Humans have a really hard time understanding compounding risk. But there are billions of us. How many billions of drops can you handwave away?
The sun = 175 quadrillion watts of heat.
So I would say, the heat from running ACs is not significant. It's also additive with all the other existing forms of energy use we have. Unlike greenhouse gases, which are multiplicative.
The increase in the heat outside the houses, caused by the air conditioners running MOSTLY ON RENEWABLES[1] is a drop in the ocean. Especially if we speed up installing heat pumps powered by renewables and acting as AC in the summer.
There's plenty of good arguments and then there was yours. No, ACs running worldwide are not a net contributor to the climate emergency.
If you at least said that solar reflective paints and foils should be much more popular, along with reforestation of cities, which would then bring the cooling needs down but no, you had to do the strawman.
[1] https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/for-the-first-time-w...
Air Conditioners do not produce a net heating effect unless you power them by burning fossil fuels.
Our current cities and infrastructure are designed to be black heat sinks to soak up heat and hold onto it and ground level. But there is research into what would happen if we flipped that design around.
"If we all do this little thing" thinking is utter nonsense. If all of human consumption or contribution to warming or what-have-you is 1000, applying a change that lowers that to 999 is not doing anything more than that.
This here is not even a 0.1% thing. You could probably get a better result by telling people to read ebooks rather than hardback. It's just absurd.
