Architecture is everything. The house I grew up in had trees shading it and windows on three sides for a crossbreeze. We didn't have AC til I was in my teens and then only used it during real heatwaves.
My small downtown condo, on the other hand, is immediately intolerable without AC on any day over 20C. One entire side is a wall of glass, the small windows open barely 10 inches, and there's no crossbreeze -- propping the hallway door open is against the rules for security reasons.
But, all that said, I suspect my car-free shoebox lifestyle is far more carbon friendly overall than the suburban house.
There are just so many variables, I think that's why these clickbaity headlines infuriate so many.
I've lived my entire adult life without air conditioning my home, a luxury that living in San Diego gives me. The climate is nonetheless changing, and summers are hotter and more humid. Lots of folks I know here who have enjoyed the refrigerant-free lifestyle have opted for air conditioning, and my wife is growing more eager to cool our place down when it gets hot.
I still think that we are missing some obvious solutions, like planting shade trees, ensuring cross ventilation, awnings, etc. to mitigate the heat.
The headline is the worst thing about Stan’s article and I am sure that is not his work. He makes some very good points. The problem is not with AC in general. It truly can be a lifesaving technology. Unfortunately many of use it as if we need lifesaving if the indoor temperature rises above 20C. We also feel the need to cool our entire living/work space all the time even when no one is home or we are spending the vast majority of our time in only one or two rooms. Selective use of air conditioning in smaller spaces that can be isolated even slightly from the rest of a building need not be a huge energy suck. Acclimatizing ourselves to warmer temperatures by not trying to bring indoor temperatures down to 18C when it is 40C outside would also help. Like with so many things, we have this idea that if some is good more must be better. The concept of enough continuously evades us to our very obvious and increasing detriment.
I live in one of the hottest major cities in North America—Phoenix—and I will tell you that it’s not possible to “acclimate yourself to warmer temperatures when it’s 40C outside” without severely impacting your sleep. Our summer this year *averaged* 98.9F (37.2C) for JJA time period, the highest on record. We have a new SEER-16 A/C and it *still* runs almost constantly, even with a 1094 sq ft (102 sq m) house to cool. Without A/C I would not be able to get enough sleep to stay mentally stable or function effectively at my job. If you’re retired, maybe you can get by with less—but for the average person, A/C has a vital role to play in your overall health and day-to-day functionality.
Places like Phoenix in the summer are definitely ones where AC is a life/sanity saving technology whether one is retired or not. If it is so hot that people can’t sleep at night that becomes a recipe for a pretty rapid decline of civil behaviour. I am certainly not suggesting that people should try to acclimatize to temperatures like that in their homes or work spaces. My point was that most people can acclimatize to living with indoor temperatures well above where we tend to set our AC and that we tend to try to condition the air in places that don’t need it. I wouldn’t argue that someone living where you do should try to get by without AC any more than I would argue that people living in northern climes should make do without heat in the winter. I will argue though that the fact that some is good does not necessarily mean more is better. Stay cool.
Everything you say is true ... but having also lived in Wisconsin for 31 years and knowing that summers in what amounts to a more temperate climate than Phoenix's is quite often very humid, it could be that people run the A/C simply for the dehumidifying effects it can offer. I know my father ran it in his later years to pull the humidity out of the finished basement even though the outdoor temp was quite nominal and could have sufficed with open windows.
That seems to be one of the double-edged swords that I'd like to see addressed: is A/C needed for cooling, or for dehumidification? If it's the latter, then perhaps we should be looking at engineers to design something as an add-on to current HVAC systems strictly for removing humidity, because low humidity (as it is here in Phoenix) allows a person to tolerate much higher temperatures overall, whether we're talking daily highs or overnight lows. Cool + damp is infinitely colder than is cool + dry ... same as hot + humid being infinitely hotter than is hot + dry. I can easily tolerate Phoenix's dry conditions to 105°F (40.5°C) when the humidity is 27% (as it often is, or lower, as low as 3%!) but I melt and become miserable in a place like Houston when it's 80°F (26.6°C) but with an 85% humidity.
Excellent point about the relevance of humidity. The wet bulb temperature only has to get to about 35C (lower than previously thought I think) before our body is incapable of cooling itself through sweating. I don’t know enough about the relative energy consumption of controlling humidity using an AC unit vs other options to pick one over another but it seems like something that should be considered. If people do use AC in part mainly to control humidity maybe there are better options that should be promoted.
Yes, the headline on Cox's article was click-bait, lacking in the careful nuances of the article and of Cox's other writings. And air conditioning is a necessity for many people in many places.
A hypothesis: readers of the New York Times, on average, consume a high amount of resources on over-air-conditioning, and are also relatively insulated from the damages of excess heat, though they might express outrage on behalf of the people who are most affected by excess heat and who have the least ability to afford air conditioning.
People get so scared when they see something that challenges their established habits that, instead of stopping to think, they react with rage. That’s why we can’t change even if earth is going to burn to a cinder.
That’s why once you establish an entitlement, it’s impossible to get rid of it. We become quickly acclimated to the increased standard of living and don’t want to lower it voluntarily.
This is why net zero efforts are pointless without an equivalent stability in income and standards of living. No one can ban meat, or enforce A/C only on certain days, etc. without the people revolting violently.
I think the vitriol is entirely the fault of that rage-bait headline, as you note. He was just suggesting that we not use it ALL the time. Which is wise advice.
Make varied expansions of the following topic a recurring focus of your messaging. Doing so would be a major contribution to combating global warming.
Consumers (individuals, organizations, businesses, governments) must promptly minimize their greenhouse gas emissions to bridge the gap while we work on long-term green technology and infrastructure. Less heating and less cooling (none between 13C-30C/55F-85F, https://greenbetween.home.blog). Less driving. Less flying. Less meat-eating. Less population growth (2 children max). Do it yourself. Tenaciously encourage others to do it. Tenaciously encourage others to tenaciously encourage others.
Embrace the message and tenaciously introduce the message "business card" to all you encounter. (You can print the business card 12 per 8.5x11 using a file from the Promote page of the website.)
Be a climate superhero - take it to the next level. Promote the message at local events. (Files for posters are available on the Promote page of the website.)
We (all of us!) are going to have to face up to renovations to introduce PH principles to existing buildings, adapted to local needs, such as fixed or de-mountable awnings in hurricane-prone areas, added insulation to exteriors, and modified ventilation systems to recover heat/cooling appropriately. Yes, it will cost money, but will also reduce fossil fuel use - reducing carbon, upfront.
I agree, and I wish we had much better code enforcement regarding energy codes. Most of the US uses the International Energy Conservation Code, 2015 or newer. If everything built complied with IECC, we'd need a lot less heating and cooling energy. We'd all have mechanical ventilation and tight houses.
Depending on your climate, I prefer open-able windows so that all-the-time mechanical ventilation were not required. Then the complexity of arranging for bathroom, kitchen and laundry (dryer) exhausts needs to be addressed. I expect someone has done that...
The IECC requirement of airtightness of at least 3ach50 applies in most of the US, with 5ach50 in warmer areas. Most of us leave our windows closed in winter, so we need mechanical ventilation most of the year. I'm not about to open windows for ventilation when its -15°. I'm in Maine, so right now my windows are always open. But our HRV has a boost setting that obviates the need for a separate bathroom fan. Heat pump dryer means no laundry vent. We designed the House to have as few holes in the building envelope as possible. We reached Passive Haus level of airtightness, so mechanical ventilation is essential most of the year.
It is helpful for readers to know there is a difference between a news story and an opinion piece. This is Stan's opinion and I agree.
I can tolerate heat but don't like to. After living in Europe and many states throughout the US, I made the decision to move to the most temperate city in my experience. Arizona is a magical place but Phoenix nearly killed me. A life-long environmentalist, it was clear we as individuals needed to make decisions to help our planet. My last home was Texas, where I sold my car and most possessions, downsized from 3000 sq ft to 300 sq ft in Chicago, where I live and work in the same neighborhood a block from the lake. It's 10-20 degrees cooler than anywhere else in the city. I'm fortunate. Not everyone can do what I did. Most of the buildings were built around 1900 and don't have AC. I have a portable unit I use once or twice a day and cools the small space quickly. Management installed AC in the lobby for the few senior residents who need to escape their flats. Chicago has a Heat Ordinance for winter and now a Cooling Ordinance after many seniors lost their lives a few years ago.
The earth will only get hotter. We all need to do our part when able. As well as reminding lawmakers they work for the people.
I'm a mechanical engineer working in high performance buildings since 1978 and a founding board member of the Passive House Institute of the US. It's easier to get by without AC in dry climates where evaporative cooling and interior mass, combined with exterior shading, can keep interior conditions within an expanded thermal comfort domain. It's harder in humid climates. I live on Martha's Vineyard, 3 miles from the ocean (no ocean breezes :-( and my wife doesn't like AC so even though the house has a small ducted heat pump we don't use cooling. The consequence is small patches of mold in places where one expects it, that needs to be looked after, and fortunately neither of us AFAIK is particularly sensitive to mold. I work at home so I have the luxury of sitting in shorts and no shirt for much of the day when it's beastly weather (upwards of 80F DB and dewpoints mid-70Fs). So even though we aren't at risk of dying from heat, we make some compromises from not using AC. I have a small fan next to the desk for the beastly days.
On my current high performance multi-family projects, cooling loads are higher than heating loads, so they tend to size the HVAC. Exterior movable shading is awesome, and expensive, and not the first choice in a place where hurricanes and lesser storms occur.
I run mine only as necessary. Right now my whole house is opened up and I’m perfectly comfortable. A couple of weeks ago when it was humid and in the 90s, I cranked it! But yes, I’ve got an old house built before AC.
>>“Year in and year out, heat waves kill more people than any other type of natural disaster.” Patently false, but with repetition claiming it is, someday people will eventually realize that facts matter more than the feels.
Architecture is everything. The house I grew up in had trees shading it and windows on three sides for a crossbreeze. We didn't have AC til I was in my teens and then only used it during real heatwaves.
My small downtown condo, on the other hand, is immediately intolerable without AC on any day over 20C. One entire side is a wall of glass, the small windows open barely 10 inches, and there's no crossbreeze -- propping the hallway door open is against the rules for security reasons.
But, all that said, I suspect my car-free shoebox lifestyle is far more carbon friendly overall than the suburban house.
There are just so many variables, I think that's why these clickbaity headlines infuriate so many.
I've lived my entire adult life without air conditioning my home, a luxury that living in San Diego gives me. The climate is nonetheless changing, and summers are hotter and more humid. Lots of folks I know here who have enjoyed the refrigerant-free lifestyle have opted for air conditioning, and my wife is growing more eager to cool our place down when it gets hot.
I still think that we are missing some obvious solutions, like planting shade trees, ensuring cross ventilation, awnings, etc. to mitigate the heat.
The headline is the worst thing about Stan’s article and I am sure that is not his work. He makes some very good points. The problem is not with AC in general. It truly can be a lifesaving technology. Unfortunately many of use it as if we need lifesaving if the indoor temperature rises above 20C. We also feel the need to cool our entire living/work space all the time even when no one is home or we are spending the vast majority of our time in only one or two rooms. Selective use of air conditioning in smaller spaces that can be isolated even slightly from the rest of a building need not be a huge energy suck. Acclimatizing ourselves to warmer temperatures by not trying to bring indoor temperatures down to 18C when it is 40C outside would also help. Like with so many things, we have this idea that if some is good more must be better. The concept of enough continuously evades us to our very obvious and increasing detriment.
I live in one of the hottest major cities in North America—Phoenix—and I will tell you that it’s not possible to “acclimate yourself to warmer temperatures when it’s 40C outside” without severely impacting your sleep. Our summer this year *averaged* 98.9F (37.2C) for JJA time period, the highest on record. We have a new SEER-16 A/C and it *still* runs almost constantly, even with a 1094 sq ft (102 sq m) house to cool. Without A/C I would not be able to get enough sleep to stay mentally stable or function effectively at my job. If you’re retired, maybe you can get by with less—but for the average person, A/C has a vital role to play in your overall health and day-to-day functionality.
Places like Phoenix in the summer are definitely ones where AC is a life/sanity saving technology whether one is retired or not. If it is so hot that people can’t sleep at night that becomes a recipe for a pretty rapid decline of civil behaviour. I am certainly not suggesting that people should try to acclimatize to temperatures like that in their homes or work spaces. My point was that most people can acclimatize to living with indoor temperatures well above where we tend to set our AC and that we tend to try to condition the air in places that don’t need it. I wouldn’t argue that someone living where you do should try to get by without AC any more than I would argue that people living in northern climes should make do without heat in the winter. I will argue though that the fact that some is good does not necessarily mean more is better. Stay cool.
Everything you say is true ... but having also lived in Wisconsin for 31 years and knowing that summers in what amounts to a more temperate climate than Phoenix's is quite often very humid, it could be that people run the A/C simply for the dehumidifying effects it can offer. I know my father ran it in his later years to pull the humidity out of the finished basement even though the outdoor temp was quite nominal and could have sufficed with open windows.
That seems to be one of the double-edged swords that I'd like to see addressed: is A/C needed for cooling, or for dehumidification? If it's the latter, then perhaps we should be looking at engineers to design something as an add-on to current HVAC systems strictly for removing humidity, because low humidity (as it is here in Phoenix) allows a person to tolerate much higher temperatures overall, whether we're talking daily highs or overnight lows. Cool + damp is infinitely colder than is cool + dry ... same as hot + humid being infinitely hotter than is hot + dry. I can easily tolerate Phoenix's dry conditions to 105°F (40.5°C) when the humidity is 27% (as it often is, or lower, as low as 3%!) but I melt and become miserable in a place like Houston when it's 80°F (26.6°C) but with an 85% humidity.
Excellent point about the relevance of humidity. The wet bulb temperature only has to get to about 35C (lower than previously thought I think) before our body is incapable of cooling itself through sweating. I don’t know enough about the relative energy consumption of controlling humidity using an AC unit vs other options to pick one over another but it seems like something that should be considered. If people do use AC in part mainly to control humidity maybe there are better options that should be promoted.
Yes, the headline on Cox's article was click-bait, lacking in the careful nuances of the article and of Cox's other writings. And air conditioning is a necessity for many people in many places.
A hypothesis: readers of the New York Times, on average, consume a high amount of resources on over-air-conditioning, and are also relatively insulated from the damages of excess heat, though they might express outrage on behalf of the people who are most affected by excess heat and who have the least ability to afford air conditioning.
People get so scared when they see something that challenges their established habits that, instead of stopping to think, they react with rage. That’s why we can’t change even if earth is going to burn to a cinder.
That’s why once you establish an entitlement, it’s impossible to get rid of it. We become quickly acclimated to the increased standard of living and don’t want to lower it voluntarily.
This is why net zero efforts are pointless without an equivalent stability in income and standards of living. No one can ban meat, or enforce A/C only on certain days, etc. without the people revolting violently.
Or smart people can invent healthier alternatives.
I'm not keen on AC but I can see why it’s hard for many to use it less often.
I think the vitriol is entirely the fault of that rage-bait headline, as you note. He was just suggesting that we not use it ALL the time. Which is wise advice.
My response to Stan was essentially as follows.
Make varied expansions of the following topic a recurring focus of your messaging. Doing so would be a major contribution to combating global warming.
Consumers (individuals, organizations, businesses, governments) must promptly minimize their greenhouse gas emissions to bridge the gap while we work on long-term green technology and infrastructure. Less heating and less cooling (none between 13C-30C/55F-85F, https://greenbetween.home.blog). Less driving. Less flying. Less meat-eating. Less population growth (2 children max). Do it yourself. Tenaciously encourage others to do it. Tenaciously encourage others to tenaciously encourage others.
Embrace the message and tenaciously introduce the message "business card" to all you encounter. (You can print the business card 12 per 8.5x11 using a file from the Promote page of the website.)
Be a climate superhero - take it to the next level. Promote the message at local events. (Files for posters are available on the Promote page of the website.)
We (all of us!) are going to have to face up to renovations to introduce PH principles to existing buildings, adapted to local needs, such as fixed or de-mountable awnings in hurricane-prone areas, added insulation to exteriors, and modified ventilation systems to recover heat/cooling appropriately. Yes, it will cost money, but will also reduce fossil fuel use - reducing carbon, upfront.
I agree, and I wish we had much better code enforcement regarding energy codes. Most of the US uses the International Energy Conservation Code, 2015 or newer. If everything built complied with IECC, we'd need a lot less heating and cooling energy. We'd all have mechanical ventilation and tight houses.
Depending on your climate, I prefer open-able windows so that all-the-time mechanical ventilation were not required. Then the complexity of arranging for bathroom, kitchen and laundry (dryer) exhausts needs to be addressed. I expect someone has done that...
The IECC requirement of airtightness of at least 3ach50 applies in most of the US, with 5ach50 in warmer areas. Most of us leave our windows closed in winter, so we need mechanical ventilation most of the year. I'm not about to open windows for ventilation when its -15°. I'm in Maine, so right now my windows are always open. But our HRV has a boost setting that obviates the need for a separate bathroom fan. Heat pump dryer means no laundry vent. We designed the House to have as few holes in the building envelope as possible. We reached Passive Haus level of airtightness, so mechanical ventilation is essential most of the year.
It is helpful for readers to know there is a difference between a news story and an opinion piece. This is Stan's opinion and I agree.
I can tolerate heat but don't like to. After living in Europe and many states throughout the US, I made the decision to move to the most temperate city in my experience. Arizona is a magical place but Phoenix nearly killed me. A life-long environmentalist, it was clear we as individuals needed to make decisions to help our planet. My last home was Texas, where I sold my car and most possessions, downsized from 3000 sq ft to 300 sq ft in Chicago, where I live and work in the same neighborhood a block from the lake. It's 10-20 degrees cooler than anywhere else in the city. I'm fortunate. Not everyone can do what I did. Most of the buildings were built around 1900 and don't have AC. I have a portable unit I use once or twice a day and cools the small space quickly. Management installed AC in the lobby for the few senior residents who need to escape their flats. Chicago has a Heat Ordinance for winter and now a Cooling Ordinance after many seniors lost their lives a few years ago.
The earth will only get hotter. We all need to do our part when able. As well as reminding lawmakers they work for the people.
I'm a mechanical engineer working in high performance buildings since 1978 and a founding board member of the Passive House Institute of the US. It's easier to get by without AC in dry climates where evaporative cooling and interior mass, combined with exterior shading, can keep interior conditions within an expanded thermal comfort domain. It's harder in humid climates. I live on Martha's Vineyard, 3 miles from the ocean (no ocean breezes :-( and my wife doesn't like AC so even though the house has a small ducted heat pump we don't use cooling. The consequence is small patches of mold in places where one expects it, that needs to be looked after, and fortunately neither of us AFAIK is particularly sensitive to mold. I work at home so I have the luxury of sitting in shorts and no shirt for much of the day when it's beastly weather (upwards of 80F DB and dewpoints mid-70Fs). So even though we aren't at risk of dying from heat, we make some compromises from not using AC. I have a small fan next to the desk for the beastly days.
On my current high performance multi-family projects, cooling loads are higher than heating loads, so they tend to size the HVAC. Exterior movable shading is awesome, and expensive, and not the first choice in a place where hurricanes and lesser storms occur.
I run mine only as necessary. Right now my whole house is opened up and I’m perfectly comfortable. A couple of weeks ago when it was humid and in the 90s, I cranked it! But yes, I’ve got an old house built before AC.
>>“Year in and year out, heat waves kill more people than any other type of natural disaster.” Patently false, but with repetition claiming it is, someday people will eventually realize that facts matter more than the feels.
"I am a damned idiot, and you can be one, too..."