India’s government is looking to control its citizens’ thermostats.
In June, the country’s power minister proposed a rule that news air conditioners sold should now go no lower than 68 degrees Fahrenheit, The Washington Times reported.
Government officials said they are concerned with energy savings as between 10 to 15 million air conditioners are sold annually in the country.
The current lowest setting is 62 degrees Fahrenheit. Citing India’s government, the Times stated, one degree higher on an A/C unit amounts to about 6 percent savings on energy.
Room A/C units accounted for nearly one fourth of energy usage for India during their highest use period last year. Usage peaks during the summer — where some areas can get as hot as 124 degrees Fahrenheit.
The Indian government began its war on air conditioners in government buildings, mandating that the lowest setting would be 75 degrees Fahrenheit. This is all being done in the name of conservation as the country could experience power shortages next year.
According to Energy World, India — for fiscal year 2023 — had 77 percent of its energy come from coal. Nuclear, hydro, and other alternatives accounted for just 7.6 percent while natural gas made up 6.8 percent.
If India is worried about energy and the detriment of emissions by using coal, is the solution really to use less of the current energy sources, or to explore leaning further into other ones like nuclear?
Further, A/C control sets a worrying precedent for India’s people. Saving energy by setting the limit higher at 68 Fahrenheit sounds relatively benign, but what further restrictions could be implemented in the name of savings, averting a crisis, or the collective good?
Should the government be able to control the temperature of private homes and businesses?
This is not a path India’s government should go down.
In 2008, The New York Times reported California planned to control resident’s thermostats with utilities companies being able to control numbers during periods of high usage.
Customers could override the settings from companies, but the companies could override them when an emergency occurred.
That’s the real issue at play here — when is there actually an emergency? As the Nobel prize winning economist Friedrich von Hayek put it, “‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have eroded.”
The powers that be tell us an emergency exists, and actions must follow.
How else could they justify such a degree of control?
If the Indian government was really invested in alternatives that promoted a better quality of life and solve the problem, they would invest more in nuclear.
Although an apparently benign proposal to save energy, where does meddling like this go next?
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
