Air conditioners remove heat in one place, at the expense of creating more heat somewhere else. And it's environmentally even worse if their energy source consumes fossil fuels.
post
Climate action won't save lives here and now. Obviously it's important - but the consequences are here, and long-term preventative goals won't help anyone currently dying of heat stroke.
You need one room in your home that won't slowly kill you.
Yes. It takes both adaptation, such as AC, and an end to the pollution which keeps making the problem worse. There are very real limitations to adaptation
Climatisation in an extreme heatwave is as much a human right for all people as heating during a extreme cold snap. Period.
There is no dilemma "AC or climate action". Both are necessary.
There's a difference between necessary AC and unnecessary AC. How do you find it?
You can't. But I don't care about personal responsibility type morality politics. The answer is to increase renewables and battery capacity to not have to care.
Not caring is how we got into this deadly mess. It seems that you also don't know what thermal pollution is.
I looked it up. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with AC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_pollution it's about the effect of industrial and urban wastewater on bodies of water. How is that relevant to the discussion?
it happens in the air too, it's just more studied in waterways. It's also known as heat pollution or thermal discharge.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.114406
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359431108001725?via=ihub
AC moves heat, usually from indoors to somewhere outside a wall.
We'll need more A/C. But it is a temporary emergency measure, not a solution that adresses the cause.
Air conditioning industry has a wealthy lobby. Human livability doesn't.
Funny who politicians listen to most.
all 30 comments