[jawarner]

The gist: On hotter nights people get less sleep, this being especially the case for people who are poor (limited access to AC?) and who already live in hot climates (100->110 deg is more noticeable than 70->80).

It’s nice data. They gave sleep tracking watches to 47,000 subjects for a few years, and this is what came out of it.

Their climate change angle is suspect. It probably helps publish to be relevant to a real-world problem. But their final paragraph undermines the projections they try to make: people adapt to the long-term weather patterns, and they’ll likely partially adapt to climate change occurring over the course of 50 years. Of course it’s still relevant from a health equity standpoint to consider.

[tjoff]

>The gist: On hotter nights people get less sleep, this being especially the case for people who are poor (limited access to AC?)

Forcing a large part of the world where noone has an AC to get an AC (at least those that can afford it) is going to do wonders for the environment.

I'm quite sensitive to heat and the quality of life improvements from an AC are immeasurable, though I live in an apartment and can't really get one (have a crappy portable one for emergencies). I suspect that the climate impact of the ACs are going to create a strong stigma against it where they are not strictly necessary.

[ChuckNorris89]

>Forcing a large part of the world where noone has an AC to get an AC (at least those that can afford it) is going to do wonders for the environment

Sure, but then why does the US get a pass on being super environmentally unfriendly by running heating or AC at full blast everywhere while also having buildings with very poor insulation (by European standards at least; the single pane windows with no outdoor blinds I had in Miami Beach would be illegal in most of EU) and no outdoor sun shades to block the sun energy entering the building, choosing instead to vent it out via AC after it had already entered, or just straight up wasting energy (Las Vegas casinos run the AC basically outdoors), while other, usually poorer countries, should just suck it up and learn to live without AC?

I get that the US is capital and resource rich and can afford to be wasteful with almost everything, but the climate impact is still global.

[twothamendment]

Building codes in the US are laughably sad. I've built 3 homes in 2 states and never built to code. I always encourage people who are building to view code as the minimum, but who wants a minimally good home? Apparently most people. The big builders want to put something up at the lowest cost. Building codes need to be raised to a higher level. It saves money in the long run and is better for everyone.

[ekianjo]

> I get that the US is capital and resource rich and can afford to be wasteful with almost everything,

https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states

The US has been reducing CO2 emissions year on year for a while now.

[lm28469]

It's still incredibly wasteful. I remember studying in the LA area not so long ago and I had to bring a sweater to class even though it was 30c+ outside

[ChuckNorris89]

And yet, according to that chart, it's still 50% to 150% more polluting per capita than some EU countries like France, Austria and the Netherlands.

[ekianjo]

what matters is the direction. You don't compare apples and oranges.

[dahdum]

> the single pane windows with no outdoor blinds I had in Miami Beach would be illegal in most of EU)

Was this a while back or very old building? My understanding is impact windows are required less than one mile from the coast. Beyond that insurance drives their adoption as premiums rise significantly without wind mitigation.

[ChuckNorris89]

2018 Miami Ocean Drive

[citrin_ru]

AFAIK most homes with poor insulation where build when energy in the US was dirt cheap (relative to the median income) and it was rational to save money on insulation and just blast powerful AC (human effect on global warming was not known/established back then). Retrofiring insulation into already built homes is not cheap.

[tjoff]

Why would they get a pass?

We are all doing a terrible job of it. Don't get me wrong, the US is worse than most but I don't see that as an argument for others to not give a fuck.

[ChuckNorris89]

>Why would they get a pass?

Because it seems the US isn't doing much on this front IMHO, despite being the richest country in the world, therefore having enough capital to improve and set examples. Especially with Trump pulling the US out of the Paris agreement. Granted, Biden rolled that back, but still, the deed was done and it sent a bad message to the rest of the world on how the US feels about the environment on the world stage.

>the US is worse than most but I don't see that as an argument for others to not give a fuck

Because, usually rich countries should set an example first before talking down to poorer countries about saving the environment. Otherwise, how can we expect poor countries to want improve their environmental impact if even the rich countries who can afford the expenses that come with being environmentally friendly, don't actually give a fuck about the environment?

This is the same inequality as fat-cats telling the working class they need to tighten their belts and suffer austerity to save the economy while they get more tax breaks, bonus payments and government handouts.

[tjoff]

I agree. But that still isn't an argument to not do what we can.

And there are other rich countries than the US that do better. ... no it isn't enough but we are gaining momentum. And that is about the only positive thing I can say at the moment.

[moffkalast]

The south of the US is at the same latitude as north Africa, so I think it's somewhat understandable.

[ChuckNorris89]

Sure, but that doesn't excuse the poor building isolation that would save a lot in energy if done to western standards.

[kortilla]

> Forcing a large part of the world where noone has an AC to get an AC (at least those that can afford it) is going to do wonders for the environment.

Heat pumps are better than any other kind of heater efficiency-wise. Getting a mini split is good for the environment whether or not you use it to cool.

[the_only_law]

> On hotter nights people get less sleep, this being especially the case for people who are poor (limited access to AC?)

As someone who’s fought multiple property management companies over dead AC’s I can confirm: it is difficult to sleep when you’re seeping into your own puddle of sweat. And there’s no real way to properly cool a space this humid I’ve ever heard of.

[oneoff786]

And if it’s too humid to cool off with sweat, you just die

[chess_buster]

This might become a reality for people in india at the moment... :(

[aljungberg]

This is good to keep in mind although should you ever find yourself in such a situation know that you can still put your feet in a bucket of water. We usually get water from rivers our underground reservoirs so it tends to be cool enough even during heatwaves. It’s perhaps not the most convenient way to cool down but beats death.

[masklinn]

> people adapt to the long-term weather patterns, and they’ll likely partially adapt to climate change occurring over the course of 50 years.

Can you explain how populations of countries slowly creeping on routine 35WBT are supposed to adapt exactly?

[sokoloff]

I hope and expect they’ll consider dehumidification and air conditioning (which naturally “includes” dehumidification) as part of the adaptation strategy.

(I’m not suggesting that we give up on global warming, but if a people are facing 35°C WB, AC/dehumidification is going to have to be part of the answer, because the next 5 years of climate is already cast and the only other short-term alternative is “well, move” which is far less practical or empathetic.)

[Maursault]

> they’ll likely partially adapt to climate change occurring over the course of 50 years

We will adapt by moving indoors to controlled environment, but it's not like we will evolve. At some point, the global mammalian birth rate is going to plummet because it will be too hot for sperm. Mammals won't physiologically adapt to that in a mere 50 years, but those able to live in controlled temperature indoor environments should be able to continue procreating. But when prolific procreators' (such as rabbits and squirrels) populations plummet, we should not ignore it.

I really don't understand why we can't stop Global Warming... now. The contributors to Climate Change are not typical citizens, it's instead various industries. Why are we more concerned about those industries, construction, glass, shipping, energy, than we are about the human global population (and all the other living things)?

[jawarner]

There are physiological adaptations as well. People in hotter climates are still going to get good sleep. It’s just when there are hotter temperatures than people are used to that sleep is impaired, and also that adaptive mechanism only works so well, and there is disparate impact for people in different climates. At a certain point, there are heat waves or very hot temperatures that simply aren’t conducive to human life.

100% agree about the urgency to make an economic system that is compatible with climate stability and thus with human life.

[hammock]

I'm inclined to agree with you and it makes me wonder, why should global warming be a more favored subject than health equity?

[masklinn]

> why should global warming be a more favored subject than health equity?

Because global warming is a large driver of health inequity and a billion other issues as well?

[jawarner]

Their angle was health equity in the context of global warming and how it impacts different populations to various degrees. That’s a common trend in global warming related issues. Their argument is fair enough.

My issue with the paper was specifically with the projections they made, which extrapolated the effect on sleep caused by the weather all the way to effects on a 50-year interval caused by warming trends. But by the authors own admission people can physiologically and technologically adapt — at least partially — over long enough time periods. To be frank I think it’s a way to make a compelling headline. They have the statistical tools they have, it would be incredibly hard to account for long-term adaptation, and so they come up with some statistical estimate of the long-term trend. I see why they did it, but from a readers perspective it’s okay to be critical.

[junon]

> Their climate change angle is suspect. It probably helps publish to be relevant to a real-world problem.

Is, uh... is climate change no longer a real problem?

[dahfizz]

That is an extremely uncharitable take. OP is clearly saying climate change is an issue, but is not particularly relevant to the issue of human sleep.

[jawarner]

If you don’t mind I made a clarifying post:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31470654

[junon]

Makes sense, I think I interpreted your original comment differently than intended as well.

[jawarner]

The fact that heat stress affects different populations with such different impacts is super important to climate policy and diplomacy and geopolitics. The authors in this case identified a concrete, statistically sound demonstration of disparate impact of heat stress.

That’s something I wish I had emphasized in my top-level post.