Sad but true about much of the US. A neighbor popped up on a local chat group bragging it seemed about keeping his ac at 68F in summer, but his visiting mother in law preferred 72 or more so could anyone lend him a space heater for her room? NB we set 78F in summer and 68F in winter with fans, a tree shaded back yard, and when needed sweaters to adjust as needed.
Got to laugh at one of the pictures of the EcoWave.. They show it being used with a battery to cool a tent. It's like they are marketing it as a unit that allows you to pretend to be outside enjoying nature without actually being outside.
There is an asymmetry behind discussions of air conditioning that has always bothered me. Barbara Flanagan complains about air conditioning making people "treat themselves like dairy products chilled behind glass", but isn't that what indoor heating has done to us for thousands of years, making us treat ourselves like rotisserie chickens at a grocery store? Indoor air conditioning has certainly encouraged people to stay indoors instead of going outside and socializing, but didn't heating do exactly the same to us in the winter? So why is air conditioning an object of such concern when heating is given a free pass?
Perhaps instead of seeing summer as the "going out and having fun with family, friends, and neighbors" season and winter as the "huddle in and hunker down" season, with the warmer winters that climate change has given us, we should go out in winter and hunker down in summer. Shame people less for setting the thermostat to 72F in summer and more for setting the thermostat to 68F or above in winter.
As an aside, it's especially hypocritical of Europeans to shame people for using air conditioning when central heating systems on the continent in winter sometimes disallow thermostat settings below 24C, when 18C or even 16C would save up more than enough energy for AC in the summer.
Yes, we call that a solar "load following" application. Hugely affects the economics and practicality of may applications. Domestic Hot Water, (using thermal panels) is another one. It keeps your solar input at home and off the grid.
Back in the late 70's/early 80's, I had an active H20 solar collection system (it followed the sun and concentrated the rays on a glycol tube that feed a closed system water tank.
It worked very well EXCEPT when the temps went -10/-20F and the mix in it started to freeze up. The only solution was to run it in reverse so that the warmth of the house kept the system from going solid.
I also had solar hot air panels for space heating - worked very well.
I think solar panels have gotten cheap enough that rooftop solar hot water is probably not cost effective, compared with either a heat pump water heater or a conventional electric resistance water heater. Both avoid the freeze problem you encountered.
But the hot air panels were relatively cheap and just kept chugging away even in mostly cloudy days. No, not quite as hot (one clear February day, the output was 120 degrees F) but still made things comfortable and FAR cheaper than the electric heat the house came with.
That's not true. Photovoltaic cells convert a small fraction of the available sunlight to electricity at efficiencies between ~12%-18% - when they are new. PV output degrades over time.
Solar thermal panels convert larger fractions of sunlight to hot water at efficiencies as high as 70% or better, even under adverse conditions. This distinction will always remain true due to simple thermodynamics regarding quality of energy both in the sunlight as well as in the final product of conversion. Why make electricity when what you want is hot water? If you do produce electricity, you will want to use it for applications that require that quality, but in less quantity.
Pumped sdhw systems operate at COP's greater than 60:1. Thermosiphon and breadbox style water heaters that you seen in so much of the world are entirely passive.
Photovoltaic/grid powered heat pump water heaters have got to be one of the most inefficient and highly contrived way and ineffective way of solar heating household water ever to be conceived.
Rooftop solar panels are 20%+ efficient, not 12-18%. What works is obviously climate dependent. I live in a cold, snowy climate, so with solar hot water, I'd be use a lot more resistance back-up than someone living in Arizona.
The numbers for HPWH are pretty good when you couple a COP of 2.5-3 with 20% efficient panels.
My HPWH uses about 1000 kwh/year less than the resistance heater it replaced. That's a savings of around $300/year at our high rate of almost 30¢/kwh. My solar array generates about 7500-8000 kwh/year and including the HPWH we use about 9000. If I had it to do over again, I'd have a bigger array. Obviously, net metering is important and not universal.
Well, the chance to do so, in part, is going on right now in the Middle East. After all, Trump is stopping Iranian oil from being transported world-wide - and look at the effect it has had on economies everywhere. World-wide petroleum reserves are at almost rock bottom. Any more (or is that less) will cause a systematic failure of....just about everything!
Degrowth for ALL!
You may now begin to thank Trump now for making what y'all have been saying has to be done in this regard. Just like with his tariffs (remember my short soliloquy on degrowth, Lloyd?), he's been getting the job done.
Um... It's actually the exact opposite that is happening. Trump has capitulated entirely to Iran and is not only letting them ship their oil anywhere they want without any sanctions for the next 60 days AND he's letting them sell it for American dollars. America can now legally buy Iranian oil at full price. Making America great again 🤣🤣🤣🤣🇺🇸🤣🤣🤣🤣🛢️🤣🤣🤣🤣
PS: I wonder what Iran might spend all that money on... 👀
I wonder if community-level geothermal in areas with the right geographical requirements would be an option to bring heating and cooling to everyone in an area while also keeping energy requirements low.
Excellent piece. I do think more discussion should be had generally about the economic inequality gaps. Wealthier citizens have the means to make individual decisions that deliver comfort. The impoverished, working poor, and homeless populations do not. I live in New York City, and I'm proud to say that the local government does a pretty good job of maintaining cooling centers throughout all five boroughs when the heat reaches dangerous levels like we're seeing in Europe right now (especially France). (The city does likewise with warming centers in the winter months.) And I agree that better urban planning, and green landscaping and building standards, will go a long way toward providing relief for everyone, regardless of economic status. Thanks for posting this.
I do think more discussion should be had generally about the economic inequality gaps.
No one yet has "solved" the inequality gap unless one believes that by immiserating everyone that mathematical problem (and creating a vast social problem at the same time). Nor will there be a solution. As Jesus stated: "The poor you will always have with you (Matt 26:11).
NO economic system that I know of over history has had a satisfactory system. Not one.
Respectfully, Matthew 26:11 is Jesus responding to Judas in a very specific moment. Most biblical scholars agree it's not a prescription for accepting poverty as permanent or unaddressable. And my point wasn't that inequality can be eliminated overnight. It's that heat-related mortality is measurably higher among low-income populations -- not because of bad luck, but because of AC access, housing quality, and neighborhood green space, all of which correlate with wealth. People are dying in heat waves right now, today. Acknowledging that wealthy people already have AC is just describing reality.
And a respectful response: you are correct - the disciples wanted to take that which was expensive and instead, appropriate it and give the proceeds to the poor. Which demonstrates three principles.
- First, and the most obvious truth, it was the anointing of Jesus knowing that he would soon be crucified - fulfilling the promises of the Old Testament. A "pre-burial" ritual as it were.
- Second, a statement of fact and reality - there will always be the poor. No matter which economic system(s) are put into place, there will always be the bottom quintile. No amount of discussion or actions can or will change that. THAT was my point given your "income inequality" statement and Christ correctly summarized all of human history: past, current, and future.
Sidenote: The ONLY thing that "changes" is the relative "poorness" - it is better to be poor in the US than in Bangladesh. After all, according to the St Louis Fed, the total amount of "transfer payments" in the US to the poor, retired, and the infirm is around $3.36 Trillion. The BEA also has a higher amount of $4.45 trillion. Too often, while abstracted from others, these amounts are not taken into account when generally talking about "the poor".
-Third, the idea that some have no problem in taking away of someone else's property and wealth is nothing new at all. "Eat the Rich" has come back with cultural force similar SpaceX's SpaceShip launch - and the launch of SpaceX's IPO that made Elon Musk a trillionaire (or was - what went up has come down and the stock price has fallen and with it, made Musk back into a mere billionaire).
Which, given the rise of the [Democrat] Socialists here in the US, the shrieking to take his wealth away has been a crescendo as loud as the 33 Raptor 3 engines shoving the Spaceship into low earth orbit.
Which is to say - those that have not succeeded show the absolute lack of morality to take from those that have, fulfilling the envy-laden phrase to be true:
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"
a North Star of action. Take from others without being guilty of that theft.
Even as Jesus affirmed that he came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17) which included "Thou shalt not steal".
I appreciate the thoughtful response, and A. Beck makes several points here worth considering. But I'd gently note that we've traveled quite a distance from my original observation, which was fairly simple: people are dying in heat waves right now, and access to air conditioning correlates directly with survival. Wealth determines that access. That's not a political argument -- it's a public health fact. Whatever one believes about tax policy, Marx, or Elon Musk, that reality remains unchanged.
I would add that climate change itself is one of those externalities of wealth. Perhaps those of us who have benefited the most should be covering the additional costs incurred by others for survival.
Where I live rental properties are required to provide air conditioning capable of maintaining 85F. It's recognized as a necessity.
"Perhaps those of us who have benefited the most should be covering the additional costs incurred by others for survival."
Go ahead, write checks and send it to individual Europeans that are suffering.
Sorry, what you are presenting is a derivative of Critical Race Theory (simply put Oppressors vs Oppressed using economics instead of race). Simply because we in the US (Oppressors) are substantially richer than Europeans, we are to be "grouped" and guilted for the success we have EARNED, we are to just send dollars to the Oppressed?
Ditto for the environment where small countries keep demanding money from the West.
Again, see Culture and Govt differences.
No, I refuse your premise that I, either individually or by dint of higher taxes, must subsidize others whose Govts make it harder to succeed by taking more of their money upfront leaving little with which to be entrepreneurial with and regulating the tar out of any upstart trying to bootstrap a new company.
Heck, the UK Defense Minister has said that the UK Military can't even transport 1,000 soldiers somewhere. And taking A/Cs away from those that have them in combatting 104 degree F heat simply because some don't have them? Misery for all...
"Britons have been ordered to remove air conditioning from their homes - despite the country baking in up to 40C heat this week - under a fresh Net Zero crackdown. Planning officials at councils have told residents to take down their cooling units over concerns about carbon dioxide emissions.
They say AC, despite the heat, should serve only as a "last resort".
The crackdown comes from building regulations which demand "active cooling" is used only after all "passive cooling" methods, like opening windows or running fans, have been exhausted. The Tories have accused the Government of leaving Britain "in the dark ages" through Net Zero policies which prevent citizens from accessing "modern conveniences that are completely normal in other countries"."
In effect, because of a wrongheaded ideological mindset, lessening emissions is of a higher value than human life. Go figure!
Or my harsh translation: instituting degrowth through culling your population. Less people means less demands. Voila! Success!
Wealth is also a political issue set by Govt as well as by culture.
Look at the chart I linked to before. Now add into that regulations implemented by Govt, at all levels, can have a severe effect on wealth generation - and the resulting inequality
While it doesn't show all the states, it is clear that Mississippi, long held to be the US's poorest State, is only outdone by two "European" countries (as Carney is trying hard to position Canada as being European and not North American).
Europe's economies have stagnated for years, mostly because of high taxes and heavy regulations. While income inequality has lessened between the lower quintiles, it's a losers proposition as they all have less income.
And the European rich are moving to more favorable business and individual wealth climates. We see this happening between the US States - California, New York, and Illinois are all forcing their rich and middle classes to move out and seeking more favorable climes (Texas, Nevada, Florida for three off the top of my head).
More economic freedom means more wealth - NOT just for the rich (top 1%, top 10%, or top 25% - you choice) but also for the upper middle class, middle class
That St. Louis Fed number is a bit misleading in a conversation of the poor, since the majority of it is social security and medicare for the elderly. You also need to include the subsidies to the rich for comparison.
A lot of people in our country face financial hardship because of the market externalities used to make the rich rich. If you look at federal sums given to Musk's companies, the environmental damage caused, and the costs others have incurred to clean up after him, it's not the least bit unreasonable to tax higher. If you actually take externalities into account, a significant amount of wealth (not all) becomes ill-gotten gains.
As for the visual capitalist chart, it's not much use to look at taxes without looking at services provided. Most of those countries provide healthcare and have longer life expectancy and better health during those years than we do. Find the chart that shows US taxes plus costs of all the services those governments provide and then compare. Most of those countries are getting a good deal. The US value proposition is quite poor.
It is - and we all paid into those funds on the front end. But the other transfer payments are not insubstantial, either. The point I was trying to make that because of those transfer payments aren't often "counted" (researchers basing "poor" only on tax returns, for one example), the "income" of US poor is often underreported.
I'm not going to rebut most of your externality arguments because it can be either rather nebulous or "one man's treasure is another man's...). However, "...If you look at federal sums given to Musk's companies..." - really? Government just GIVES money away? Sorry, try "contracts".
And Lloyd will issue another "this is going too far" warning again, so I'll stop with this:
Better health? Go ahead and tell me doctor wait times, especially for specialists, in Canada and Great Britain vs the US.
The US seems to have a much more extreme level of economic inequality than most European countries. While there are certainly poor people in Europe, everyone has health insurance and a generally more robust safety net.
A couple things to consider as you continue to pursue this topic: 1) dehumidification (as we already discussed off thread); 2) how AC, window units especially, becomes a feedback loop by intensifying heat islands; 3) the whole big topic of convection and adaptive thermal comfort, which helps us tolerate a wider range of temperature set points (I’m a fan of fans! and radiant cooling!).
I don’t know if it came up in the debate, but if you live in a historic city centre in France, like I do, the planning rules are very strict and dictated by the Architects des Bâtiments de France, the heritage architects. I don’t think they will allow air conditioning units on facades, not street side at least. Thankfully they gave us the green light to get shutters on our two southwest facing windows. As I live on the top floor under a roof, I would love to paint the tiles white to reflect the heat before taking the step of installing air conditioning, but I’m pretty sure it will never ever be authorised.
Polishing any surface isn't going to increase its reflectance significantly; it only causes incident light to be reflected at more consistent angles. Zinc has a reflectance of 0.3 at best, which is better than a dark asphalt shingle roof, but far from a white painted roof (0.65-0.9).
In a lot of cities the biggest obstacle to heat adaptation isn't money or know how, but overly aggressive and restrictive historical preservation. It's not like Haussmanian apartment blocks will look any less attractive with white instead of gray roofs (preferably with >20cm insulation behind said roofs) or exterior shutters. The structure itself and the people living inside are much more worthy of preservation than the exterior appearance anyway.
I’m not in Paris so not under a zinc roof - I’d be cooked by now if I were! We have terracotta tiles I guess - reddish/brown. I really do hope the rules evolve to reflect the reality of a hotter climate.
Sad but true about much of the US. A neighbor popped up on a local chat group bragging it seemed about keeping his ac at 68F in summer, but his visiting mother in law preferred 72 or more so could anyone lend him a space heater for her room? NB we set 78F in summer and 68F in winter with fans, a tree shaded back yard, and when needed sweaters to adjust as needed.
Got to laugh at one of the pictures of the EcoWave.. They show it being used with a battery to cool a tent. It's like they are marketing it as a unit that allows you to pretend to be outside enjoying nature without actually being outside.
yes I think I chose the wrong photo there, it looks like a great idea though.
File under "Getting away TO it all" 😂😂😭
"...to cool a tent"
To me it looked more like a tiny house sleeping area or a real small trailer.
But point taken.
I was thinking of this one.....
https://ca.ecoflow.com/cdn/shop/files/WAVE_3_8_1500x.png?v=1765356237
There is an asymmetry behind discussions of air conditioning that has always bothered me. Barbara Flanagan complains about air conditioning making people "treat themselves like dairy products chilled behind glass", but isn't that what indoor heating has done to us for thousands of years, making us treat ourselves like rotisserie chickens at a grocery store? Indoor air conditioning has certainly encouraged people to stay indoors instead of going outside and socializing, but didn't heating do exactly the same to us in the winter? So why is air conditioning an object of such concern when heating is given a free pass?
Perhaps instead of seeing summer as the "going out and having fun with family, friends, and neighbors" season and winter as the "huddle in and hunker down" season, with the warmer winters that climate change has given us, we should go out in winter and hunker down in summer. Shame people less for setting the thermostat to 72F in summer and more for setting the thermostat to 68F or above in winter.
As an aside, it's especially hypocritical of Europeans to shame people for using air conditioning when central heating systems on the continent in winter sometimes disallow thermostat settings below 24C, when 18C or even 16C would save up more than enough energy for AC in the summer.
Solar energy is the Air Conditioning Energy.
thats the wonderful thing today, the solar peak is often the heat peak, and one can offset the other.
Yes, we call that a solar "load following" application. Hugely affects the economics and practicality of may applications. Domestic Hot Water, (using thermal panels) is another one. It keeps your solar input at home and off the grid.
Back in the late 70's/early 80's, I had an active H20 solar collection system (it followed the sun and concentrated the rays on a glycol tube that feed a closed system water tank.
It worked very well EXCEPT when the temps went -10/-20F and the mix in it started to freeze up. The only solution was to run it in reverse so that the warmth of the house kept the system from going solid.
I also had solar hot air panels for space heating - worked very well.
I think solar panels have gotten cheap enough that rooftop solar hot water is probably not cost effective, compared with either a heat pump water heater or a conventional electric resistance water heater. Both avoid the freeze problem you encountered.
True, as it's been, round numbers, 50 years.
But the hot air panels were relatively cheap and just kept chugging away even in mostly cloudy days. No, not quite as hot (one clear February day, the output was 120 degrees F) but still made things comfortable and FAR cheaper than the electric heat the house came with.
That's not true. Photovoltaic cells convert a small fraction of the available sunlight to electricity at efficiencies between ~12%-18% - when they are new. PV output degrades over time.
Solar thermal panels convert larger fractions of sunlight to hot water at efficiencies as high as 70% or better, even under adverse conditions. This distinction will always remain true due to simple thermodynamics regarding quality of energy both in the sunlight as well as in the final product of conversion. Why make electricity when what you want is hot water? If you do produce electricity, you will want to use it for applications that require that quality, but in less quantity.
Pumped sdhw systems operate at COP's greater than 60:1. Thermosiphon and breadbox style water heaters that you seen in so much of the world are entirely passive.
Photovoltaic/grid powered heat pump water heaters have got to be one of the most inefficient and highly contrived way and ineffective way of solar heating household water ever to be conceived.
Rooftop solar panels are 20%+ efficient, not 12-18%. What works is obviously climate dependent. I live in a cold, snowy climate, so with solar hot water, I'd be use a lot more resistance back-up than someone living in Arizona.
The numbers for HPWH are pretty good when you couple a COP of 2.5-3 with 20% efficient panels.
My HPWH uses about 1000 kwh/year less than the resistance heater it replaced. That's a savings of around $300/year at our high rate of almost 30¢/kwh. My solar array generates about 7500-8000 kwh/year and including the HPWH we use about 9000. If I had it to do over again, I'd have a bigger array. Obviously, net metering is important and not universal.
"...dismantle the fossil fuel industry"
Well, the chance to do so, in part, is going on right now in the Middle East. After all, Trump is stopping Iranian oil from being transported world-wide - and look at the effect it has had on economies everywhere. World-wide petroleum reserves are at almost rock bottom. Any more (or is that less) will cause a systematic failure of....just about everything!
Degrowth for ALL!
You may now begin to thank Trump now for making what y'all have been saying has to be done in this regard. Just like with his tariffs (remember my short soliloquy on degrowth, Lloyd?), he's been getting the job done.
Heh!
Um... It's actually the exact opposite that is happening. Trump has capitulated entirely to Iran and is not only letting them ship their oil anywhere they want without any sanctions for the next 60 days AND he's letting them sell it for American dollars. America can now legally buy Iranian oil at full price. Making America great again 🤣🤣🤣🤣🇺🇸🤣🤣🤣🤣🛢️🤣🤣🤣🤣
PS: I wonder what Iran might spend all that money on... 👀
I wonder if community-level geothermal in areas with the right geographical requirements would be an option to bring heating and cooling to everyone in an area while also keeping energy requirements low.
Excellent piece. I do think more discussion should be had generally about the economic inequality gaps. Wealthier citizens have the means to make individual decisions that deliver comfort. The impoverished, working poor, and homeless populations do not. I live in New York City, and I'm proud to say that the local government does a pretty good job of maintaining cooling centers throughout all five boroughs when the heat reaches dangerous levels like we're seeing in Europe right now (especially France). (The city does likewise with warming centers in the winter months.) And I agree that better urban planning, and green landscaping and building standards, will go a long way toward providing relief for everyone, regardless of economic status. Thanks for posting this.
I do think more discussion should be had generally about the economic inequality gaps.
No one yet has "solved" the inequality gap unless one believes that by immiserating everyone that mathematical problem (and creating a vast social problem at the same time). Nor will there be a solution. As Jesus stated: "The poor you will always have with you (Matt 26:11).
NO economic system that I know of over history has had a satisfactory system. Not one.
I am willing to stand being corrected.
Respectfully, Matthew 26:11 is Jesus responding to Judas in a very specific moment. Most biblical scholars agree it's not a prescription for accepting poverty as permanent or unaddressable. And my point wasn't that inequality can be eliminated overnight. It's that heat-related mortality is measurably higher among low-income populations -- not because of bad luck, but because of AC access, housing quality, and neighborhood green space, all of which correlate with wealth. People are dying in heat waves right now, today. Acknowledging that wealthy people already have AC is just describing reality.
And a respectful response: you are correct - the disciples wanted to take that which was expensive and instead, appropriate it and give the proceeds to the poor. Which demonstrates three principles.
- First, and the most obvious truth, it was the anointing of Jesus knowing that he would soon be crucified - fulfilling the promises of the Old Testament. A "pre-burial" ritual as it were.
- Second, a statement of fact and reality - there will always be the poor. No matter which economic system(s) are put into place, there will always be the bottom quintile. No amount of discussion or actions can or will change that. THAT was my point given your "income inequality" statement and Christ correctly summarized all of human history: past, current, and future.
Sidenote: The ONLY thing that "changes" is the relative "poorness" - it is better to be poor in the US than in Bangladesh. After all, according to the St Louis Fed, the total amount of "transfer payments" in the US to the poor, retired, and the infirm is around $3.36 Trillion. The BEA also has a higher amount of $4.45 trillion. Too often, while abstracted from others, these amounts are not taken into account when generally talking about "the poor".
-Third, the idea that some have no problem in taking away of someone else's property and wealth is nothing new at all. "Eat the Rich" has come back with cultural force similar SpaceX's SpaceShip launch - and the launch of SpaceX's IPO that made Elon Musk a trillionaire (or was - what went up has come down and the stock price has fallen and with it, made Musk back into a mere billionaire).
Which, given the rise of the [Democrat] Socialists here in the US, the shrieking to take his wealth away has been a crescendo as loud as the 33 Raptor 3 engines shoving the Spaceship into low earth orbit.
Which is to say - those that have not succeeded show the absolute lack of morality to take from those that have, fulfilling the envy-laden phrase to be true:
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"
a North Star of action. Take from others without being guilty of that theft.
Even as Jesus affirmed that he came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17) which included "Thou shalt not steal".
BTW - here's a chart from the Visual Capitalist that shows how much each govt takes from their citizens on a percentage basis: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-tax-revenue-as-a-share-of-gdp-by-country/
I point out that in California, when ALL govt taxes are included, that "bite" can be well over 50-60% of one's income. Is that fair?
I appreciate the thoughtful response, and A. Beck makes several points here worth considering. But I'd gently note that we've traveled quite a distance from my original observation, which was fairly simple: people are dying in heat waves right now, and access to air conditioning correlates directly with survival. Wealth determines that access. That's not a political argument -- it's a public health fact. Whatever one believes about tax policy, Marx, or Elon Musk, that reality remains unchanged.
I would add that climate change itself is one of those externalities of wealth. Perhaps those of us who have benefited the most should be covering the additional costs incurred by others for survival.
Where I live rental properties are required to provide air conditioning capable of maintaining 85F. It's recognized as a necessity.
"Perhaps those of us who have benefited the most should be covering the additional costs incurred by others for survival."
Go ahead, write checks and send it to individual Europeans that are suffering.
Sorry, what you are presenting is a derivative of Critical Race Theory (simply put Oppressors vs Oppressed using economics instead of race). Simply because we in the US (Oppressors) are substantially richer than Europeans, we are to be "grouped" and guilted for the success we have EARNED, we are to just send dollars to the Oppressed?
Ditto for the environment where small countries keep demanding money from the West.
Again, see Culture and Govt differences.
No, I refuse your premise that I, either individually or by dint of higher taxes, must subsidize others whose Govts make it harder to succeed by taking more of their money upfront leaving little with which to be entrepreneurial with and regulating the tar out of any upstart trying to bootstrap a new company.
Heck, the UK Defense Minister has said that the UK Military can't even transport 1,000 soldiers somewhere. And taking A/Cs away from those that have them in combatting 104 degree F heat simply because some don't have them? Misery for all...
No, it isn't just wealth that determines access.
And it really IS a political argument in more than one way. Guess who is restricting access to A/Cs? It isn't just wealth inequality:
Look to Britain where the Govt is telling its citizens who have A/C units to remove them. Why? It's Net Zero ideological mandates override citizen survival (https://www.gbnews.com/news/air-conditioning-heatwave-remove-40c-net-zero) reformatted:
"Britons have been ordered to remove air conditioning from their homes - despite the country baking in up to 40C heat this week - under a fresh Net Zero crackdown. Planning officials at councils have told residents to take down their cooling units over concerns about carbon dioxide emissions.
They say AC, despite the heat, should serve only as a "last resort".
The crackdown comes from building regulations which demand "active cooling" is used only after all "passive cooling" methods, like opening windows or running fans, have been exhausted. The Tories have accused the Government of leaving Britain "in the dark ages" through Net Zero policies which prevent citizens from accessing "modern conveniences that are completely normal in other countries"."
In effect, because of a wrongheaded ideological mindset, lessening emissions is of a higher value than human life. Go figure!
Or my harsh translation: instituting degrowth through culling your population. Less people means less demands. Voila! Success!
Wealth is also a political issue set by Govt as well as by culture.
Look at the chart I linked to before. Now add into that regulations implemented by Govt, at all levels, can have a severe effect on wealth generation - and the resulting inequality
Here's another link: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-u-s-states-vs-g7-countries-by-gdp-per-capita/
While it doesn't show all the states, it is clear that Mississippi, long held to be the US's poorest State, is only outdone by two "European" countries (as Carney is trying hard to position Canada as being European and not North American).
Europe's economies have stagnated for years, mostly because of high taxes and heavy regulations. While income inequality has lessened between the lower quintiles, it's a losers proposition as they all have less income.
And the European rich are moving to more favorable business and individual wealth climates. We see this happening between the US States - California, New York, and Illinois are all forcing their rich and middle classes to move out and seeking more favorable climes (Texas, Nevada, Florida for three off the top of my head).
More economic freedom means more wealth - NOT just for the rich (top 1%, top 10%, or top 25% - you choice) but also for the upper middle class, middle class
That St. Louis Fed number is a bit misleading in a conversation of the poor, since the majority of it is social security and medicare for the elderly. You also need to include the subsidies to the rich for comparison.
A lot of people in our country face financial hardship because of the market externalities used to make the rich rich. If you look at federal sums given to Musk's companies, the environmental damage caused, and the costs others have incurred to clean up after him, it's not the least bit unreasonable to tax higher. If you actually take externalities into account, a significant amount of wealth (not all) becomes ill-gotten gains.
As for the visual capitalist chart, it's not much use to look at taxes without looking at services provided. Most of those countries provide healthcare and have longer life expectancy and better health during those years than we do. Find the chart that shows US taxes plus costs of all the services those governments provide and then compare. Most of those countries are getting a good deal. The US value proposition is quite poor.
It is - and we all paid into those funds on the front end. But the other transfer payments are not insubstantial, either. The point I was trying to make that because of those transfer payments aren't often "counted" (researchers basing "poor" only on tax returns, for one example), the "income" of US poor is often underreported.
I'm not going to rebut most of your externality arguments because it can be either rather nebulous or "one man's treasure is another man's...). However, "...If you look at federal sums given to Musk's companies..." - really? Government just GIVES money away? Sorry, try "contracts".
And Lloyd will issue another "this is going too far" warning again, so I'll stop with this:
Better health? Go ahead and tell me doctor wait times, especially for specialists, in Canada and Great Britain vs the US.
The US seems to have a much more extreme level of economic inequality than most European countries. While there are certainly poor people in Europe, everyone has health insurance and a generally more robust safety net.
That "safety net" wouldn't be the US?
A couple things to consider as you continue to pursue this topic: 1) dehumidification (as we already discussed off thread); 2) how AC, window units especially, becomes a feedback loop by intensifying heat islands; 3) the whole big topic of convection and adaptive thermal comfort, which helps us tolerate a wider range of temperature set points (I’m a fan of fans! and radiant cooling!).
So grateful for my fan at the moment! Didn’t need it in the last heatwave but would be struggling without it.
More people die from the cold than from heat every year. Usually 2 or 3 to 1 more.
I don’t know if it came up in the debate, but if you live in a historic city centre in France, like I do, the planning rules are very strict and dictated by the Architects des Bâtiments de France, the heritage architects. I don’t think they will allow air conditioning units on facades, not street side at least. Thankfully they gave us the green light to get shutters on our two southwest facing windows. As I live on the top floor under a roof, I would love to paint the tiles white to reflect the heat before taking the step of installing air conditioning, but I’m pretty sure it will never ever be authorised.
Judging from the conversation during the show, I suspect that will change. Though I wondered, can’t they polish the zinc and make it reflective?
Polishing any surface isn't going to increase its reflectance significantly; it only causes incident light to be reflected at more consistent angles. Zinc has a reflectance of 0.3 at best, which is better than a dark asphalt shingle roof, but far from a white painted roof (0.65-0.9).
In a lot of cities the biggest obstacle to heat adaptation isn't money or know how, but overly aggressive and restrictive historical preservation. It's not like Haussmanian apartment blocks will look any less attractive with white instead of gray roofs (preferably with >20cm insulation behind said roofs) or exterior shutters. The structure itself and the people living inside are much more worthy of preservation than the exterior appearance anyway.
Once again, government being too hide-bound to get out of everyone's way...
I’m not in Paris so not under a zinc roof - I’d be cooked by now if I were! We have terracotta tiles I guess - reddish/brown. I really do hope the rules evolve to reflect the reality of a hotter climate.