Quote »

Kill Your Air Conditioner Wednesday, Jun. 25, 2008 By JOE KLEIN On the weekend of the summer solstice, my wife and I went to a wedding in New England. The weather was perfect — mid-70s, sunny, with an exquisite whisper of breeze. We stayed at a classic little inn... classic except for the air-conditioning blasting through the lobby. I asked the innkeeper why he felt the need to refrigerate when the weather outside was so amenable. "I wish we didn't. It's expensive. I'd love to keep the temperature about 75," he told me, "but the guests demand it." The unnecessary refrigeration of America has become a chronic disease. It seems to have gotten worse over the past few years, with thermostats routinely set at 68deg.F, and sometimes even 65 deg., in the (far too many) hotel rooms I've suffered on the campaign trail. "Americans seem to keep their houses cooler in summer than they do in the winter," muses Edward Parson, an environmental expert at the University of Michigan Law School. But it's hard to know for sure, since there are no comprehensive studies that measure air-conditioning trend lines. I will confess a bias here. I love warm weather, even when it slouches toward humidity. I detest the harsh, slightly metallic quality of the air forced through even the fanciest AC systems. The only air conditioner I own sits, unused, in my car; my home is happily unrefrigerated. But given the energy mess we're in, I can now gild my personal preference with a patina of high-mindedness: air-conditioning is bad for the planet, and for national security, and for our balance-of-payments deficit. Unfortunately, it is not as bad as I'd like it to be — in part because not all of our electricity is provided by fossil fuels (although coal does predominate). And also because air-conditioning represents a relatively small slice of our energy use, an estimated 4%. But that's still pretty egregious. We used an estimated 4 quadrillion British thermal units on air-conditioning in 2006, which is more than the total energy usage of all but 21 countries. And a fair amount of that is peak usage — the sort that sends the electric grid crackling toward brownouts and meltdowns and increases the demand for the construction of more electric power plants (and the pollution they spew — unless they use renewable sources like hydropower or, as John McCain correctly insists, nuclear power, which should be carefully reconsidered). "A lot of utilities supplement their main power sources with quick-acting oil- or gas-driven generators on the hottest days of the year," says Lee Schipper of the University of California, Berkeley. Schipper estimates the cost of peak usage is 20 cents per kW-h, as opposed to an average of 13 cents for "baseload capacity" usage, and it is far more carbon-intense because it is generated by oil or gas. Schipper also estimates a savings of 4% for every degree warmer you push your thermostat. If you're set at 70deg.F now and move it to 75deg.—a comfortable, if slightly chilly number to my mind—you save 20% of the cost and energy of your air-conditioning bill. Schipper also says the savings from more-efficient air-conditioning systems can be enormous: in many Asian and European hotel rooms, the AC and electricity are activated only when you slip your magnetic room key into a slot near the door. A program to retrofit all public buildings with high-tech glass and insulation would save untold amounts of energy and electricity — and create thousands of green-collar jobs. There is a certain reluctance among politicians to proselytize about energy conservation. It's not as sexy as promoting high-tech gizmos like photovoltaic arrays or electric cars. It reminds people — of a certain age — of Jimmy Carter, in his dreadful cardigan sweater, telling them to set their thermostats at 68deg.F in winter to conserve oil. Carter was certainly right about that one — heating represents nearly twice (roughly 7%) the energy usage that air-conditioning does. By contrast, the Bush Administration has had a policy of malignant neglect, enunciated by Dick Cheney, who once called conservation a "sign of personal virtue" but not a national goal. "After Carter, sacrifice became a hot-button word," Schipper says. "But there's a reasonable position between sacrifice and just being foolish." Actually, George W. Bush's failure to call for sacrifice — and fuel conservation would have been a great one — after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has been one of the great failures of his presidency. The next President will not have the luxury of that sort of indolence, and, happily, both Barack Obama and John McCain have been talking about conservation as a means to get our energy situation under control. So why not start now? I'd like to see both candidates call for an immediate 5deg.F thermostat adjustment, just to get the conservation ball rolling — and because it would be a "personal virtue" for each candidate to ask it of us. And I'd like to wish you all a nice, warmer summer.

YAY for bigger government.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

RonPaul2008!!!

Or does asking people to sacrifice now qualify as government action? Perhaps the current administration isn't pro-big government after all, in that case -- since they've never asked anyone to sacrifice, but have just happily run up the tab.

Since I don't believe mankind is contributing to global warming, these kinds of government suggestions are asinine. Everyone knows that conserving energy is a good idea. But to insinuate that the government should control such minutiae is wreckless.

I agree with you Mark. The government should lead by example instead of commanding from on high.

RECKLESS.

I laugh at you kids with "baller" Hondas that live at home in your parents' house...

BEATER
'00 B-92P RD2

:insert gay hardparker clique name here:

Save the environ ment by driving one of these:

Powered by one of these:

That way you can turn rolling green hills of wild grass and forrests into this:

Save the Planet!!!!!!

http://www.postgamepub.com - All sports all the time

Where in that article did they suggest the government enforcing anything? Asking for something is not calling for bigger government or telling you how to live, you don't have to do it if you don't want to.

Quote, originally posted by turboteener »

But you can finance that new battery when it takes a shit while your still paying off that green wonder. Wait till the owner gets the bill for that 10K$ battery.

*bites tongue due to recent bannings*

The battery pack has an 8 year/100k mile warranty and there are numerous tests and real world examples showing well over 200k miles with no problems. Further, the battery is no where near $10,000 (the only figure I could find wasn't dated and said $4500) and batteries continue to decline in price.

In other words, at no point in that post did you come anywhere close to a valid point. Keep up the good work.

1991 CRX HF- 46+ mpg beater
2000 S2000 Hardtop

myspace.com/nicknelson

I realize we have to make sacrifices but I'd much rather we try and develop alertanative fuels and produce cars which are more fuel efficient and green before we have campaigns to have people change their lifestyles, especially at home!

http://www.postgamepub.com - All sports all the time

Nope, wasn't directed towards you. I just hit the reply button on your post, sorry.

I agree on the second part but the problem is you have to create demand. The only thing the majority of the public understands is their wallet. Electricity is cheap and until that changes you'll see very little effort at conservation no matter what a politician says.

Just look at cars. We have the technology on the shelf to make cars that can get 65+ mpg and have done it (Honda Insight). Did it sell? No. Why? Gas was cheap so there was no market for it. Even now, gas isn't that expensive but it has shocked some people into thinking it is.

1991 CRX HF- 46+ mpg beater
2000 S2000 Hardtop

myspace.com/nicknelson

In the past the Insight did not have a battery warranty. Several have come into the local dealership and either had to have them replaced of the owner traded the car in.

Why wouldn't they? We don't have a lot of climatologists per se but we have TONS of out of work El Nino experts.

Quote, originally posted by Bishop Don Shizzle »

I'm not sure if you're directing that towards me but I realize that the govt. isn't going to be mandating what people should set their thermostats at but even in concept I think we're looking too hard at something that can be fixed in much easier ways. I realize we have to make sacrifices but I'd much rather we try and develop alertanative fuels and produce cars which are more fuel efficient and green before we have campaigns to have people change their lifestyles, especially at home!

Reactioanry much? You went a made a stupid argument just because you thought someone was calling you out! What is easier than dealing with an extra degree or two around the house? You previously mentioned moving closer to work and consolidating trips outside the home as reasonable -- but not moving the thermostat a couple of degrees is a campain[] to have people change their lifestyles"!?

Maybe it is just me, but moving is a huge fuxing deal! So are the other things you mentioned, relative to living in 77 degrees, instead of 75. Personally, I don't think asking people to dial back their thermostats a bit is a huge imposition on their lifestyle and it is a very effective way to save a great deal of energy. And I say this not just because it is "green," but because it is efficient and we need to be more efficient to regain our edge in the global system. And, while I agree that a law mandating this would be ridiculous (and was not even suggested by anyone in the article), I don't think it is wrong for the government to ask us to be better. And, by the same token, I think they should do the same.

I didn't see that -- though we might be reading "I'd like to see both candidates call for an immediate 5deg.F thermostat adjustment" differently.

By the end of the sentence, the author mentions he wants the candidates to ask, not tell the American public to conserve.

Officially contributing nothing of value since 2005

I should be in complete control of my life. Because not only am I a climate scientist, but I am also an economist, transportation planner, engineer, and professor of political science. I know everything! [/sarcasm]

I think the underlying theme of the posted article is that we use WAY to much energy. The amount of AC that we use in the summer (Im in a hotel room right now that has the AC cranked on full cold/high cool every day when I get back from work...as Im sure all the rooms are) uses a TON of energy, and perhaps, a little conservation at the very least in the form of say...the president...asking us to turn up our thermostats 1* would save a noticeable amount of energy.

Global warming or not. Coal, and oil aren't going to last forever. If we want to continue to use them we should at least make the things they power as efficient as possible.

Like Mark said - the heating and cooling of your home is the one thing that is most in your control.

President Carter told us to man up and put on a sweater, and that was thirty-something years ago. We've been ignoring the warning signs for three decades and now shit is hitting the fan. If anything, we haven't gotten carried away enough with the green movement.

Remember the days of Ford vehicles with 85-mph speedometers? I wonder if we'll see the same thing happening with thermostats. In my opinion, the American habit of ignoring the seasons - ie. homes at 68 in the summer/85 in the winter - is going to have to come to an end.

I'm laughing about all this now, because my home energy usage is almost nil compared to most. I haven't run my AC at all this season and don't plan to. Keep telling me how brainwashed I am, and how free you are, while you're forking over hundreds of dollars a month just to avoid breaking a sweat. That's not directed at you per se Anish, but at anyone who continues to ridicule people who are doing their part to reduce usage and demand.

When do we demand responsibility from people and stop asking the government to be our parents. Lock down the borders, fight off our enemies and pave the damn roads. Otherwise stay out of my life. I am perfectly capable of determining my own destiny.

Global warming is where all the unemployed communists have gone. Its a game to them.

Helmet laws, for the most part, protect the hospitals, and the state (aka you) who end up paying for medical expenses involving head trauma when a patient doesn't have insurance...or in most cases, when a biker doesn't have a motorcycle license thus doesn't get his accident insured.

It seems like the dollar is the only moral compass the US public has. 10mpg trucks..hell yeah! F the environment! F my cities air quality!....$4 gas!!!! ZOMG..I must change my ways!

/sigh

Somehow, you found a way to use a straw man argument AND use a former political party as a slur all in one sentence.

Quote, originally posted by turboteener »

Global warming is where all the unemployed communists have gone. Its a game to them.

Oh shit. Again?

Quote, originally posted by turboteener »

My T-stat is sitting at 80 right now. Yep, it is 93 degrees here also. I use less energy than all ya'll.

My thermostat is OFF, and I live three miles from where I work.

I'm 100% sure that I use less energy than you.

I laugh at you kids with "baller" Hondas that live at home in your parents' house...

BEATER
'00 B-92P RD2

:insert gay hardparker clique name here:

Quote, originally posted by Superhatch »

Helmet laws, for the most part, protect the hospitals, and the state (aka you) who end up paying for medical expenses involving head trauma when a patient doesn't have insurance...or in most cases, when a biker doesn't have a motorcycle license thus doesn't get his accident insured.

There is more to it than that though. Let's say Mr. Biker is insured, has his license, etc., but that in a genuine accident, I hit him and am at fault. If he's wearing a helmet, maybe he has some road rash and a break or two... but he's not and the dumbass is dead. So we've gone from a $50,000 claim against me to a $1 million claim for the same exact action by me. Were I underinsured for that loss, why should I have pay out of pocket for his recklessness?

I'll expound on Mark's example, that is why you have insurance. It is up to you to determine the amount of protection you should have. I don't need 10million dollars worth of insurance. You can't get blood from a rock. But if you own a house, a business, etc, you probably should have enough insurance to protect your assets. The cost of a huge blanket policy is relatively cheap.

With all do respect, if you fail to take care of yourself, guess what happens in nature. You die. But here you can continue to be a burden on society. If you don't have health insurance tough. Guess you don't get fixed.

Knowledge, are there not people in the environmental movement that want to force their beliefs on others? Yep. No straw there.

For some reason the term civilized society has become synonymous with keeping one from being responsible for themselves and their actions.

So you're proposing letting people die because they might not be able to pay their bills? You're completely comfortable living in a society that practices that kind of treatment?

This is of course ignoring the mess our health care system is currently. Just as an example, I can not get health insurance without being on a group policy because of a surgery 5 years ago that totaled $80,000 in hospital bills (complications related to crohn's disease, not a choice I made). I guess it's just "too bad" for me though because I "can't take care of myself."

Quote, originally posted by turboteener »

Knowledge, are there not people in the environmental movement that want to force their beliefs on others? Yep. No straw there.

Um.. like it or not, what you do effects everyone. Am I "forcing my beliefs on you" if I stop you from dumping motor oil down the storm drain? No.

Yes some of the global warming stuff is hype/bs but it takes a ridiculous amount of sensationalism to even get something into the national discourse. That is an issue that has been discussed in congress now for 20 years

Quote, originally posted by turboteener »

For some reason the term civilized society has become synonymous with keeping one from being responsible for themselves and their actions.

Partially, yes. You just argued above though that if someone hits a guy on a motorcycle without health insurance it's the motorcyclist that should cover the bills. Wouldn't that be keeping the driver from being held responsible for his/her actions? I'm just playing devil's advocate here and I think if you're not wearing a helmet or taking proper precautions the amount paid should be capped (same goes for personal injuries while not wearing a seatbelt), but there is some contradiction there.

1991 CRX HF- 46+ mpg beater
2000 S2000 Hardtop

myspace.com/nicknelson

Not sure, but it will take such a swing to the other extreme to bring the reality into moderation.

Quote, originally posted by njn63 »

This is of course ignoring the mess our health care system is currently. Just as an example, I can not get health insurance without being on a group policy because of a surgery 5 years ago that totaled $80,000 in hospital bills (complications related to crohn's disease, not a choice I made). I guess it's just "too bad" for me though because I "can't take care of myself."

The insurance problem is part of why health care is so [freak]ed up. Did you pay the 80K or leave it to someone else to pay? Did you get health insurance before the incident occurred?

Quote, originally posted by njn63 »

Um.. like it or not, what you do effects everyone. Am I "forcing my beliefs on you" if I stop you from dumping motor oil down the storm drain? No.

Already against the law. You would be potecting public property by stopping me. But common sense should prevaik there anyway. Don't dump chemicals into the ground.

Quote, originally posted by njn63 »

Yes some of the global warming stuff is hype/bs but it takes a ridiculous amount of sensationalism to even get something into the national discourse. That is an issue that has been discussed in congress now for 20 years

But swinging to the opposite extreme like so many Green Nazis suggest isn't helping either.

Quote, originally posted by njn63 »

Partially, yes. You just argued above though that if someone hits a guy on a motorcycle without health insurance it's the motorcyclist that should cover the bills. Wouldn't that be keeping the driver from being held responsible for his/her actions? I'm just playing devil's advocate here and I think if you're not wearing a helmet or taking proper precautions the amount paid should be capped (same goes for personal injuries while not wearing a seatbelt), but there is some contradiction there.

No, if the motorcyclists is hit and not at fault, it is the drivers responsibility to make it right. Helmet or no. Driver was at fault. It motorcyclist was doing stupid stunts and gets hit, he is on his own. Can't sue anyone. He or His insurance take care of it. He then pays for it through higher insurance, court settlement, wage garnishment, etc.