Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Earth

India Needs To Turn the Air-Con On (economist.com) 76

Posted by msmash from the catch-22 dept.
India faces a paradoxical climate challenge that requires embracing air conditioning despite the environmental costs, according to analysis of the country's warming patterns and pollution crisis. While the past decade marked India's warmest on record, the nation has warmed at only 0.09C per decade compared to 0.30C globally, with horrific air pollution serving as an unintended cooling agent by intercepting solar radiation and making clouds more reflective.

The cooling effect creates a dangerous trade-off: cleaner air would accelerate temperature rises just as the country desperately needs relief from intensifying heat waves. Only one in ten Indian households owns air conditioning, compared to two-thirds in China and four-fifths in Malaysia, despite air-conditioner sales doubling between 2020 and 2024. During heat waves, cooling systems already account for one-fifth of power demand, mostly supplied by coal plants that worsen the pollution problem India must eventually solve.

India Needs To Turn the Air-Con On More | Reply

India Needs To Turn the Air-Con On

Comments Filter:

  • Or hear me out, they could build underground. Not in flood zones to be fair, but anywhere else.

    Underground keeps working when the power is out... Which they already have a problem with.

    • Easy peasy!

    • That's a good idea until you try to implement it, and realize that for the scale necessary to make a meaningful impact this would be cost prohibitive, technologically improbable and potentially environmentally damaging.

      Underground tunneling is actually power intensive, so they would use a lot of power, and thus pollutants, to make it work. It would require extensive engineering to make sure that any structures particularly on the scale to move significant numbers of people underground would be well ven

      • You only need to dig down far enough for one story and you benefit from cooling.

        You don't need underground cities or what have you. Just mostly underground buildings.

        • Homes in India do not commonly have basements, which would be effectively the same thing. A lot of that is because in a general sense India is quite humid, which creates issues with ventilation and a higher water table in the area, so a basement is more prone to flooding, mold, and water damage. Cities are able to have underground structures, but they generally are engineered for water resistance in say an underground parking garage, but again that adds cost. And India commonly has large family sizes and

          • They will probably have to move whole cities, but then, that's a trope in climate fiction because it features heavily in climate statistics. There are many resources available for those who would like to generate maps of all the coastal locations people are likely to have to piss off from in the nearer-than-they-thought future because of storm surges exacerbated by apparently small changes in sea level and the like, so most of us should get used to the idea of a change of venue "just in case".

      • That's a good idea until you try to implement it, and realize that for the scale necessary to make a meaningful impact this would be cost prohibitive, technologically improbable and potentially environmentally damaging.

        Underground tunneling is actually power intensive, so they would use a lot of power, and thus pollutants, to make it work.

        And remember that many of these homes need to be multi-story because the cities are so dense. So, the challenges are even greater than simply building a single-level basement.

    • Instead of doing anything about climate change or giving up our enormous SUVs we are instead going to become a subterranean species?

      I mean I get that you're not going to do that. It's just those poor people who are going to do that. And certainly nobody among the wealthy is going to look at you as though you aren't one of them and force you into the underground caves right?

      Jesus the things people will come up with to avoid having to build walkable cities with clean air... It's like those anarcho cap
    • When presented with a choice of changing energy sources or moderating use, of course the only rational thing is to begin digging underground nations big enough for hundreds of millions of people.

      ... I guess you expect that they'll all just order Grubhub?

  • Cheapest solution (Score:3)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Thursday May 29, 2025 @04:29PM (#65414755) Homepage Journal

    Would have been to address this global warming and pollution stuff 40-50 years ago.
    For some reason when given the easy way and the hard way, we always go hard.

    • 50 years ago, schools were teaching children that because of pollution, we were headed for another ice age. I know because I was in school 50 years ago, in a public school. Clearly, they were wrong, but it's hard to use hindsight now, and say we should have done something different back then. It takes a while to build scientific consensus, let alone political consensus.

      • "Clearly, they were wrong"

        Clearly your school was shit, because that was never scientific consensus.

        • It wasn't just my school. There was widespread uncertainty at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        • See episode 23 of season 2 of the TV program "In Search of...":
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          While it might not indicate a "scientific consensus" at the time it does mean people in the general public had a concern. Kind of like how today we see in the general public a concern over global warming even though there can be a debate on if there is a "scientific consensus" on the issue today. Albert Einstein was mocked for going against the scientific consensus at the time and when questioned on this he sai

          • While it might not indicate a "scientific consensus" at the time it does mean people in the general public had a concern.

            In particular, there is still scientific consensus on an impending ice age. We know one is coming. The time scale is on the order of a thousand years or so.

            In the 50s, they knew about that too. The question was whether CO2 would warm the earth faster or not.

        • Well, he DID say he went to a public school.

      • Yes. there were multiple proposed models for climate in the 1970's. And lots of poor journalism that relayed incomplete information to the public. So in a sense, nothing has changed.

        Science is a continuous process, where we change our opinions as new data comes in. We can only operate on the best data we have available. And if we wait until we are absolutely certain before we act, that's a recipe for disaster.

        What we do know, that ExxonMobil's studies in the 1970s on the impact of fossil fuels on climate ch

        • Maybe we refuse to own it... because it has never been ours to own? You yourself just pointed out that there was a concerted effort by polluting companies and politicians to hide and obfuscate the truth - seems like there are some known targets that should be facing scorn and justice, not necessarily an entire generation that could also mostly be regarded as victims. You think I *want* the world that it is becoming clearer is being left to the kids? And I was one of the ones that actually listened to the BS

      • 50 years ago, schools were teaching children that because of pollution, we were headed for another ice age. I know because I was in school 50 years ago, in a public school.

        I was also in public school 50 years ago and I have no recollection of ever being told this.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jbengt ( 874751 )
        We hit some record colds in the 70s and 80s. The Milankovitch cycles were just beginning to be understood and popularized. There was speculation about the timing of starting a new glacial period in the next few thousand years, and questions about how fast that could occur. Of course the popular press sensationalized that with headline questions about "Have We Started a New Ice Age?".
        Yet I remember hearing about global warming due to CO2 in the classrooms as early as the 60s (though it wasn't necessarily

        • Yes, that's my point. 50 years ago, there was not the same consensus that we have today. It wouldn't have been possible to persuade politicians to take decisive action against warming at the time. Yes, some were sure, but that's not the same as consensus. For that matter, even today we are having trouble persuading politicians.

      • During the 1960s and 1970s, some scientists observed a cooling trend in global temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. This was partly due to an increase in aerosol pollution, which can reflect sunlight and cause temporary cooling. A few scientific papers and popular media articles speculated about the possibility of a coming ice age.

        However, even at the time, the majority of climate scientists were more concerned about the long-term effects of greenhouse gas emissions, and by the late 1970s, resear

        • Correction: CO2

        • Yes, I'm aware of these facts. The truth remains, that there was not a consensus. When there is no consensus, it doesn't make sense to make sweeping changes to our way of life, because there we might not do the right things to mitigate the dangers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jeremi ( 14640 )

      For some reason when given the easy way and the hard way, we always go hard.

      Nah, the easy way was to do nothing and leave all the problem-solving for the future to deal with. Works great, until the future actually arrives, and the bills come due.

    • Except it is not easy to get billions of people to change their habits. Your "easy way" is actually the hard way.

    • This looks to me like the saying on how the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago and the second best time is today.

      If we are to address the issue of global warming then the second best time to act is now. It looks to me like so many are asking to wait for solar+storage to save us any day now. Well, I'd rather we plant the seeds on known working solutions today so that in 20 years we aren't wishing people acted 20 years ago because the plan on solar+storage didn't pan out.

      Maybe solar+storage will work

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Jeremi ( 14640 )

        If people wonder what I mean on what a backup plan looks like then look at studies out of the UK, UN, EU, or any of a number of studies on the issue. Many of these studies will point to solutions other than relying on only renewable energy sources and energy storage as the most viable option.

        Could you come out and say what you mean? Right now you're being very vague. I'm guessing some flavor of nuclear, or perhaps geothermal?

        • Could you come out and say what you mean? Right now you're being very vague. I'm guessing some flavor of nuclear, or perhaps geothermal?

          I'd like to be explicit on what I mean but when I do I get a flood of down mod points that drain away all karma I have almost overnight. Until there is some resolution on the abuse of the "Troll (-1)" moderation to indicate disagreement than actual trolling it appears I must remain vague. You tell me what you believe these studies tell you, then see how your Slashdot karma is impacted.

    • Well, that is what is expected to happen when temps go above 3C. The historical record shows that the earth reacts violently when warming hots a critical limit, ushering in an ice age

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Because we are really bad at dealing with anything collectively. As individuals we know what we need to do, but think our contribution is tiny and nobody else will do their bit, so we might as well not bother.

      Not just at an individual level either. There are many in the UK who argue we should not try to reduce our emissions because they are 1% of the global total, and therefore even if they were zero it wouldn't make any difference. That of course completely ignores the other benefits, or the fact that as o

  • No disrespect, but damn they need to implement hygiene standards like everywhere. Like #1 national priority. Start with this simple rule for cooks and anyone involved with food prep: "No food handling without utensils." And no gloves aren't a solution, not after you scratch your ass with gloves on. Did germ theory not make it to India?

  • Insulation (Score:4, Informative)

    by VTBlue ( 600055 ) on Thursday May 29, 2025 @06:12PM (#65415087)

    Indian homes are not usually insulated well or at all and are typically very exposed to elements in key areas with sub par windows and doors. This is why homes quickly heat up again after switching off the AC. Leakage is real. Not just true for Indian but for so many countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, America.

    Insulate like you live in Scotland, then no problems

    • It's not cheap to rebuild all those homes to insulate them but it is pretty cheap to throw a window air conditioner on them. What's your not thinking about is the amount of retrofitting it takes to make those houses well enough insulated to be worth the effort.

      Just fixing a bit of leakage isn't going to fix the electricity usage problems. You need things like actual insulated walls and double pane windows and weather stripping that gets replaced on a regular basis.

      Remember most people have to rent w

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        There are cheap insulation options that can be retrofitted quickly and simply. Exterior cladding, for example.

        Even just painting the roof can reflect a lot of heat, or better still installing solar panels on it.

    • Here in Vietnam it's the same. But it goes far beyond "just deciding" to insulate your home, even for a new build. It's impossible to buy supplies at local building suppliers, you have to get them from across the country or even import at great expense. And then if you do get the supplies, none of the local builders will know how to properly use them. I've yet to find a local builders who even knows what double glazing is - I've explained so many times that no, you can't just install two panes of glass, yo
      • Laos is worse. There are no three-prong electrical outlets; there is no grounding whatsoever. There are no sewer traps, so anything anywhere close to a drain smells like raw sewage. Electrical, plumbing, and ventilation is all added after the brick/concrete wall work, which means drilled through and layer over walls. Nobody knows which walls are load bearing; assume they all do but don't worry about cutting through them anyway. There seem to be no building codes whatsoever. Thai is a little better but the

  • Solar panels + minisplits + room in room insulation kit. It's all cheap and can be installed cheap when labour is cheap.

  • That book still seems prescient to me. Especially for how we underestimate the scale of change we’re going to experience

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Gilmoure ( 18428 )

      That first chapter is damned horrific but it really drove home the argument.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by shilly ( 142940 )

        It really did. Ever since, I've been struck by the gap between what we are doing and what we ought to be doing

  • The rich people live in well climated buildings and the poor people suffer.
    Go watch total recall. The rich live the sci-fi dream, the poor die of radiation and struggle to get enough fresh air. That's how things work when the climate get rough but there is an expensive way to change it for oneself on the cost of everybody (who cannot afford to live in the luxury buildings)

  • for SMR nuclear powered window AC units.

Slashdot Top Deals

Time to take stock. Go home with some office supplies.

Close