Acclimatising ourselves to less air-conditioning could save the planet
A French politician suggested that, in light of increasingly frequent heatwaves, the government should try to ensure that all citizens had access to air conditioning.
The government rejected this, deeming it inappropriate and bad for the environment. No doubt, the fact that the proposer was from a far-right party did not help.
A writer in The Economist (who must remain anonymous because The Economist does not do bylines) criticised the British government for having a deluded notion of what their nation's climate is now like.
Summers in the UK are now tropical, not the grey and wet affairs that people my age remember. Accordingly, the official lack of encouragement for air conditioning is asking for future trouble.
Many serious environmentalists have doubts about air conditioning. After all the heat extracted from the air-conditioned space has to go somewhere. Also, there is a considerable cost in materials and power. 'Passive' methods using shade and natural ventilation can do the job.
Less often mentioned is the question of addiction. Long ago, I had a colleague at the South China Morning Post called Ian, who had dabbled extensively in the wars of independence that afflicted southern parts of Africa in the 1970s… mostly, I fear, on the wrong side.
Ian was fiercely opposed to using an air conditioner at night. He maintained that if you spent eight hours a day in an air-conditioned office and eight hours a day in an air-conditioned bedroom, your body would never adapt to the local climate.
This is a relevant topic for military purposes because military activities are conducted mostly outdoors. Some disappointing performances in Malaya and Hong Kong during World War II are attributed to the difficulty in adaptation experienced by troops landed in a strange climate only weeks before they were expected to perform.
Anyway, there may be something in this addiction fear. The more air-conditioning you get, the more you want; what starts as an occasional luxury ends as a necessity. At this point, it becomes quite expensive.
I have been conducting an experiment with all this in recent months, since it became necessary in the normal course of events to replace the aircon in my bedroom. While this was in progress, I had to sleep with the window wide open, but no aircon.
This was surprisingly (to me) successful. As the weather got warmer, I added a fan, which sits at the end of the bed and wafts a gentle breeze over my hopefully sleeping form.
It is now July, and I am reasonably hopeful that I shall get through the summer without resorting to overnight aircon use.
As I do not use an aircon routinely during the day, this should mean I am acclimatising in a manner which Ian would approve of. The aircon is still deployed for visitors (downstairs), exercise sessions (in the bedroom), and in the car.
This is not for everyone, I concede. Our bedroom has a balcony, so the windows are big. It also has a bug screen, which you may need if the local mosquitoes can reach your altitude.
On the other hand, if you live on a high floor, you will benefit from peace and quiet denied to residents in houses. In the early days, I was often disturbed in the morning by noisy traffic and even, on occasion, particularly raucous birdcalls. I seem to have got used to this.
Still, I am left feeling a little guilty about my copious use of air-conditioning in the past. It seems I can get by with about 20 or 30 minutes a day, depending on visitors and car use.
If you work in an office, the architect has probably already made cooling a necessity, but it is still perhaps worthwhile for environment-conscious consumers to consider whether they may be using more air conditioning than they really need.
This is unlikely to save the planet, which seems doomed. As the temperature climbs, we will all fry together, but owners of air-conditioners will fry later than most. In the meantime, think of the savings on your electricity bills.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
HKFP
5 hours ago
- HKFP
If education doesn't make you rich, it's a waste of time – or is it really?
The newspapers are full, as is customary at this time of the year, of stories about local kids who have done well in the school-leaving exams. It seems that most of the stars of this show want to become doctors, which shows a touching faith in the inability of artificial intelligence (AI) to take over the routine parts of medicine. For a discordant note, readers could turn to The Economist, which printed a long piece lamenting the fact that, as a headline and subsidiary headline put it, 'Why today's graduates are screwed: The bottom has fallen out of the job market.' The primary evidence for this comes from America, where graduates in their 20s have been found in one study to have higher unemployment rates than the general population. Things are moving in a similar direction, but much more slowly, outside America. Graduates – again, from the evidence, we are back in the USA – find jobs harder to come by and also less satisfying than they used to be. The Economist's writer dismisses as an unsatisfactory explanation the claim that many graduates of American universities are ill-educated and, in some cases, actually illiterate. These stories may be true, but the brightest and best are also finding employment elusive. Some formerly entry-level jobs are certainly falling to AI. A more original suggestion is that people used to go to university to achieve digital literacy. Now, everyone gets it from their smartphone, so for many button-pushing jobs, a degree looks unnecessary. The writer concludes that many American students are now deciding that university is not worth it: the time, the debt, and the disappointment. This is not happening in Europe, where, as our scribe puts it, 'Governments are subsidising useless degrees, encouraging kids to waste time studying.' What do we mean by 'useless degrees'? 'Outside America, the share in arts, humanities and social sciences mostly grows. So, inexplicably, does enrolment in journalism courses. If these trends reveal young people's ideas about the future of work, they truly are in trouble,' says the writer. Really? Underlying this lament appears to be the unspoken assumption that the main or only reason for any form of study is to increase your future income. Education of any other kind amounts to 'encouraging kids to waste time.' I am reminded of Oscar Wilde's lament that people 'know the price of everything and the value of nothing.' This might usefully be adapted. Economists – and The Economist – know the price of everything and erroneously suppose that the value is the same thing. 'Until recently,' says our author, 'the obvious path for a British student hoping to make money was a graduate scheme at a bank.' But making money is only one of the things people hope to find in a job. Some British students would rather shovel sewage for a living than work in a bank, and I was once one of them. Only a philistine society will limit its educational offerings to subjects with an immediate practical application, or indeed an ironclad promise of future wealth attached to them. Indeed, there are some areas of human activity where the attainment of the highest standards requires that many be tested, most of whom will fail. Training for air traffic controllers is a notorious example. Thousands apply, hundreds are accepted, tens actually complete the course and get into a control tower, some of whom drop out later when they find the work too stressful. Many of the more demanding military specialities have similar attrition rates. In university programmes, this is obscured by the fact that every student who makes a reasonable amount of effort will get the degree. But in general, music grads do not become musicians, English literature grads do not become novelists, philosophy grads do not become professional philosophers, and the only archaeologist graduate I ever met was teaching in a primary school. This brings us to the 'inexplicable' attraction of journalism courses, which I flogged happily and successfully for nearly three decades. It was a platitude among teachers of journalism that most of our students were not going to be journalists, or if they became journalists, would not stay that way. At one time there was a spirited debate in the journalism education business about whether we should continue to design courses on the basis that the graduate would be able to meet the requirements of the trade (art, craft, science, con trick or disease, whichever you prefer) or we should accept that we were teaching non-journalists and adapt courses accordingly. Generally, we concluded that the practical aspects of a journalism programme were one of the things which students liked, even if they were not going to be practitioners themselves. Most of my students never became journalists. A surprising number (at least to me) became police officers. Journalism may be – as British journalist Max Hastings puts it – a pursuit for 'cads and founders,' but it still has a whiff of adventure around it that you are not going to get in the business school. But if you really want to be rich… your choice.
HKFP
3 days ago
- HKFP
Acclimatising ourselves to less air-conditioning could save the planet
Air conditioning has become (excuse me) a hot topic. Is it necessary, is it nice, is it the solution to global warming? A French politician suggested that, in light of increasingly frequent heatwaves, the government should try to ensure that all citizens had access to air conditioning. The government rejected this, deeming it inappropriate and bad for the environment. No doubt, the fact that the proposer was from a far-right party did not help. A writer in The Economist (who must remain anonymous because The Economist does not do bylines) criticised the British government for having a deluded notion of what their nation's climate is now like. Summers in the UK are now tropical, not the grey and wet affairs that people my age remember. Accordingly, the official lack of encouragement for air conditioning is asking for future trouble. Many serious environmentalists have doubts about air conditioning. After all the heat extracted from the air-conditioned space has to go somewhere. Also, there is a considerable cost in materials and power. 'Passive' methods using shade and natural ventilation can do the job. Less often mentioned is the question of addiction. Long ago, I had a colleague at the South China Morning Post called Ian, who had dabbled extensively in the wars of independence that afflicted southern parts of Africa in the 1970s… mostly, I fear, on the wrong side. Ian was fiercely opposed to using an air conditioner at night. He maintained that if you spent eight hours a day in an air-conditioned office and eight hours a day in an air-conditioned bedroom, your body would never adapt to the local climate. This is a relevant topic for military purposes because military activities are conducted mostly outdoors. Some disappointing performances in Malaya and Hong Kong during World War II are attributed to the difficulty in adaptation experienced by troops landed in a strange climate only weeks before they were expected to perform. Anyway, there may be something in this addiction fear. The more air-conditioning you get, the more you want; what starts as an occasional luxury ends as a necessity. At this point, it becomes quite expensive. I have been conducting an experiment with all this in recent months, since it became necessary in the normal course of events to replace the aircon in my bedroom. While this was in progress, I had to sleep with the window wide open, but no aircon. This was surprisingly (to me) successful. As the weather got warmer, I added a fan, which sits at the end of the bed and wafts a gentle breeze over my hopefully sleeping form. It is now July, and I am reasonably hopeful that I shall get through the summer without resorting to overnight aircon use. As I do not use an aircon routinely during the day, this should mean I am acclimatising in a manner which Ian would approve of. The aircon is still deployed for visitors (downstairs), exercise sessions (in the bedroom), and in the car. This is not for everyone, I concede. Our bedroom has a balcony, so the windows are big. It also has a bug screen, which you may need if the local mosquitoes can reach your altitude. On the other hand, if you live on a high floor, you will benefit from peace and quiet denied to residents in houses. In the early days, I was often disturbed in the morning by noisy traffic and even, on occasion, particularly raucous birdcalls. I seem to have got used to this. Still, I am left feeling a little guilty about my copious use of air-conditioning in the past. It seems I can get by with about 20 or 30 minutes a day, depending on visitors and car use. If you work in an office, the architect has probably already made cooling a necessity, but it is still perhaps worthwhile for environment-conscious consumers to consider whether they may be using more air conditioning than they really need. This is unlikely to save the planet, which seems doomed. As the temperature climbs, we will all fry together, but owners of air-conditioners will fry later than most. In the meantime, think of the savings on your electricity bills.
AllAfrica
4 days ago
- AllAfrica
China may not want Russia to lose – or to win
The South China Morning Post (SCMP) cited unnamed sources to report that Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told his EU counterpart that China doesn't want Russia to lose in Ukraine because the US's whole focus might then shift to China. His alleged remarks were spun by the mainstream media as an admission that China isn't as neutral as it claims, just as they and their alternative media rivals suspected. Both now believe that China will help Russia achieve its maximum goals, but that's likely not the case. Assuming for the sake of argument that Wang did indeed say what was attributed to him, it would align with the assessment around the conflict's one-year anniversary in February 2023 that 'China Doesn't Want Anyone To Win In Ukraine.' The SCMP channeled the gist of the preceding analysis by writing that 'One interpretation of Wang's statement in Brussels is that while China did not ask for the war, its prolongation may suit Beijing's strategic needs, so long as the US remains engaged in Ukraine.' To explain, not only would the US be unable to 'pivot (back) to (East) Asia' for more muscularly containing China at the scale that Trump envisages if the Ukrainian conflict drags on, but the continued pressure placed on the Russian economy by Western sanctions would benefit the Chinese economy. China already imports a staggering amount of discounted Russian oil, which helps maintain its economic growth amid the slowdown that it's experiencing, but this could end if sanctions were curtailed. Additionally, the greater that China's role becomes in serving as a valve for Russia from Western sanctions pressure (both in terms of energy imports for helping to finance the Russian budget but also exports that replace lost Western products), the more dependent Russia will become on China. The increasingly lopsided nature of their economic relations could then be leveraged to secure the most preferential long-term energy deals possible regarding the Power of Siberia II and other pipelines. These outcomes could restore China's superpower trajectory that was derailed during the first six months of the war as explained here at the time, thus strengthening its overall resilience to US pressure and therefore making it less likely that the US can coerce a series of lopsided deals from it. It's for this reason that Trump's Special Envoy to Russia Steve Witkoff is reportedly pushing for the US to lift its energy sanctions on Russia in order to deprive China of these financial and strategic benefits. The nascent Russian–US 'new detente' could restore the Kremlin's energy clientele as a first step via phased sanctions relief, thus expanding its range of partners to preemptively avert the aforementioned Russian dependence on China, especially in the event of joint energy cooperation in the Arctic. The purpose, as explained here in early January, would be to deprive China of decades-long access to ultra-cheap resources for fueling its superpower rise at the US' expense. All in all, a Russian victory (whether in full or in part via compromises) could end the discounted energy bonanza that's helping China maintain its economic growth amid the slowdown, ergo why Beijing won't send military aid or troops to facilitate this (apart from also fearing serious Western sanctions). Likewise, the scenario of the West inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia would be catastrophic for China's security, thereby providing another reason for the aforementioned imports to help Russia maintain its war economy. This article was first published on Andrew Korybko's Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become an Andrew Korybko Newsletter subscriber here.
