187
submitted 3 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 24 points 3 months ago

With that sort of thinking, much of the planet should be uninhabited.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, just pointing out that since the first human put an animal skin over their shoulders we've been developing technology to live in places that we'd otherwise not be able to exist in.

[-] _pete_@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago

I think there is a big difference between the passive warming / cooling of clothing vs the huge energy requirement, spent resources and emissions required to basically run your entire home / office / factory / hotel as a giant fridge.

[-] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works 28 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Ancient people developed technology to cool their buildings long before electricity. Windcatchers, awnings, evaporative coolers combined with good old-fashioned thermal insulation were all very effective technologies for keeping cool in otherwise inhospitable places.

There are serious talks about reintroducing these in some places to reduce ballooning electricity use from AC.

[-] Spiralvortexisalie@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

I think the debate in that is passive vs active rather than just using technology. If the Hoover Dam were to become inoperable, would residents of Las Vegas be able to survive? And if it’s questionable what does aid, or worse a middle of the desert mass evacuation, even consist of? And this avoids even discussing current residents who in the face of increasing temperatures and energy prices may not be able to keep up with cooling needs.

[-] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

Oh, absolutely. That would be an instant massive humanitarian disaster. I was more trying to respond to this though:

just pointing out that since the first human put an animal skin over their shoulders we’ve been developing technology to live in places that we’d otherwise not be able to exist in.

I think there is a big difference between the passive warming / cooling of clothing vs the huge energy requirement, spent resources and emissions required to basically run your entire home / office / factory / hotel as a giant fridge.

Essentially going through some of the ancient technologies used for cooling buildings.

[-] dingdongmetacarples@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

If the Hoover Dam becomes inoperable, the entire Southwest US is in trouble. It provides water for farms and power, both mostly in California. Las Vegas would actually be the last to feel the effects of Lake Mead drying up because they've installed a deeper "straw" to draw water from, along with a pumping station.

https://www.snwa.com/where-southern-nevada-gets-its-water/our-regional-water-system/intake-no-3.html

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

There's a lot of farming being done right in the US Southwest now that's only profitable because the water is massively subsidized. The first thing to do is to make them pay something closer to the real cost. Nobody should be growing rice, cotton or almonds in the Central Valley. That's just burning public money and squandering a scarce resource. If they can't figure out a more suitable alternative crop, let 'em go bust.

As for A/C, it's a lousy, wasteful solution to hot climates compared to passive construction, insulation, heat pumps and other technologies (some very old). But anyone in Vegas with a pool or lawn needs some immediate education. And I'd be reluctant to encourage people to live in places like that when there are more temperate places they could live in if they wanted to.

[-] dingdongmetacarples@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

The farmers have the most senior water rights, so there's a lot of legal hurdles to that solution. It's definitely something that needs to happen though. Letting them go bust means the Southwest US needs to get food from somewhere else, most likely shipped in on trucks. It's not as simple as people make it out.

Heat pumps are AC in reverse, so why's that so much more efficient? And most new homes are built with good insulation and lawns are illegal for new homes. Most grass has been removed and replaced with rocks, only older homes are allowed to keep their lawns. There's cash incentives to get them to remove it though. In fact, Las Vegas has actually decreased it's water usage in the past few decades, while increasing the population.

More energy is used in the US to heat homes than to cool them, so I'm really not seeing why people should live elsewhere. At least not from a pure energy use standpoint.

[-] Tja@programming.dev 6 points 3 months ago

Serious talks? At least insulation is the standard in new construction, at least in Germany. Works for winter and summer. Add ventilation with energy recuperation, solar panels and a heat pump, many homes produce more energy than they consume in a yearly scale.

[-] No_Eponym@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 months ago

Hold up there pardner, homes producing more energy than they consume? That sounds vaguely communistic-like, and we don't take kindly to that sort of thinkin' round here. Just gonna hunker down and let the invisible hands of Jesus and the market take care of us 'cause this here's the greatest nation on the whole earth. /S

[-] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago

I meant to imply that thermal insulation is a prerequisite to any cooling tech, new or old. Looking at my comment again, I just worded it badly.

That's pretty cool. Getting modern insulation on older apartment blocks here in Romania is an uphill struggle. You need every occupant of the block to sign off on it, and that always results in massive headaches from someone who doesn't want to pay the 30 Euros per person.

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

Seems like a good time to change the law to require something less than unanimity.

[-] _pete_@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

I would love to see it!

[-] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago

Also you don't suddenly disrobe during a power outage, well not unintentionally at least.

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

Speak for yourself, pal.

this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
187 points (99.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5296 readers
471 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS