5 ms·

The UN suggestions [1] are pretty unambiguous. "Despite these drawbacks, AC remains crucial to protect populations at increased risk from high temperatures, as

The UN suggestions [1] are pretty unambiguous. "Despite these drawbacks, AC remains crucial to protect populations at increased risk from high temperatures, as well as for refrigerating essential medicines and other health-protecting technologies. In the absence of other options, AC – or another equally effective active cooling technology – should be available to those who need it most as if it were a medical necessity." [1] https://mb.cision.com/Public/15083/4360202/b9c9bce2cff90dee.pdf https://mb.cision.com/Public/15083/4360202/b9c9bce2cff90dee....

user43928 1mo ago
Pretty unambiguously garbage, yes. AC is in no way mentioned in the linked article or the Call to Action that identifies "4 critical areas of action on caring for the vulnerable". You unearthed a PDF where air conditioning is mentioned in a QA side note, here's the part you omitted: > Why doesn’t the WHO just recommend wider use of air conditioning? Air conditioning (AC) is not a sustainable (in time or environmentally) societal solution for reducing hazardous heat exposure. It is inequitable and unaffordable for those with low incomes; it increases energy demands and heightens the risk of blackouts; it may promote individual and societal dependency and overcooling, and may impair heat acclimatization; and it contributes to both the urban heat island effect and climate change, thus worsening heat exposures in the medium and long term. So maybe, if you are lucky, they allow AC for the most vulnerable with a special exception. Does this stance sound to you like the UN is making the necessary recommendations to roll out AC widely to protect people? They are not nearly doing enough. It's like they are not even trying to do their job. I am honestly disgusted by how pathetically incompetent they are.
- ragequittah 1mo ago
  So I think you disagree with the UN's analysis of things. That's different than the UN doing nothing to address what you're talking about. They say it should be treated as a medical necessity (which is strong wording) when necessary, but to roll it out to everyone isn't feasible or probably even possible in the near term. I appreciate you think it is feasible and have strong feelings about it, but I also suspect they may have done more research than you on the matter.
  - user43928 1mo ago
    The only mention of air conditioning we saw was a side note in a QA. It was full of claims about air conditioning contributing to global warming or heating up cities, which I would consider in the territory of pseudoscientific idiocy. So what have they done to address the problem? Put out recommendations to open windows at night? Because that seems to be the extend of their work. I have not seen them mention any research about air conditioning or its feasibility, so it's unclear to me why you would just assume they did a great job and know what they are doing.

user43928 1mo ago

Pretty unambiguously garbage, yes. AC is in no way mentioned in the linked article or the Call to Action that identifies "4 critical areas of action on caring for the vulnerable". You unearthed a PDF where air conditioning is mentioned in a QA side note, here's the part you omitted: > Why doesn’t the WHO just recommend wider use of air conditioning? Air conditioning (AC) is not a sustainable (in time or environmentally) societal solution for reducing hazardous heat exposure. It is inequitable and unaffordable for those with low incomes; it increases energy demands and heightens the risk of blackouts; it may promote individual and societal dependency and overcooling, and may impair heat acclimatization; and it contributes to both the urban heat island effect and climate change, thus worsening heat exposures in the medium and long term. So maybe, if you are lucky, they allow AC for the most vulnerable with a special exception. Does this stance sound to you like the UN is making the necessary recommendations to roll out AC widely to protect people? They are not nearly doing enough. It's like they are not even trying to do their job. I am honestly disgusted by how pathetically incompetent they are.

ragequittah 1mo ago
So I think you disagree with the UN's analysis of things. That's different than the UN doing nothing to address what you're talking about. They say it should be treated as a medical necessity (which is strong wording) when necessary, but to roll it out to everyone isn't feasible or probably even possible in the near term. I appreciate you think it is feasible and have strong feelings about it, but I also suspect they may have done more research than you on the matter.
- user43928 1mo ago
  The only mention of air conditioning we saw was a side note in a QA. It was full of claims about air conditioning contributing to global warming or heating up cities, which I would consider in the territory of pseudoscientific idiocy. So what have they done to address the problem? Put out recommendations to open windows at night? Because that seems to be the extend of their work. I have not seen them mention any research about air conditioning or its feasibility, so it's unclear to me why you would just assume they did a great job and know what they are doing.