it’s only reasonable to ask, considering how much carbon we’d collectively save by not needing to aggressively heat all those homes in the frozen north
Are these "don't live where it's not ideal for comfortable human survival" arguments telling all 8 billion of us to just stay in a very thin hemispheric belt around the world? People are born where they are.
Also just historically: humans evolved in a hot place, not a cold place. Thinking it's more natural to live in Massachusetts than Texas betrays a very limited perspective.
Not to mention air conditioning uses a lot less energy than heat so if you’re suggesting people only live where they need zero climate control at all we’re gonna be a little screwed.
But there's another major factor: the temp change needed compared to outside temps is much greater in cold weather than hot.
If it's 0 degrees outside, we need to make the house at least 65 degrees different from ambient.
If it's 100 degrees outside we need to make the house 25 degrees different
This is going to change over the next 10 years as advances in air sourced heat pumps have gotten to the point where they're viable in places where the temperature gets down to -20. Maine is pushing to eliminate oil heat in the state now.
Of course a heat pump is just a backwards AC so...
That article compares apples (furnaces) to oranges (heat pumps).
Air conditioners are heat pumps, so as heat pumps become more widespread, the ratio will decrease.
This. There’s some discussions to be had on the margins about governments deliberately subsidizing construction in obviously unsustainable greenfield locations but meanwhile Karachi and Wuhan and Cairo all _exist_.
