands of deaths, and it's perfectly paired with cheap solar.
When you can have a heat pump with a coefficient of performance of 3-5, it's rather astounding that one would be happy to heat a building with a fossil fuel furnace polluting the environment all winter and producing less heat for more energy input.
Here's a technology that provides heating and cooling, does it with only electricity input, and is dramatically more efficient. That's heat pumps.
Like, come on.
In the San Francisco Bay Area, we have spare the air days where you can’t use fireplaces because of the smoke they produce. There are exceptions if your only heat source is a fireplace, but that is relatively rare. I just found out in France it’s almost the opposite. People don’t consider the smoke and smog that wood fires produce, and wood heating is considered better for the environment than the alternatives. I didn’t know how to respond. That is just objectively wrong. It’s maybe better than coal, but that is the most you can say for it.
The energy used in wood heating is, in isolation, carbon-neutral by definition (assuming stabilized usage over time). After all, the carbon in the fuel comes directly from pulling carbon out of the air. Maybe that's what's causing the confusion.
The harvesting, processing and transport of it is most definitely not carbon neutral though, and of course the impact to air quality is plainly negative. Those are the sorts of confounding factors that people often don't consider when making gut judgments about sustainability, especially when traditions are involved.
I don't know if they do, but if they fertilize the soil it's probably not carbon neutral as most fertilizer is made with natural gas.
I don't know about European wood farming methods, but if they're anything like those we use in the PNW, then no, fertilizer is not generally used.
Yeah thats always been a weird take to me too, like, okay die then I guess?
Its not like we can cool the Earth down.
Well, I have ACs (and I'm Italian). The point is that AC will raise the cities heat because (well) they pump the heat outside... so it's not actually a problem of energy, it's that the cities with more air conditioner are warmer, as a side effect of them...
It doesn't though, at least not appreciably. AC moves kinetic energy from one place to another; it doesn't actually generate more of it to any great degree. The heat they do create comes entirely from running pumps to compress coolant and fans to move air, which are not significant sources of heat when considered alongside the giant nuclear fusion furnace pumping radiation down on the landscape.
This article seems to suggest that research has shown that mass installation of AC in Paris could warm Paris by up to 4°F (~2.2°C* for us normal folk). On why Paris authorities are reluctant to encourage uptake of AC:
To be clear, I have no real stakes in this discussion. I don't know all that much about climate science or policy. I can't read French either, so really can't speak to the validity of the source, but thought it was interesting and would be interested in hearing your thoughts.
*Edit: revised from 2.7°C to 2.2°C, which I think is now correct (feel free to let me know if I'm wrong). I don't understand this cursed unit of measurement ;p
Looks like the study is saying that AC doesn't actually increase heat, it just moves it from the places people with money are to where the poors hang out, which is a fair enough critique.
I can't help but think that heat is coming either way though, at least if climate modeling is anything to go by. It's probably past time for France and the rest of Europe to give a serious think on how they're going to ensure access to shelter, and I doubt a blanket rejection to AC as a concept is the best way to accomplish that.
Has the AC debate in Europe become a meme at this point? I feel like its a massive misdirect and isn't focusing on the issue at hand.
A misdirect from what?
That corporations and governments are doing nothing about climate change and will never do anything about it because it doesn't make GDP go up right now.
Which is pretty ironic considering how much money is to be made – potentially – in climate change prevention (as well as fighting it for some aspects once it’s too late). We (most governments, some companies) just don’t set the right incentives, for the most part. At least solar is winning now due to cost efficiency, but stupidly we (I mean specifically Germany) stopped producing photovoltaic panels en masse in, like, the mid 2000s and early 2010s. So that revenue stream is probably dried up for us for good.
But in principle the point remains. There is so much money to be made around all things climate change. Even the CO₂e emissions certificates is a gigantic market given the right legal frameworks.
That last sentence is the key to it. The amount of money to be made by climate change. We have made it a commodity in itself. Big oil/tech/military keep polluting and then also profit from the pollution and so the cycle continues. Sure we can make money by not doing it and investing in tech that helps the whole thing but without climate change that tech is worth less.
Basically we gotta stop viewing it through a capitalist lense. The best solutions dont involve profit.
It’s not even necessary, I’d say (although it would be cool of course :P).
If we were to properly price in the costs of damaging the environment and increasing emissions, these few dozen companies would go bankrupt and the “market forces” would’ve solved the issue. The problem is that to price it in at realistic amounts, government action to an (at least currently) unrealistic level would be required.
hahaha yea I hear you. It's maddening that we can see the solutions but we can't implement them due to government and corporate greed.
Canada implemented a carbon tax, but it was mostly repealed because of wide spread voter discontent with increased prices. People don't want to pay more to solve climate change, even if it's $5/month...
What about China, where they are manufacturing massive amounts of solar panels for great profits?
Iv been seeing this a lot with science communicators. I'm sure that China is doing a great job at curbing their emissions but who is profiting from it? The average person or the corporation that is most likely connected to a government official?
This is actually something iv been meaning to look into as its being framed as a massive success which I'm sure it is but I feel like it needs to be viewed in the context of how China operates. I'm no professional on this topic so I'd rather researcher it more before coming to a more concrete conclusion. I will say this. No government has given me reason to believe their claims on climate change mitigation.
Where the money goes doesn’t matter. And I’m arguing that they are doing it for profit motives not out of the good of their hearts. I’m saying self-interested entities are building solar. Thus the US and other powers should as well.
We can both agree that the other global powers should be doing more and not just solar but other technologies.
In the case of China(and probably any major organisation) it does matter where the profit is going because we can't ignore the fact that it's most likely going to an authoritarian state. Also who are the self interested entities you are referencing?
Since we are getting into the weeds on this topic, here are some links for any other users following along.
https://gijn.org/resource/guide-to-holding-governments-accountable-for-climate-change-pledges/
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/
This second one is particularly relevant to our current chat. In the first paragraph, it mentions:
"The country’s energy transition continues to reflect two seemingly opposing trends: rapid deployment of renewables—surpassing its 1,200 GW wind and solar capacity target six years ahead of schedule—and a surge in coal power construction, with 2024 marking the highest level in a decade due to the 2022-2023 permitting boom."
If you refer back to a previous comment I made about how climate change itself has become a commodity. The solar panels are only valuable because there is a need for them and to continue that need they have kept up their coal production. These are some broad strokes as the energy transition for a state as big as China is hella complex.
Also on a side note as these topics can get heated id like to say that I think we both can agree we are on the same mark here and would like to see more investment in green energy/renewables.
Dunno if you saw the topic, but China's emissions are actually falling now!
https://tildes.net/~enviro/1ozx/chinas_emissions_may_now_be_falling
I did see that and its good to see some downward movement. Lets hope they can keep it up
What isn't clear from this reporting is how many of these are excess deaths, vs just moving forward deaths that would have happened in the next few weeks/months anyway
Every death is a death that would have just happened later. How many weeks and months of other people's lives is the appropriate amount to shrug off?
I think that's a very uncharitable interpretation of what I said. What exactly makes you think I am wanting to shrug off deaths?
edit to expand on this: Reuters is quoting scientists, but the information in the story is abstract and limited: in particular it's not actionable. Everybody knows that heat waves kill people. The models the scientists are using will take into account who is most at risk. Those people need to see that so that they have a reason to buy air conditioning units that overcomes their bias against it.
Interesting thought, but weeks/months sounds quite substantial to be losing. And I think that by focusing on a 10 day period, many/most accelerated deaths will already be accounted for. As in, how many people that were on the cusp of death managed to make it through "x..10" days of heat, but then the heat killed them after the period?
This is just standard epidemiology... these sorts of events cause both excess mortality (people who die now who would otherwise have died much later) and displaced mortality (moving forward deaths that would otherwise have happened in the near future).
It's bad (useless, really) reporting not to go into detail. The answer is air conditioning (long-term it's emissions controls, but we all know how that's going...). How do you overcome our European bias against AC? Show people that they are in danger from these events. If you don't give people the information they'll just handwave it away and not take any action.
What is the standard amount of time that can be displaced and not attributed to the heatwave then?
To provide a counterpoint to the other responses: thank you for pointing this out. Understanding statistics in these contexts is crucial for informing people on how to proceed, but it’s very easy to misunderstand them in a subtle way that would not promote the appropriate response. It’s also literally life and death, so examining them at all can be a minefield.