Is air conditioning making cities hotter?
Honestly? That&#x27;s just bullshit to try pushing people against A&#x2F;C.<p>Cities are hotter than outside because:<p>- they absorb more heat :: concrete, asphalt absorb much more than grass or trees and disperse far more slowly. Just go walking in a bush, measure temperature at 1.5 m from soil, do the same in grass covered area and the same over a road. You&#x27;ll see and feel the difference;<p>- in cities there are MANY ICE vehicles whose engine produce much heat, much more than any electrical motor;<p>- in cities there is less air circulation than in the open nature due to the high and heat-absorbing buildings;<p>- in many cities glass coated skyscraper works like any other glass keeping much of Sun IR radiation inside.<p>These are the reason why cities are hotter. Another proof? They are ALSO hotter in winter, not just in summer. In winter you can count extra heat from badly insulated heated buildings, little cold pushed outside by the so far limited percentage of people heating with some heat pumps that have air on their exterior side, but look at the numbers and you&#x27;ll see they are more hotter than mere heats spread outside by badly insulated heated buildings.<p>People should learn two things:<p>- cities WAS a necessity to evolve in the past, but with the &#x27;80 logistic revolution they lost one of their last reasons to exists, manufacturing became cheaper to do far from customers, so far from cities. With the remote work the last remaining reasons vanish as well. As a result dense cities and high rise buildings have NO REASONS TO EXISTS anymore. Try to keep them and sell them as green, good for the future etc is just a push toward intensive human farming to keep people dependent on service they don&#x27;t own, living to operate them so they can pay them. Since in the modern era cities can&#x27;t be sustained the push needs to makes people accept bad living condition as a new normal;<p>- we need to switch from a high density model, too dense for today state of tech and society, climate etc to a new less dense one, that&#x27;s hard and that&#x27;s means MANY will be simply &quot;overflowing humans&quot; to be put somewhere, since no one like that role, if told in such a crude way, some try to advertise such role with various &quot;bells and whistles&quot; but that&#x27;s simply BULLSHIT.<p>If you try reasoning about the above you&#x27;ll understand a thing: such move to put aside a significant percentage of humans can&#x27;t really work, never worked in history. It does work if the set aside cohort is very limited, the poorest, very isolated and very dependent, but at modern scale can&#x27;t work.