> Why not just suggest they go sit in the garage with a car running?

Because an ICE car engine's thermodynamic efficiency is already abysmal and running an AC off the alternator current makes it even worse. That and carbon monoxide poisoning.

But if you have an EV, it's a pretty nifty idea right now to plug it in and turn on the AC to cool down. I'm going to share that idea with some folks I know in the UK with EVs.

Car A/C is generally run directly by engine rather than via electricity, unless your car is strong hybrid/EV. Anyway it's worse for efficiency. Hybrid cars with electric A/C are better than that because it has true generator rather than alternator, and its engine run occasionally while not moving.

Another tip for cooling car is to avoid sunlight as possible. Glass surface on car is so big.

Most of my UK friends opted to drive to work and back (with the AC running the whole way) and work from the office because their home office was too hot to work from home.

I’m not sure “no ac at home” is actually a good idea lan for the environment.

If it plugs into the wall it can run on renewables. In fact if it's hot and sunny that day the grid will be more able to power it with solar.

On weekdays here in California, A/C usage and grid stress both peak around sunset, just as PV output flat-lines.

Surely it will use all of the magic grid storage in place that renewable promoters always talk about.

Adding more entropy to the system isn’t really the answer. Cooling people before rooms is a better answer.

Unless there are dogs involved, in which case you'd cool them before people, or just cool the room and everyone is comfy.

Machines to gather resources to build factories of machines for workers to drive to, their cars needing a similar concept to exist, to build ACs is a huge part of their problem.

Physical laws of the universe are well defined at this point.

Since English is not my first language, does 'Why not just suggest they go sit in the garage with a car running?' suggest to gas themselves or is there another meaning implied?

> Thereby consuming more energy and warming the planet faster.

This is a ridiculous statement. Your personal consumption choices aren't dooming the planet.

The only thing accomplished by anti-progress rhetoric like this is that you push moderates further away from your cause.

True; my choices alone are not. I am one is seven billion making similar choices though; that adds up.

Your insistence you live in a bubble and have no impact on others is what’s turning people away from Federalism; people who don’t know you don’t feel obligated to coddle your sensibilities, hence the down votes.

Ok, so you would prefer to let millions suffer because of their "carbon sins" while the intellectual class entertains themselves with pie in the sky ideas for solutions?

I prefer action-oriented solutions that reduce misery for real people today.

No matter the cost to real people in the future. Aren’t you a real humanitarian.

I don’t care either way; all I was calling out that solving the problem generating more industrial waste is contributing to the problem.

Your real issue is with physics not me.

On the one hand, you claim my choices have no consequence and on the other if I choose to ignore suffering, I’m part of the problem. Industrial solutions create suffering and death through accidents, toxicity… just creating more of the same suffering.

You have a real issue with basic logic. Pound sand; your tough sounding words don’t wave off that physics makes it all impotent rage.

Enjoying watching all the work rot and millions suffering and dying around the world anyway.