Consider the following reality: almost one kilowatt hour of electricity out of every five consumed in the United State is used to cool buildings. Eighteen percent of domestic electricity consumption is used for air-conditioning, a great deal of that in large commercial buildings. Air-conditioning contributes to global warming not only by increasing the use of electricity generated by coal and natural gas but exacerbates the problem by releasing refrigerants into the atmosphere. North America, with only 6 percent of the world’s population, accounts for nearly 40 percent of the world’s refrigerant market. Obviously, air-conditioning is not limited to this hemisphere. According to the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong is one of the most overly air-conditioned cities in the world. A temperature rise of just one degree Celsius in a 40-story building in that city would save almost $26,000 annually in energy cost. Worse yet, much of the world’s conditioned air is going literally out the window. In America, despite heavily insulated walls and ceilings and the popularity of low-e glass, 25 percent to 35 percent of the energy used in buildings is wasted due to inefficient glass. It should come as no surprise that poorly performing glass is responsible for more than 10 percent of the total carbon emissions in the U.S. annually, and is a major contributor to global warming.

Despite the undeniable causal relationship between air conditioning, staggering energy cost and potentially catastrophic climate change, it seems corporate America is willing to pay the price. Is this because air-conditioning is so well-respected, if not beloved, by the workforce and public at large? Though that’s what HVAC proponents would like you to believe, consider the following:

• According to the International Facility Management Association, office temperature ranked at the top of office complaints. Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests most office workers complain that the temperature is too cold and that air-conditioning is the cause.

• Cornell University reported that 75 percent of workers polled voice dissatisfaction with the temperature or air quality of their workplace.

• Retail venues do not escape criticism. On the Web, numerous complaints accuse Starbucks stores of being too cold for comfort.

Though office workers as well as coffee servers and their patrons may complain about frosty indoor temperatures, HVAC enthusiasts have repeatedly asserted that productivity improves as temperatures decrease. In fact, that was the hypothesis assumed in a recent study by Cornell University of the impact of temperature on office workers’ productivity.

Instead, the study’s authors found when temperatures were at 68 degrees or below, typists were keying 54 percent of the time with a 25 percent error rate. When temperatures were at 77 degrees, the same typists were keying 100 percent of the time with a 10 percent error rate. Typing errors fell by 44 percent and typing output increased 150 percent when office temperatures were increased from 68 degrees to 77 degrees.

Workers in a cold office not only make errors but cooler temperatures can increase a worker’s hourly labor cost by 10 percent, estimates Alan Hedge, professor of design and environmental analysis and director of Cornell’s Human Factors and Ergonomics Laboratory. Employers would save about $2 per hour per worker with warmer office temperatures.

In addition to chilly, less productive employees, air-conditioning can lead to real medical problems. Despite claims that air-conditioning improves indoor air quality, consider the following:

• The French Institute of Health and Medical Research asserts that HVAC systems in office buildings have been shown to be associated with several adverse health effects in terms of morbidity and mortality. The assumption is this may be the result of HVAC systems operating – not abnormally, but as designed.

• According to the Common Colds Centre, Cardiff School of Biosciences at Cardiff University in the United Kingdom, air-conditioning itself may contribute to infection with common cold viruses. The center’s Web site contends that, “the lining of the nose is covered with a thin layer of mucus which protects against infection. Since air-conditioners extract moisture from the air they may cause some drying of the protective mucous blanket in the nose and predispose to infection. The cold air may also help viruses to establish a hold in the nose as they reproduce better in a cold nose.”

• Additional studies have shown that people exposed to air-conditioning are more susceptible to colds, the flu and other minor ailments than those who are not. This comes as no surprise when in some cities summer temperature differences between indoors and out span a range of 30 degrees or more.

• According to an internal study conducted by the ECOS Corp. in Sydney, Australia, “Intensive air-conditioning all year long was identified as having a strong negative impact on the quality of the office environment.”

Air-conditioning burdens employers with increased costs, decreased worker productivity, unhappy office occupants and a workforce whose health may be in jeopardy as a result of exposure to conditioned air. The cost in terms of electricity use and climate change has been noted. Why then is the temperature of so many American offices and retail environments more like meat lockers than places of human habitation?

Though we can only speculate, no doubt, fear of sick building syndrome (SBS) and possible employee and tenant generated lawsuits motivates building owners and facility managers to lower temperatures no matter what the cost. More HVAC, more often is the knee-jerk response of building management as the one-size-fits all solution to indoor air quality problems. This, despite indications that excessive HVAC operation may in itself be a cause of the very SBS so used as an excuse to lower the temperature.

It is important to note that, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the term “sick building syndrome” is used to describe situations in which building occupants experience acute health and comfort effects that appear to be linked to time spent in a building. SBS is not to be confused with “building related illness,” which the EPA explains applies when symptoms of diagnosable illness are identified and can be attributed directly to airborne building contaminants. Given these definitions and the facts noted, it is clear, that SBS may be caused directly by air-conditioning systems alone.

As we have demonstrated, persuasive evidence suggests that air-conditioning in American offices and retail establishments is an out-of- control technology whose costs far outweigh its benefits. Permit us to offer some alternative approaches to more effectively mitigate or entirely prevent building overheating.

• HVAC deals with heat after it has been generated in the building or transmitted through window glass. For those buildings with significant amounts of glass through which solar energy causes overheating, heat-blocking window film can stop heat before it enters the building and reduce the need to aggressively operate air-conditioning systems.

• While dramatically lowering indoor temperatures in buildings with air quality problems may improve conditions, temperature reduction is not as effective as removing and replacing furnishings and building components that are off-gassing nor is it as effective as eliminating sources of water and condensation that create mildew and mold.

• Maintaining adequate ventilation in a building to mitigate stuffy air does not require lowering temperature.

• For HVAC vendors to contend that reaction to temperature is subjective or that building occupant complaints are essentially irrational is to ignore well-documented evidence that the vast majority of people will be comfortable in offices in which the temperature is kept at 68 degrees in winter and 78 degrees in summer. Humidity levels should be between 30 percent and 60 percent.

The best advice that can be offered comes from the Web site of a California utility. “Remember: air-conditioning is not to make you cold – just comfortable.”