Writing in the Atlantic today, Shane Cashman gives us a brief history of air-conditioning and gives us an idea of the ecological and environmental costs that this modern-day comfort brings.
Besides being the main driver of summer brownouts and blackouts, Cashman says that, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, "[R]esidential and commercial buildings used more than 500 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity for air-conditioning in 2015 alone. That's almost 20 percent of the total electricity used in buildings, amounting to $60 billion in electricity costs annually." Cashman may well have added that air-conditioning has changed history and changed our geography as well. Decades ago, air-conditioning was inefficient and expensive. With the development of affordable cooling, places that were inhospitable for long stretches of the year became air-conditioned oases. In Phoenix, Las Vegas, and other areas of the Southwest where only a few hardy individuals did their best to endure the simmering summers, houses now sprang up, all of them with their central air units attached to their sides. When these more efficient technologies were introduced, many environmentalists embraced them as ways to reduce energy consumption and pollution. They have, ironically, exacerbated our problem. Writer David Owen gives a spot-on analysis and explainer of this in his concise book The Conundrum. I believe that many of us working on climate change should take a look at what he has to say.
0 Comments
Back in 2015 mayor Kevin Faulconer announced the city's plan to put solar installations on municipal buildings. For various reasons—bankruptcies, cancelled contracts, etc.—these installations have been delayed.
Today, however, construction began on two of the planned 25 rooftop projects, with ten more starting this month. Follow the link for more information.
Yesterday, I went to the movies with my wife and a friend to see An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power. This new film differs from An Inconvenient Truth and serves as the previous documentary's compliment.
Gore's 2006 film, which was based on his climate change Powerpoint presentation, was filled with graphs, statistics, and explainers of some of the science of how our tailpipes and factories are making our world warmer. There were predictions as well, with images of stranded polar bears and floodwaters inundating New York City. Ten years later, we now live in the future of An Inconvenient Truth. The sequel shows us the storms, floods, and droughts that are exacerbated by climate change. The scenes of storm-destroyed cities in the Philippines and floodwaters inundating New York City's World Trade Center are powerful; yet the more subtle images of tide-flooded streets in Miami better conveyed the ramifications of climate change to me. Although global warming is most likely influencing the intensity of storms, floods, and heat waves, there is no way to judge if the floodwaters I see in the film are truly higher than they would normally be, and I can't feel the heat when I see the images of drought-striken farmland. But I know that cities don't plan on their streets being underwater at high tide. And it is not just some waves lapping alongside the roadway, Miami roads and sidewalks are shown to be submerged so much so that fish swim where people normally walk or take their cars. An Inconvenient Truth gave us the science; with this sequel we get the other aspect of climate change, politics. We see Gore in a contentious meeting with Indian government officials and visiting with executives of SolarCity, a solar panel manufacturer and installer. We are allowed to be privy to some negotiations and deal making, all leading up to the Paris Accord of last year. Gore shows us the exponential increase in renewable energy and takes us to Georgetown, Texas, whose GOP mayor is spearheading the city's move to 100 percent renewables despite being in the reddest county in the reddest state of the Union. The former vice president gives us much reason for hope, And yet, I was not as inspired as I was when I saw his first film. Perhaps there is the problem that almost no sequel adequately continues the narrative of the original movie. But I think my feelings of ho hum has to do more with Al Gore himself. I think that had he not been the son of a prominent politician, Al Gore would have gravitated to working in academia or another area in which numbers and charts are important. Great politicians live to make deals and twist arms. They love power. I've never sensed this from Gore. The movie has a film clip of Gore giving a Senate speech. He comes off like an actor acting the part of a senator. Go back and watch a portion of An Inconvenient Truth. Gore is giving his presentation and quoting statistics. He is in his element. So politics isn't easy for Al Gore. Much of the work he has given himself tires him. In more than one scene he lopes down a hallway or onto a stage. He has also given himself the daunting task of cleaning up our dirty energy addiction. I've admired him ever since I read his first book, Earth in the Balance, and credit him and that book for enhancing my interest in the environment. An Inconvenient Sequel continues and rounds out our understanding of his work battling climate change. Have you seen the movie? Please let me know what you think. Comments can be made below. |
Archives
December 2017
CategoriesAuthorPaul Hormick is the founder of South Park Climate Solutions. He sees climate change as one of our central concerns, for ecologies as well as societies. He holds a master's degree in Environmental Science and Policy from Johns Hopkins University |