Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Dennis Horne's avatar

Internal human body temperature has been quoted as 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit for the nearly 80 years I can remember and we have used - for at least 50 years - 37 degrees Celsius which is precisely the same temperature. The conversion is simple although why anyone uses Fahrenheit - or feet and inches - is beyond me. Must be something in the air? :)

Expand full comment
Brian Smith's avatar

This is very scary, but more than a little misleading.

First, let's take stipulate that higher temperatures will mean more high heat-index days. The question is: how many high heat-index days, and how many more than we'd have if we stopped warming now? Current estimate is for 1 more degree C (or 1.8 degrees F) of warming by the end of the century, so I'd be very surprised indeed if the number of high heat-index days increases by much. It's also worth noting that most of the measured warming comes in the form of higher night time low temperatures, rather than higher daytime high temperatures, so the increase in high heat-index days is likely even more modest than simply raising all temperatures by 1.8F.

Second, air conditioning is hardly an exotic treat reserved for the rich. As of 2020, 90 percent of US households used air conditioning (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=52558#:~:text=Nearly%2090%25%20of%20U.S.%20households%20used%20air%20conditioning%20in%202020&text=According%20to%20the%20most%20recent,use%20air%20conditioning%20(AC).) For the poor who use public housing, or publicly-funded housing like Section 8, the rich are already paying for their air conditioning.

Looking at poorer and hotter places, 99 percent of residences in Singapore use air conditioning. (https://www.coolearth.com.sg/growing-demand-aircon-usage-singapore/#:~:text=Almost%2099%20per%20cent%20of,Singapore%20own%20an%20air%2Dconditioner.) Air conditioning has made a huge improvement in standard of living for areas that are naturally hot, and improving prosperity has been crucial to the spread of air conditioning in developing countries (which are mostly in pretty hot places).

Which raises the larger point: some amount of continued warming is already baked in the physics (if climate science is to be believed). Poor, hot countries need prosperity more than they need a stop to warming, because prosperity will give them the capability to accommodate warming, while continued poverty will interfere with adapting. Any agenda which interferes with poor areas becoming prosperous condemns far more people to misery and death than whatever warming we will see in the foreseeable future.

If there were a way to achieve carbon neutrality without lowering standards of living, I'd be all for it.

But there isn't, yet. This is why the goal of zero net carbon emissions worldwide is not only unlikely, but cruel.

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts