Air-conditioning: Our Cross to Bear

By Stan Cox, AlterNet

Posted on June 22, 2006, Printed on January 11, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/37882/

When it's hot and humid out and the air-conditioner's not running, America suffers.
Babies break out in rashes, couples bicker, computers go haywire. In much of the
nation, an August power outage is viewed not as an inconvenience but as a public
health emergency.

In the 50 years since air-conditioning hit the mass market, America has become so
well-addicted that our dependence goes almost entirely unremarked. A/C is built
into our economy and our culture. Stepping from a torrid parking lot into a 72-
degree, air-conditioned lobby can provide a degree of instantaneous relief and
physical pleasure experienced through few other legal means. But if the effect of air-
conditioning on a hot human being can be compared to that of a pain-relieving drug,
its economic impact is more like that of an anabolic steroid. And withdrawal, when
it comes, will be painful.

We're as committed to air-conditioning as we are to cars and computer chips. And a

device lucky enough to become indispensable can demand and get whatever it needs
to keep running. For the air-conditioner, that's a lot.

The costly care and feeding of AC

Like a refrigerator, an air-conditioner works by piping a chemical refrigerant

through cycles of compression and expansion. The refrigerant absorbs heat from
cool interior air and releases it to the hot air of the great outdoors. In doing so, it's
impeded by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or Entropy Law, which says that
temperatures tend to even out -- that heat naturally flows from a hot to a cold area.
So an air-conditioner has to mechanically compress the gaseous refrigerant into
much hotter liquid form and pump it through outdoor coils from which it can release
the heat it has absorbed. To do that requires a lot of energy, usually from a power
plant or a vehicle engine.

Almost one kilowatt-hour of electricity out of every five consumed in the United
States in a full year goes to cooling buildings. Much of the nation's excess power-
generating capacity, which sits idle until needed to satisfy quick spikes in demand,
has had to be built because of air-conditioning.

The electricity used annually to air-condition America's homes, stores, offices,

factories, schools, churches, libraries, domed stadiums, hospitals, warehouses,
prisons and other buildings (not including what's used to cool manufacturing
processes and military facilities) exceeds the entire electricity consumption of the
world's second and fourth most populous nations -- India and Indonesia -- combined.

The refreshing air that comes out of an air-conditioning system has an evil twin:
carbon-laden exhaust from the utilities that power it. Just about 50 percent of U.S.
electricity is generated with coal; 21 percent with other fossil fuels, mostly natural
gas; 20 percent with nuclear fission; less than 7 percent with hydroelectric dams;
and about 2 percent with biomass, wind and solar methods combined. Coal is the
worst carbon dioxide producer, but all of those methods generate greenhouse gases
and other ecological hazards during construction and operation.
In January, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) raised energy-efficiency
standards for newly manufactured home central air-conditioners by 30 percent.
Central air units typically last 15 to 20 years, so the new regulation will have little
effect in the near future. Even if all units were replaced overnight, it would mean
less than a 5 percent reduction in the power that's used to air-condition buildings.
That's because the new rules don't apply to window units or to nonresidential air-
conditioning.

The average household in the southeastern United States consumes almost twice as
much electricity as the average household in New England, but air-conditioning
doesn't account for that entire disparity. Southerners use a lot more power for all
appliances, whatever the season. Of course, northern households consume more
fossil fuel for heat, but in the dead of winter, heating cannot be dispensed with.

There is scope to save energy in both heating and air-conditioning by improving

insulation. Energy used in heating could also be cut by setting thermostats at cooler
temperatures, but air-conditioning is more of an all-or-nothing proposition. At a
certain point on the thermostat, a stuffy, frugally cooled house or office becomes
intolerable; a hot breeze from outside can be far preferable.

Driving from a cool home to a bracing workplace to a chilly supermarket would be a

severe shock to the system if done in a non-air-conditioned car, so you'll find such
cars only on "vintage" lots. Government tests have shown that running an air-
conditioner can decrease a car's fuel efficiency by 4 miles per gallon. Excess fuel
consumption is lower on the highway, higher in the city and incalculable when the
engine and AC are left running in a parked pickup truck to keep a Dachshund
comfortable.

(The long-running debate over whether you'll use less gas on a long highway trip by
keeping the windows open -- which increases the car's aerodynamic drag -- or
rolling them up and turning on the AC -- which puts an extra load on the engine --
seems to have ended in a tie.)

About 5.5 percent of the gasoline burned annually by America's cars and light trucks
-- 7 billion gallons -- goes to run air-conditioners. That's equivalent to the total oil
consumption of Indonesia, a petroleum-rich country with a population size
comparable to ours. Four states -- California, Arizona, Texas and Florida -- account
for 35 percent of that extra fuel consumption.

In years to come, we may be cranking air-conditioners up as high as they'll go to

provide some relief from human-fueled global warming. But that will only aggravate
the crisis. Air-conditioning accelerates the greenhouse effect not only by increasing
the use of coal and other fossil fuels but also by releasing refrigerants.

Since the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, there
has been a major shift in types of refrigerants used in air-conditioning and
refrigeration. In particular, highly ozone-threatening chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are
being phased out, most quickly in wealthier countries.

CFCs not only damage ozone, they also have the highest global-warming potential.
But all commonly used refrigerants are greenhouse gases, and every pound produced
is destined eventually to escape into the atmosphere during manufacture, use,
recharge, recycling, disposal.

Fifty-six percent of refrigerants worldwide are used for air-conditioning buildings

and vehicles. North America, with 6 percent of the world's people, accounts for
nearly 40 percent of its refrigerant market, as well as 43 percent of all refrigerants
currently "banked" inside appliances and 38 percent of the resultant global-warming
effects.

Finally, in counting costs, it's important to consider not only fuel and refrigerants but
also the materials -- steel, copper, plastics and a lot more -- that have gone into
building up the nation's colossal tonnage of air-conditioning capacity.

Heating up the economy

As a device explicitly designed to outrun the Second Law of Thermodynamics, an

air-conditioner vividly illustrates the inevitable destruction caused by all economic
activity, a process first described by Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, the godfather of
ecological economics.

Georgescu-Roegen wrote in his 1971 book "The Entropy Law and the Economic
Process" that despite the neat, closed-loop flow charts depicted in textbooks, the
economic process "is not circular but unidirectional. As far as this facet alone is
concerned, the economic process consists of a continuous transformation of low
entropy into high entropy, that is, into irrevocable waste."

Georgescu-Roegen went on to demonstrate the futility of growth-dependent

economic systems, showing that in human societies, "production" is a phantom, that
economic activity can be represented by just two factors: consumption of resources -
- concentrated energy, useful materials and our ecological life-support system -- and
elimination of useless or less useful wastes. When all is said and done, he argued, an
economy's only product is nonmaterial "enjoyment of life," which can be banked
only in the form of memories.

As it creates fleeting enjoyment through a state of low entropy (in this case, an
island of coolness in a sea of heat) but only by increasing entropy at an even faster
rate elsewhere (by using up fuels and materials and releasing useless wastes), air-
conditioning is a poster child for the inevitable decay that, according to Georgescu-
Roegen, is a defining characteristic of economic growth.

It's no coincidence that when the first modern central air-conditioning system was
installed back in 1902, it was to cool the New York Stock Exchange.

Sweaty and sweatless sweatshops

Air-conditioning systems have been traditionally classified into two categories:

"process" or "comfort." For the first half of the 20th century, process air-
conditioning was emphasized, making a wide range of manufacturing industries
possible on a large scale. The 1999 National Building Museum exhibit "Stay Cool!
Air Conditioning America" noted that "manufacturers of products susceptible to heat
and humidity -- tobacco, pasta, textiles, chocolate and color printing --
commissioned many pioneering experiments in mechanical cooling." The economic
growth stimulated by such industries, and by the digital and biotech revolutions of
more recent decades, could never have happened without massive doses of process
air-conditioning.

Today, process AC systems account for less than 8 percent as much energy
consumption as comfort systems. With the big shift from manufacturing to low-
wage, white-collar jobs in the past two decades, more people than ever are working
in environments with comfort air-conditioning. But in most manufacturing plants,
air-conditioning is targeted only where needed, more to the benefit of equipment,
inputs and products than of people.
Traditionally, humans have dealt with heat and humidity by cutting back on physical
activity in the middle of the day, maybe even taking a siesta. That was before
economic "competitiveness" became a universally accepted end in itself.

A story by a trade magazine on a South Carolina plastic sign factory where workers
endured summer temperatures of 110 degrees listed the effects of such heat on
workers' performance: inconsistency, inability to concentrate, negativity,
drowsiness, headache, fatigue and vulnerability to accidents. The magazine noted
that "deliberate work slowdowns, walkouts and similar job actions occur over heat
problems more than any other workplace hazard."

Managers at the South Carolina plant considered and rejected heat stress remedies
recommended by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, such as
allowing longer rest periods in a cooler area. They calculated that a single daily rest
period of ten minutes for their 100-person work force would cost them $20,000 over
a summer. As a cheaper remedy that wouldn't slow production, the company settled
on large, high-capacity ceiling fans, which cost 1/28 as much as air-conditioning to
install and 1/10 as much in electricity to run.

The employees would probably have preferred to have both the improved air
circulation and more breaks from the heat, but no workers were quoted in the article.

In summertime office work, air-conditioning is ubiquitous. It's used because it

improves productivity, but results can be unpredictable. A 2004 Cornell University
study showed how uneven airflow in cooled buildings often leaves some workers
sweating while others might be blowing on their hands to warm them. In the study,
workers typed only half as fast at an air-conditioned 68 degrees as they did at 77.

On balance, air-conditioning doubtless stimulates production where it's used;

otherwise, employers wouldn't bear the expense. But that cool, dry air also pumps
up demand for goods, and that's where it really gets things moving.

Invigorating consumption

In describing the "Hot America" of the old days, the National Building Museum's
exhibit painted a picture of a nation with sagging summer productivity, but more
importantly, a nation with better things to do than to go shopping. It read in part,

Before air-conditioning, American life followed seasonal cycles

determined by weather. Workers' productivity declined in direct
proportion to the heat and humidity outside -- on the hottest days
employees left work early and businesses shut their doors. Stores and
theaters also closed down, unable to comfortably accommodate large
groups of people in stifling interiors. Cities emptied in summers …
Houses and office buildings were designed to enhance natural cooling,
and people spent summer days and evenings on porches or fire escapes.
They cooled off by getting wet -- opening up fire hydrants, going to the
beach or diving into swimming holes.

A society that follows "seasonal cycles determined by the weather" is not an easy
place to keep consumer demand calibrated to a constant, frenetic level. Movie
theaters were among the first businesses to use air-conditioning, turning summer
from a down-time into a boom-time. Now, almost all retailing depends on gathering
large numbers of people into controlled environments and inducing them not just to
buy what they came for but to "go shopping."

Marketing in America is an exceptionally wasteful means of extracting Georgescu

Roegen's "enjoyment of life" out of valuable resources, and it's made possible partly
by air-conditioning. In a summer without AC, the mall/big-box strategy of
concentrated retailing would create little more than a hot stew of bodily aromas.
With it, leisurely shopping has largely displaced noncommercial pastimes for many.

Air-conditioning can also make big purchases more attractive. You can't fully enjoy
a jumbo-screen TV, a PC, an SUV or an RV unless you have AC. It allows you to
grill steaks in the comfort of the kitchen, play indoor golf when it's too hot outdoors
or, as President Richard Nixon used to do, enjoy your fireplace even in summer.

Redefining comfort

Have Americans just gotten soft, no longer willing to tolerate temperatures or

humidities outside a narrow range? Maybe, but that's only part of it. The United
States of 2006 is a product of the era of cheap energy, literally built for the air-
conditioner, just as it's built for the automobile.

Lehigh University professor Gail Cooper documents how that happened, in her 1998
book "Air Conditioning America: Engineers and the Controlled Environment, 1900-
1960." The post-World War II building boom, she observes, provided a golden
opportunity to design buildings that would accommodate, even require, a central air-
conditioning system, which at that time was a technological marvel in search of a
market.

To make new buildings affordable despite the huge expense of cooling systems,
homes were stripped of their heavier construction materials, large eaves, high
ceilings, attic fans, and cross-ventilated design. (Cooper quotes the May, 1953 issue
of Fortune magazine, which described the mass-produced home of the day as a
"TV-equipped hotbox.") Office buildings became massive cubes; expensive,
window-accommodating H- T- and L- shaped footprints were out. Extra insulation
and other conservation measures were regarded as too costly; it wasn't the architects
or builders who'd be paying the utility bills.

Much of that 1950s construction tradition has hung on throughout the Age of Air
Conditioning. But change is coming -- slowly. By 2010, 5 percent to 10 percent of
new, nonresidential construction is expected to be of certified "green buildings,"
which can be 30 percent more energy-efficient than standard buildings, while they
use more ecologically friendly refrigerants. Part of the reduction in summer energy
use can be achieved by use of natural ventilation, architectural shading and other
built-in features. But making a serious dent in that 18 percent of all U.S. electricity
consumption that goes to air-conditioning will require more than that.

No renewable energy source, and no combination of high ceilings, fans, rooftop

gardens or other cooling strategies, can create the intensely cool, dry indoor climates
to which most Americans have become accustomed in summer. Earth-friendly
methods of construction and energy generation can provide some relief from the
heat, but they cannot be expected to reverse the seasons. Summertime "comfort" will
have to be redefined.

Meanwhile, the high standard that's been set for passenger comfort is helping doom
efforts to run cars and trucks on alternative fuels. In 2005, air-conditioners in U.S.
vehicles burned up the equivalent of the nation's entire fuel-ethanol production --
twice.

If the United States is going to get serious about the deep cuts in energy
consumption that are needed, the whole idea of air-conditioning has to be
questioned. In doing that, we can't depend only on ourselves, as individuals, to resist
that most physically seductive of technologies. It will require big shifts in public
policies that affect economic growth, achieved democratically rather than in quiet --
and artificially cooled -- White House meetings or raucous stock markets.

This story is the first in a two-part series on how air-conditioning has changed
society. Next week: How air-conditioning may have helped elect George W. Bush.

Stan Cox is a plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kansas (average high for the past
week: 95 degrees).

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/37882/