I’m curious why you ask this question. Does the answer matter or in some way lead to a broader point? If so what is that point? Assume it’s the worst possible energy source as far as you are concerned. Then what is your response?

I think they are pointing at an acceleration of the situation. Last summers have been relatively hot in West Europe as well, resulting in people buying airco’s [1]. Of course, people using airco's speeds up global warming (unless the electricity used is 100% renewable).

But at the individual level, it is understandable that people do this during heatwaves. Use green energy ;).

[1] residential buildings traditionally do not have airco’s in countries such as Germany or The Netherlands.

It does seem a bit hypocritical the poster's part if we assume he used the worst possible energy source. AC is a comfort and luxury. If we assume that climate apocalypse is impending, then going without a few comforts would seem reasonable.

>there's no political will or consensus to combat climate change; it's also not a one nation issue.

Think about this in the context of the warmist's proposals for limiting energy consumption in the developing world. People who've never had access to AC at home will be priced out of the market due to rising energy costs. Those who have no electricity will have to wait longer or perhaps never enjoy electric lighting.

This is the crux of the free rider problem. Consider this: my own hypocrisy has nothing to do with whether or not my statements on a particular topic are correct.

So now there are "warmists" who obviously target the developing world with their misplaced ire? Interesting. I guess the good thing with a strawman is it burns easily, right?

Preventing the developing world from accessing cheap energy will hinder development.

The irony of as we have more hot days, more AC is used, using more kWh, generating more CO2, leading to more hot days.

There's also the OPs complaint that he has no agency in this - but he chooses to have AC. I wonder how many tons of CO2 are emitted so people in offices can wear suits and jackets and work through the day, rather than shorts and t-shirts and siesta in the cool.

> I wonder how many tons of CO2 are emitted so people in offices can wear suits and jackets and work through the day, rather than shorts and t-shirts and siesta in the cool.

A whole lot less than 1.5 years ago!

But don't forget that there's less heating in the winter.

I suspect that because humans live in all sorts of temperature zones the combination of the two basically makes it a wash energy wise.

Shaming individuals for the crimes of an entire society and corporations, is so disingenuous and lazy, but it pops up in every single discussion on this subject.

Society and corporations are comprised of, and run by, individuals.

Only if you insist on microscopically looking at every single individual action, rather than the collective actions taken by society and corporations.

And some individuals have an extremely outsized effect on climate change a pollution, namely top management of fossil fuel companies and other gross polluters, as well as the politicians who enable them. They carry by far the largest guilt out of any of us. I'll accept my <millionth of a percent of guilt, if they accept their extremely outsized and enormous portion of guilt, and actually do something about it.

As a shorthand, we refer to these corporations as the entities guilty of gross pollution, rather than name every single individual in management positions in said companies, but we all know that the individuals in top management are responsible.

Similarly, the politicians are generally responsible for decisions and actions taken on a societal level, so they bear significantly more responsibility than Average Joe down the street, who's just trying to stay cool during a massive heatwave.

It's not disingenuous or lazy. Many people of the past died during heatwaves. The reason that doesn't happen so much these days is that we have cheap, plentiful, reliable power from fossil fuels. Renewables aren't up to it, at least not reliably. Is it not a tad psycho to advocate the abolition of fossil fuels that could easily put many people back in the situation of dying due to heat or cold... while sitting in the comfort provided by fossil fuel powered AC? Please, at least write such messages in the dark, sweating.