By KIKI SIDERIS and ISABELLA O’MALLEY

Having air conditioning at home is a luxury that keeps people comfortable during the hottest months of the year, and it’s debated whether the AC should stay blasting or be turned off when people head to work during the day.

Related Articles

Firefighters and weather are stabilizing Oregon wildfire. Flames so far spare California wineries

To get that perfect ear of corn, weather has to cooperate. But climate change is making it dicier

Democrats demand Trump resume a major offshore wind project near Rhode Island

St. Paul company redeveloping Lakeside Club in Mahtomedi fined for asbestos violations

Green spaces are key to combating record heat in marginalized communities

Some swear that turning off the AC when they’re gone for a few hours is the most energy-efficient, costing-saving method. Others say it’s better to leave it running continuously, preventing the system from straining to rapidly cool the house down after the home has gotten warmer throughout the day.

Three experts interviewed by The Associated Press agreed that setting the thermostat a few degrees higher than normal while you’re away is generally the best way to balance energy efficiency against comfort and humidity.

While turning an AC unit off for several hours and turning it back on typically saves money and energy compared to continuously running it, that approach can lead to mold problems in humid environments as well as wear and tear that can cause more frequent repairs. The equation can also vary depending on other factors including comfort level, AC unit type and building insulation.

Air conditioning strategies differ in humid or dry climates

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, adjusting your thermostat by 7-10 degrees Fahrenheit for eight hours a day can save up to 10% a year on heating and cooling.

Experts say there are a lot of factors to consider when deciding what AC habits save the most energy and money.

“If you’re gone for like 15 minutes to go to the grocery store, you don’t get any gain” by turning off your AC said Elizabeth Hewitt, professor and urban planning expert at Stony Brook University.

But as a general rule, “if you’re going for your work day, say for eight hours or so, you’ll almost always save more energy and money by turning things off,” she said.

In some climates, however, turning off the AC might not be feasible, so residents can set back their AC a few degrees instead of blasting cold air all day.

In dry places like Arizona, you can let the home warm up more by raising the thermostat a few degrees higher. But in humid climates like Florida, air inside the home can become damp and harder to cool, and turning the AC off for long periods can increase the risk of mold since the system helps control indoor moisture.

Bumping up the thermostat by 1 degree Fahrenheit  yields about a 3% savings in cooling costs, said Patrick Phelan, mechanical engineering professor at Arizona State University.

Phelan also said leaving your AC off for hours and then turning it back on could lead to wear that results in more frequent repairs. That is because it can take AC systems 15 to 30 minutes after they are turned on to perform most efficiently.

How much energy and money you can save depends on the kind of home you live in, said Gregor Henze, an architectural engineering professor at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Homes built with heavy materials like concrete or brick hold in cool air longer, while older, draftier houses heat up faster. In less insulated homes, Henze said, it makes sense to adjust the thermostat even if you’re stepping out for just a few hours, because the indoor temperature can rise quickly.

Some AC units save more energy than others

Whether you have a window unit, a smart thermometer or central air could influence your savings.

Window units are generally less efficient because they’re installed in an open window, making it difficult to seal out hot air completely, said Hewitt. She added that spraying “cheap foam spray insulation in open windows or areas that are drafty is a really low-hanging fruit that doesn’t cost a lot of money and really helps retain the indoor temperature in your home.”

Phelan says smart thermostats are a handy tool to remove the mental burden of tinkering with your manual thermostat multiple times a day. Smart thermostats “learn” by monitoring the occupancy with a sensor and raise the temperature when no one is home to conserve energy and lower it when people return.

“If you’re going from just an ordinary manual thermostat to installing a smart one like a Nest, then you can expect something like 10% savings,” said Phelan.

Air conditioning for residential and commercial buildings in the U.S. consumes about 4-7% of the nation’s total energy consumption, according to a study Phelan co-authored. “That is a lot. And that’s not counting, say, cooling going to data centers, which is a different category entirely,” he said.

How to cool your home without air conditioning

Each expert said simple steps like blocking sunlight can go a long way in keeping homes cool.

Henze pointed to “time-honored strategies” such as opening windows at night when it’s cooler. In dry climates, that night air doesn’t add much moisture, but in humid regions it can bring in dampness the AC will later need to remove.

Hewitt added that closing your blinds can make a difference of several degrees.

Phelan also noted that some blinds are designed to reflect sunlight and said tinted window films are another option.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

By JALAL BWAITEL, Associated Press

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — Israeli forces carried out a rare daytime raid on Tuesday in the heart of the occupied West Bank city of Ramallah, where the Palestinian Authority is headquartered. Dozens of Palestinians were wounded, according to local medics, as people throwing stones scattered after gunfire and tear gas.

Related Articles

Israel strikes a Gaza hospital twice, killing at least 20, including journalists and rescuers

Netanyahu says he’ll push ahead with Gaza City takeover and renewed ceasefire talks

Microsoft employee protests lead to 18 arrests as company reviews its work with Israel’s military

US sanctions more ICC judges, prosecutors for probes into alleged American, Israeli war crimes

Israel to mobilize 60,000 reservists ahead of an expanded Gaza City operation

Israel said it targeted money exchanges linked to Hamas. But the raid was likely to further undermine the internationally recognized Palestinian Authority as it seeks to capitalize on the recent decision by some major Western countries to recognize Palestinian statehood.

Hamas has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, Canada and the European Union.

The Palestinian Authority, which is led by rivals of Hamas, did not immediately comment on the raid. It cooperates with Israel on security matters and exercises limited autonomy in parts of the West Bank. Many Palestinians view it as a corrupt and autocratic entity.

The Palestinian Red Crescent said 58 people were wounded in the raid, eight of them by live fire and 14 by rubber-coated bullets. A few dozen people hurled rocks at a line of Israeli armored vehicles as they rolled into the city center. The military said it detained five people “suspected of terrorist activity.”

Associated Press footage showed people running as tear gas canisters landed on busy streets and sidewalks, an Israeli soldier firing rifle shots into the air and people carrying a wounded youth to an ambulance.

Violence in the West Bank has surged during the war in Gaza, with the Israeli military carrying out large-scale operations targeting combatants that have killed hundreds of Palestinians and displaced tens of thousands. There has also been a rise in Israeli settler violence and Palestinian attacks on Israelis.

Israeli forces routinely operate in Ramallah and other cities administered by the Palestinian Authority, but daytime raids into downtown are rare.

Associated Press journalist Melanie Lidman in Jerusalem contributed.

Follow AP’s war coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/israel-hamas-war

By CHRISTOPHER RUGABER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire one of the seven governors of the Federal Reserve will likely end up in court and could more clearly define the limits of the president’s legal powers over the traditionally independent institution.

Legal experts say the Republican president’s claim that he can fire Lisa Cook, who was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, is on shaky ground. But it’s an unprecedented move that hasn’t played out in the courts before, and the Supreme Court this year has been much more willing to let the president remove agency officials than in the past.

If Trump succeeds in removing Cook from the board, it could erode the Fed’s political independence, which is considered critical to its ability to fight inflation because it enables the Fed to take unpopular steps like raising interest rates. A less-independent Fed could leave Americans paying higher rates for mortgages, car loans and business loans, because investors could demand higher rates to own bonds to offset greater inflation, pushing up borrowing costs throughout the economy.

“It’s an illegal firing, but the president’s going to argue, ‘The Constitution lets me do it,’” said Lev Menand, a law professor at Columbia University and author of a book about the Fed. “And that argument’s worked in a few other cases so far this year.”

Menand said the Supreme Court construes the Constitution’s meaning, and “it can make new constitutional law in this case.”

The most likely next steps for Cook, who was appointed to the Fed’s board in 2022, are to seek an injunction against Trump’s order that would allow her to continue her work as a governor. But the situation puts the Fed in a difficult position.

“They have their own legal obligation to follow the law,” Menand said. “And that does not mean do whatever the president says. … The Fed is under an independent duty to reach its own conclusions about the legality of Lisa Cook’s removal.”

Related Articles

Scientists give harsh grades to Trump administration work aimed at undoing a key climate finding

Court throws out lawsuit by Trump administration against all Maryland federal judges

What shoppers can do to limit charges once the US ends a tariff exemption for goods under $800

A US tariff exemption for small orders ends Friday. It’s a big deal to some shoppers and businesses

Trump vows retaliation against countries with digital rules targeting US tech

Trump said in a letter posted on his Truth Social platform late Monday that he was removing Cook effective immediately because of allegations she committed mortgage fraud.

Cook said Monday night that she would not step down. “President Trump purported to fire me ‘for cause’ when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so,” she said in an emailed statement. “I will not resign.”

Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee to the agency that regulates mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, made the accusations last week. Pulte alleged that Cook had claimed two primary residences — in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and in Atlanta — in 2021 to get better mortgage terms. Mortgage rates are often higher on second homes or those bought to rent.

Cook has retained Abbe Lowell, a prominent Washington attorney. Lowell said Trump’s “reflex to bully is flawed and his demands lack any proper process, basis or legal authority,” adding, “We will take whatever actions are needed to prevent his attempted illegal action.”

Cook is the first Black woman to serve as a governor. She was a Marshall Scholar and received degrees from Oxford University and Spelman College, and she has taught at Michigan State University and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

By SETH BORENSTEIN and MICHAEL PHILLIS

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two key documents from the Trump administration aimed at revoking the long-standing finding that climate change is dangerous were filled with errors, bias and distortions, according to dozens of scientists surveyed by The Associated Press.

One of the reports argues that sea ice decline in the Arctic has been small, but uses data from the Antarctic to make the point. It uses a French-focused study on climate-related crop losses for a claim about the U.S. — a generalization the author said didn’t work because of significant differences in climate and agriculture. And after saying decades-old wildfire statistics aren’t reliable, the report reproduces them in a graphic anyway, making it appear fires were worse a century ago than they have been more recently.

Scientists noted those basic errors, but the most common critique from the vast majority of the 64 who answered AP’s questions was that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy ignored, twisted or cherry-picked information to manufacture doubt about the severity and threat of climate change.

Jennifer Marlon, director of data science at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, was among those.

“The work and conclusions appear biased. The data and graphs use classic mis- and disinformation techniques,” she said. “It is almost a user’s guide on how to lie with figures.”

The Trump administration in July proposed revoking a 2009 government finding that climate change is a threat to public health and welfare, a concept known as the “endangerment” finding that is backed by mainstream science. Overturning it could pave the way for cutting a range of rules that limit pollution from cars, power plants and other sources.

One of the Trump administration reports, by the Department of Energy, suggests climate models used by scientists to predict warming have overreached, that long-term trends for disasters generally don’t show much change and that climate has little impact on the economy. The DOE document also said there are advantages to a world with more carbon, like increased plant growth.

AP reached out to some 350 scientists by email — nearly all the lead authors of research cited in the Trump administration’s work, plus another 139 climate experts in science, health and economics who are prominent in the field. Fifty-three of the 64 scientists who responded — including outside researchers not mentioned by the reports — gave the EPA and DOE documents a negative review. Seven praised them. The remaining four took no clear position.

In 15 cases, scientists whose work was cited said it was misused, misinterpreted or taken out of context.

When EPA was asked to respond to the scientists’ critiques, the agency said it had considered a variety of sources and information in assessing whether the predictions and assumptions baked into the 2009 finding that climate change is a public threat are “accurate and consistent.” The Energy Department said it was committed to “a more thoughtful and science-based conversation.”

White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said the Trump administration “is producing Gold Standard Science research driven by verifiable data” and that the endangerment finding had long been misused to justify expensive regulations “that have jeopardized our economic and national security.”

The public has until Sept. 2 to comment on the Energy Department report and until Sept. 22 for the EPA’s proposal to revoke the endangerment finding. Then the Trump administration must consider that feedback before a final decision.

Overturning the finding could undermine environmental standards such as a rule that requires reducing emissions from some coal-fired power plants by 90%, or one limiting methane releases from the heaviest polluting oil and gas wells. Another regulation at stake is a requirement that new car emissions be cut roughly in half by the 2032 model year.

Environmental groups are already challenging the documents in court.

The Trump administration argues that climate science is alarmist

The EPA’s report arguing to overturn the endangerment finding relied heavily on the Energy Department’s work. That DOE report is what most scientists surveyed by the AP focused on. Together, the two Trump administration documents maintain that while climate change is real, its future effects are unclear and likely weaker than projected by many mainstream scientists. The administration also contends that U.S. cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, which largely come from burning fuels like oil and coal, would mean little globally. The U.S. is the world’s second-largest emitter behind China.

Marlon, the Yale researcher, singled out the flawed wildfire data and said the proper thing for scientists to do is not to show such information. “The report instead plots this unreliable data,” she said.

The document also erroneously claimed that the area burned by wildfire in the U.S. hadn’t increased since 2007. Marlon ran the data herself to confirm that it had, though more slowly than in prior years. Data from the National Interagency Fire Center shows that the 10-year average annual burn rate was 6.5 million acres in 2007; in 2024, it was almost 7.6 million acres.

When discussing sea ice, the Trump reports refer to the wrong part of the world.

“Arctic sea ice extent has declined by about 5% since 1980,” the Energy Department report said. But the report linked to a National Snow and Ice Data Center chart for the Southern Hemisphere, which means Antarctica. Antarctic sea ice has in fact declined about 5% in that time, but Arctic sea ice shrank by more than 40%.

“It suggests sloppy work,” said data center senior scientist Walt Meier.

Report authors respond to criticism

That error and any others that are found will be corrected, the report authors said.

“The report’s preface states clearly that it is not meant to be a comprehensive review of climate science but rather is focused on important data and topics that have been underreported or overlooked in media and political discussions,” the DOE report’s authors said in a joint statement provided by co-author Ross McKitrick, a professor at the University of Guelph in Canada specializing in environmental economics.

“Generic accusations of bias or cherry-picking are not helpful for serious scientific discussions,” they said.

The EPA’s report drew heavily on the Energy Department document for its science, citing it twice as often as it cited the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has hundreds of scientists and editors that produce a massive document written over several years and was a key source for the 2009 endangerment finding. The Energy Department document was begun in March and published in July. Its preface says the aim is to “include evidence and perspectives that challenge the mainstream consensus.”

Pat Parenteau, an environmental law expert and former director of the Environmental Law School at Vermont Law & Graduate School, said agencies are required to make a “reasoned analysis” when they reverse a policy like the endangerment finding.

“Reasoned means objective. I don’t know how it could mean anything else other than that,” he said, adding that he didn’t believe the Trump administration reports were objective.

The National Academy of Sciences, a collection of private, nonprofit institutions set up to provide independent and objective analysis for policymakers, says it’s preparing a fast-tracked special report on the latest evidence on whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health.

Many experts said the reports were biased

Nineteen scientists used variations of the phrase “cherry pick” to describe the administration’s reports.

“I will surely not be alone in saying these reports cherry-pick information to minimize the threat of climate change,” said Steven Sherwood, a professor and climate researcher at the University of New South Wales. He said the reports were well written and easy to understand, then added: “But being biased in selecting what to show, they are not honest efforts to portray the broader picture, but instead read as efforts to persuade against concern about carbon emissions.”

Francois Bareille, a French economist whose work was referenced in the Energy Department’s report, said the work was fundamentally flawed. “These documents do not reflect genuine scientific rigor, but rather a misleading reinterpretation of peer-reviewed research.”

Related Articles

Court throws out lawsuit by Trump administration against all Maryland federal judges

What shoppers can do to limit charges once the US ends a tariff exemption for goods under $800

A US tariff exemption for small orders ends Friday. It’s a big deal to some shoppers and businesses

Trump vows retaliation against countries with digital rules targeting US tech

Trump administration threatens some funding for 3 states for not enforcing trucker English rules

Bareille said the Energy report misused his research on French agriculture, which concluded that previous research on climate-related crop losses was overly pessimistic. Bareille said his findings “cannot be generalized to other regions, such as the U.S., where both climate conditions and agricultural systems differ significantly.”

One portion of the Energy report argued that ocean acidification should more accurately be called “ocean neutralization.” The authors reasoned that ocean life “appear to be resilient” to such changes.

Ocean acidification happens as waters absorb rising carbon dioxide, which damages marine life with shells, such as coral, oysters and mollusks. That harm risks disrupting food webs.

Stony Brook University’s Stephen Schwartz, former chief scientist of the Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Science Program, said using a more benign term such as “neutralization” would be “ludicrous.” And Waleed Abdalati, who served as NASA chief scientist during the Obama administration, said: “The simple fact is that carbon dioxide is making the oceans more acidic, which carries harmful effects.”

Tim Gallaudet, chief of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration during the first Trump administration, praised the recent administration reports and singled out the issue of ocean acidification. He agreed with the word “neutralization” and said recent studies have shown smaller or nonexistent harms when compared with previous science.

One economics expert cited in the report praised it, saying it departed from unnecessarily alarmist findings of other national and international climate assessments.

“The problem is that mainstream ‘climate science’ is pretty worthless. Hopelessly politicized, mired in groupthink and virtue signaling,” said James Davidson, a professor at the University of Exeter. His work was cited to dispute the mainstream scientific finding that rising carbon dioxide levels in the past drove warming.

Davidson said the Department of Energy’s authors are skeptical of the current consensus and hold beliefs that previously would have been ignored.

“In other words, they and the so-called ‘mainstream’ have changed places for the moment,” he said.

Scientists grade the reports from A to F

Asked to grade the administration documents as if they were produced by undergraduates, 19 of the 42 scientists who responded to that question assigned the work an F, for failing. The reports earned five As along with an A-minus. Some criticized the question as silly or ridiculous, with one saying it suggests “your goal here is not journalism but team sport.”

“I would give them both a D on truth and an A on deviousness,” wrote climate scientist Jennifer Francis of the Woodwell Climate Research Center. She said the analysis was twisted to support the desired narrative.

“The EPA report gets an ‘R’ for ridiculous,” she said.

The DOE report argues that worst-case climate models often used by scientists to describe the consequences of doing nothing to reduce emissions exaggerate how much the world has already warmed and how much more it will heat up.

In that section, the Energy Department report cited climate scientist Zeke Hausfather four times, including a graphic of his.

Hausfather wrote in a blog that the report used one less important figure “to reinforce the point they were trying to make, and never actually referred to the broader conclusion of the paper that old models had by-and-large performed quite well,” Hausfather wrote. “The actual content of my paper went counter to the narrative they were trying to present, and thus was ignored.”

He added: “That’s why I’ve publicly called this process a farce.”

When asked to respond, a DOE spokesperson encouraged Hausfather to submit his concerns as part of the public comment process.

Data journalist M.K. Wildeman contributed to this story.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.