Some Americans willing to ditch air conditioning to reduce carbon footprint As millions face excessive heat warnings, Americans share whether they would give up air conditioning in the name of climate change https://www.foxnews.com/us/some-ame...ning-to-reduce-carbon-footprint?intcmp=tw_fnc
Depending on where you live you may need AC less. People also forget that NYC is on the same latitude as like Madrid Spain, which is the hottest part of Europe. I've also been to hot climates like India without AC, and the way they build homes and ventilate really does make A/C unnecessary.
it would be tough in Houston, I've seen Houston referred to as the 'most air conditioned city in the world.'
Yes a lot of our construction sytems are very poor on natural cooling> They are better on natural heating but that is easier. On a side note during the pandemic I worked on a prototype house for Houston that would use a lot of natural cooling system along with addressing flooding. The desing was based on priciples from traditional Malay house designs. I will post some of it when i get the chance.
People somehow settled in Houston and lived for hundreds of years without AC. Clearly it is doable, but yeah, I know I wouldn't want to do it. Even still most people keep their thermostats at like 70 or even lower. Imagine if everyone just had it set to 75. That alone would have a huge impact.
I'm typing with one had right now but here is a link that isnt paywalled with what is in the climate deal struck in the Senate yesterday. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/27/schumer-manchin-reconciliation-bill-climate-change-provisions.html
Manchin revives climate deal: What's in the $369B bill - E&E News (eenews.net) Huge win for clean energy Taken as a whole, the bill would be an enormous win for clean energy. It includes much of what had been under negotiation since this time last year. Schumer’s office said the bill would reduce greenhouse gas emissions roughly 40 percent by 2030, in line with Democrats’ previous estimates for the original “Build Back Better Act.” Clean energy tax credits are the centerpiece. Under the deal, existing renewable credits would be extended. After 2025, they would become technology neutral and based on greenhouse gas emissions reductions. “Importantly, this is permanent energy policy,” Wyden said. “Congress will no longer need to extend these incentives every few years, giving companies and states certainty to plan clean energy projects and create jobs.” Existing nuclear power plants would get a new production tax credit, while the popular 45Q credit for carbon capture and storage would be expanded and extended. For clean vehicles, the bill would offer a $4,000 credit for used cars and up to $7,500 for new cars, with limitations based on materials and income levels. The deal also includes the so-called Methane Emissions Reduction Program, negotiated between Manchin and Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Tom Carper (D-Del.). The program would put a fee on excess methane emissions — rising to $1,500 per metric ton by 2026 — and offer up to $850 million in grants to industry to monitor and reduce methane. Other provisions include a $10 billion investment tax credit for clean energy manufacturing, some $9 billion for clean federal procurement and more than $20 billion for climate-smart agriculture, according to a summary circulated by Democrats. For environmental justice, the bill would dole out $3 billion for climate justice block grants and $3 billion to reduce air pollution at ports. The $27 billion green bank, known as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, is also a significant chunk of money to support zero-emissions technologies and low-income communities. “This will serve as a force multiplier for the development and deployment of green technologies, with an emphasis on environmental justice communities,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who authored the original green bank legislation, said in a statement last night.
If Houston was as dry as Cairo, it would be far more pleasant. The issue in Houston is the temperature combined with the humidity.
This is a clear example of blatant propaganda, for those of you who are without the capacity to discern this for yourselves:
Let me guess. You think "money supply" is the number one cause for inflator. Excess government spending and printing money right? The fed reserve is going to steadily increase interest rates to combat inflation. That's something I assume you want. But you do know that raising interest rates will naturally lead to stagnation of growth and recession right? You can't have it both ways. The sad reality is that often the solution to inflation is a recession due to high interest rates.
