I have the thermostat in my apartment turned to about 19°, which is a bit lower than is usual here, to save money and the environment, and I'm still perfectly comfortable at that temperature. At some point, after I had rented it for a bit, I had to be gone for a few weeks, so I turned the thermostat and all the radiators completely off. The outside temperature was about 5-10°, which I what expected to find on my return. Yet when I came back, it was still at 19.5°. I have only rarely had to turn on my radiators since, even during Winter.
Of course, the place can't be that well-isolated, and I regularly open the windows to let in fresh air, so that energy must be coming from somewhere. I assume it's heat leaking in from my upstairs, downstairs, left and right neighbors. They probably have their thermostats set to a balmy 21-22°, and the heat flux through my walls must be enough to keep the place at around 19°.
I often wonder whether this constitutes stealing. It's not exactly parallel to the light of my neighbor's lamp, since due to the temperature differential their thermostats are working harder than they would be if I heated my place to 22°. In effect, they're all paying for the energy to keep my place at 19°, and I'm presumably paying only a pittance for heat. But on the other hand, I have no need for a higher temperature, nor do I want to pay or incur the environmental cost for unnecessary heating. Nineteen degrees seems like a perfectly reasonable temperature to me, and it's their choice (again, I'm assuming, but where else can it come from?) to keep it a few degrees hotter.
I think that's a stronger example than the one proposed. But the outcome is similar. The neighbors are forcibly giving you heat. It just happens that you are ok with 19C. However, if you wanted your home to be cooler than that, to be the same as outside, you'd then have to pay for an AC to do that because your neighbors are making the environment around them hotter. I think stealing is not only taking something that's not yours, but taking something that's not yours without permission. As soon as they start irradiating the heat all over the place, they are effectively giving everyone permission to use it. It's not like you can somehow easily stop or give them back the heat. If they didn't want the heat to escape, then they need to invest in better insulation.
My first apartment in Boston was like this. I was on the top floor and I’d have to leave the windows open all winter because it was so unbearably hot from the heat being cranked up in the units below me. I remember nearly sweating to death during a major snowstorm because I had closed the windows to keep the snow out but keeping the snow out meant I kept all of the hot air in!
I currently live in the Boston area in an apt. built in 1927. Steam heat. I keep my windows cracked open pretty much all Winter because even with the radiator turned off, I still get too much heat from all sides. Yes, I do have wire mesh screens on my windows.
My God, I think I was crazy. It happened to me in several hotels in USA and Europe, I had to leave window open in winter because it was unbereable to be in the hotel room, even with the heating turned off. Glad I am not the only one!
When you're on the top floor, it's often a catch-22 to do this. Heating for the building can be controlled by a system that takes as input the temperatures from sensors in apartments on the top and bottom floors. So when you open the windows to lower the temperature in your apartment, the system will react by cranking up the heat for the building.
One nice thing about winter heat is that it's just too dry for many insects to survive long. Obviously this depends on the insect, I've noticed that yellow jackets die within a day but lady bugs can survive much longer.
Yes, window screens allow you to keep windows open when it’s snowing. However, if it’s very windy/stormy you’d still get a lot of water in and probably shutting a part of the window would be necessary.
Yep my wife and I moved to Connecticut from North Carolina. The summers here are very mild compared to what we are used to and as such leave the windows open to stay cool. But as you mentioned the screens do allow in rain if it’s raining and windy. Funny I never thought about seeing if there’s an alternative material for it.
You don't have (the option for) ventilation shafts in your window frames[0]? Here in the Netherlands (and north-west EU) many homes have those, they're designed to allow fresh air to circulate without the need for opening a window. Most houses have those except for really old ones (which have 'natural' ventilation, i.e. creeks) or really new ones (which have a central ventilation system).
> As soon as they start irradiating the heat all over the place, they are effectively giving everyone permission to use it.
Hmm I wouldn't agree with that. I think the Wikipedia definition [1] captures it more accurately: theft is taking someone's property or services without their consent and with the intention to deprive them of it. In the case of heat, you're neither taking "property" (and "services" would be quite a stretch, unless they provide heating as a service...) noor are you "depriving" them of their heat, so it cannot be theft.
There is one complexity that you left out, which is that they are unknowingly spending more money on heat because of the "freeloader" that they share a wall with.
So I wouldn't call it theft. But it seems like a clear case of freeloading.
It's like that roommate that never does the dishes because they know you will do them when it gets bad enough. Are they stealing your time? I suppose not, but they aren't doing their part.
Actually, they're not. @kmm stated that they prefer their apartment at 19 degrees. Since it is 19 degrees already as a result of heat radiating from neighboring units, even when they have their thermostat set at 19, the heat won't come on.
I don't see how you can justify calling @kmm a freeloader here. Are they obligated to keep their thermostat higher than 19, even though they prefer the temperature of their apartment at 19? If so, why would you say they're obligated to waste energy? The only way to keep the apartment at 19 with the thermostat set higher would be to open the window continuously.
If @kmm had their heat turned on (and thermostat set to 19°, then their apartment's heating would contribute to bringing their apartment up to 19°. That would (by Newton's law of cooling) reduce the heat flux through their walls from the neighbor's apartments, causing the neighbors to spend less on heating. The neighbors are thus deprived of the difference in heating costs.
But if the room remains at 19° even when the thermostat is set lower, then the heating will provide the same energy output* regardless of whether it's set at 9° or 19°; that is, zero.
The heat flux through the walls with the neighbours will be the same in either situation, since that depends on the temperature difference, not
The previous comment [0] shows the truth of this, if you wanted the room set to 18° you would need to run cooling, which would cost you AND it would increase the neighbour's bills yet again, since now the heat flux is even greater.
Given the heating output will be zero whether 9° or 19°... this suggests that what people are reacting to is @kmm's intent...
Fair enough in the context of social norms, because with the thermostat set at 9° a non-physics normie would assume they were intending to 'steal' heat, whereas at 19° they are 'contributing fairly'... even when the actual output from their heating is exactly the same.
* This all assuming electrical / heat pump heating and an ideal scenario. In the real world there are temperature variations across the room and the idealist model may very well cease to apply.
The dictionary definition is "someone who takes advantage of others' generosity without something in return" and is also a derogatory term. In this case, the "freeloader" is not taking advantage of someone's "generosity" and neither are they doing something that deserves to be derogated. In fact, they are doing nothing because they get the heat regardless of whether they want it or not. Since they never asked for the heat, they could be suffering from it isn't having the "advantage.
> Since they never asked for the heat, they could be suffering from it isn't having the "advantage.
But we know it is an advantage to them. They said so.
And freeloading can be passive.
"You're freeloading, but there's not a good way to fix that." seems reasonable to me, in that the derogatory nature of 'freeloader' is basically suspended but it's not forgotten.
There is a way, the neighbors could install better insulation in their flats. They are not being generous with their heating, they are being wasteful. It's a good thing @kmm actually wants that heat. Otherwise it'd be a problem.
I wouldn't say it's comparable to that. In this case, they would've faced the exact same problem (even worse, actually), if their neighbor hadn't been home and hence didn't have anything generating heat at all, which the neighbor has every right to do, and which would've provided zero grounds for them to complain. That's drastically different from the dishwashing case where the roommate would actually be using more dishes by their presence than by their absence, not equal (or less).
> I wouldn't say it's comparable to that. In this case, they would've faced the exact same problem (even worse, actually), if their neighbor hadn't been home and hence didn't have anything generating heat at all, which the neighbor has every right to do, and which would've provided zero grounds for them to complain.
At my current residence, the building bylaws require that all units be heated to 60f during the winter, to prevent this exact scenario. So whether it’s a right is very local.
Yeah I'm obviously assuming the resident hasn't already entered into a contract or a jurisdiction with specific laws mandating them to heat their homes, that'd kind of make the question moot.
The countries I used to live in Europe had typically it solved, by using some formulas; the assumption was that living in condominiums puts additional obligations on you; obligatory payments to the renovation funds, paying for shared electricity, heat, services etc.
The original problem 'stealing or not' is most likely moot. The definition of stealing is conventional, unless one believes in some scripture of divine origin detailing such things, or subscribes to philosophies like utilitarianism (which might be fine, it's just hard to argue such things from first principles)
> There is one complexity that you left out, which is that they are unknowingly spending more money on heat because of the "freeloader" that they share a wall with.
They would spend more if they were heating an outside wall with an average temperature below 19 degrees. The unheated apartment acts as additional insulation. An optimal arrangement would be for the hottest apartments to be in the core of the building with cooler apartments radiating out to the edges. But it makes sense in that scenario to price heat into a shared cost that everyone bears equally. No one would be happy with temperatures below their comfort threshold, and at the equilibrium heat flow that satisfies everyone it's worth just about the same marginal cost of keeping the temperature that way; one might offer slightly lower heating prices on the outlying apartments so that residents who had a very low comfort slope vs. temperature could pay slightly less for heat and be slightly cold, making an apartment free for a resident with a steeper comfort slope at a more affordable price.
This is largely the same problem as piracy. No, you're not depriving someone of their property that they can no longer use due to your actions, but many people who could very well afford to pay for media (of course barring the horrible issue with how you're actually given a "license") end up depriving the owner of revenue by watching it without paying.
In slovenia, we have very complicated formulas to determine the cost of heating in multi-apartment buildings, and the costs are calculated by the usage of your radiators (we have energy counters for heat in every apartment), and you add/subtract the some reduced values of your neighbors meter (the ones you share your walls with), and the things are averaged out a bit.
Basically, even if you turn all the radiators off in your apartment, you still pay around 50% or even more (if you share most of the walls) of the average heating bill.
I would read an article with a quick history of this particular formula (who came up with it, who enforces it), what people think of it, how accurate it is in respect to the actual movement of heat, etc. Does it account for heat rising irt mutilevel buildings?
Just a leftfield idea for any blocked Slovenian writers.
This is one of the documents that regulates one type of heating system in slovenia... You can mostly just find companies that do the calculations for you :)
We use heat, when it's cold outside (i think it has to bee three days below 12°C at 9pm - not sure), so if it's too hot for you, you just open a window.
The owners-meetings are already complicated enough, especially when someone old is away from home for a month, and they get a bill that includes heat, and they complain that their radiators were off all the time :) ...then they find out that they're paying for their neigbors heat, and then they start complaining, about "that neighbor above them" who keeps their windows open, even during the winter :)
...former socialist country, so yeah, people complain, and want everything to be "fair", as long as "fair" means less money for them to pay.
Yes and no. Yes, they pay for some of your consumption, but if the formula is accurate, they save that (or more) because the heat leaking from your appt into theirs means they can heat less.
It kind of makes sense. If you turn yours really high, your neighbor doesn't need to turn theirs as high anymore because you will be warming up their apartment
But this assumes that more heat = good is always true. What if it isn't? If you're running a whole bunch of computers in one of the rooms then extra heat from your neighbor might actually be harmful rather than helpful.
A judge made a similar point during in a court case about whether animals have property rights (I believe it was Cetacean Community v U.S). They said "if animals have the rights of humans wouldn't they then have then responsibilities?" Wouldn't you then be able to sue a monkey for not maintaining a stream bed such that it floods you?
That's the reality of multiapartment buildings. People at lower levels don't want to pay for elevator repair, and also don't want to pay for roof repair... people higher up don't care about people parking directly infront of ground level windows, and that the floors at ground level are usually cold(er).
JFYI, there are largish condo's here (Italy) with central heating that were recently "converted" to new technology.
Basically on each radiator there is an electronic regulating valve (commanded by a thermostat) that logs the usage and that can be interrogated via radio frequency, a managing firm them calculates how much each apartment has to pay for heating.
Set aside the practical folly the system is from a maintenance viewpoint (not working valves, dead batteries, mis-readings and what not), after the first winter the main issues came out.
Till then people paid based on the area of each apartment, suddenly came out huge differences between - say - a central/south/southwest one and an outer/north/northeast one, in some cases the latter costed twice or nearly twice the former.
Yeah, that's what I was wondering about GP - I have some multisensors hooked up to HomeAssistant so I can see what happens over time, and as long as the sun is out the sun can warm mine up like 3-5 degrees between sunrise and noon, even in the winter. It doesn't all dissipate until the middle of the night.
Traditionally (and when/where possible) the way a house is (should be in theory) oriented is/was definite (at least here in central Italy), places where you live during the day (kitchen/dining room/sitting room) should face roughly south, bedrooms should face roughly north.
This way you have most of the light (and warmness) of the sun during the day, while bedrooms are colder (but you have blankets) in winter and fresher in summer.
Meanwhile some would argue that your neighbors are contributing to the deterioration of the environment for their own comfort, thus stealing portions of your health or future, for either you or your descendants. Maybe that cancels out the stealing.
I was going to post exactly this :-) I live in a 5 year old apartment, and there are two units above and below exactly the same layout. We don't turn on our heating until it gets well below freezing as the heat from other apartments is more than enough. This season the coldest temperature I've seen is 20.5c - when it was 0c outside and cloudy for one week.
For vertical neighbours you could say they could have insulated the ceilings (when we bought the apartment new it was unfinished, just concrete inside), so it was their choice to allow heat to escape. But we have underfloor heating, so it's not just neighbours vertically but also horizontally, as quite a lot of heat transfers via the concrete floors too (this is the only way the common areas of the building are heated) - you can't insulate that.
In the summer we have AC on, and a lot of our neighbours don't have it, so I figure we benefiting them at that time by taking away some of their heat.
On a related note, if you have underground parking I'd also suggest to choose the lowest floor if you have a choice (as long as there is no flood risk). We are on -2 and when it's 35c outside our car is parked in a cool 18c, and when it's -25c it is 8c.
Even when it was -30 outside, our apartment was a warm 22-24 degrees with the radiators completely off.
Our current one is really refreshing, because we can actually get the heat under 20 degrees by turning off the radiators. Took about a month to get used to the lower indoor temp, but we feel and sleep much better now.
> I often wonder whether this constitutes stealing.
No, definitely not. You're not responsible for the insulation context of the apartment you're renting (as it pertains to eg such things as shared or external walls). You're not responsible for the apartment design. You're not responsible for the materials it is constructed of, nor how thick its walls are.
You would have to do something dramatic to the construction of the apartment to alter the context you're describing, and that's likely not in your legal purview to do, as such it's not your responsibility morally or legally.
But that doesn’t seem fair either? GP is perfectly happy at a cooler temperature.
If GP actually preferred an even colder temperature (perhaps for sleeping or exercising) and had to turn on the air conditioner, can they bill their neighbors? GP must pay more for their neighbor’s comfort.
But then the neighbours would both pay them and turn up their own heating to keep their own house at their own favourite temperature, since the airco is working against that.
This kind of reminds me of the cryptocurrency climate change hack.
Mining cryptocurrency uses electricity and some electricity currently comes from fossil fuels, so that's bad.
In many places the cost of direct heating from fossil fuels (fuel oil or natural gas) is less than using electric heaters, but electric heat is typically lower carbon because grid power is a mix of fossil and non-fossil fuels instead of 100% fossil fuels, and this gets better the more of the grid goes to non-fossil fuels. So switching to electric heat can lower your carbon footprint, but might cost more.
Cryptocurrency mining equipment is effectively an electric space heater that generates revenue. So if you heat your home in the winter using cryptocurrency mining equipment, you turn a profit while lowering your carbon footprint. Or it's carbon neutral free money to anyone already using electric heat.
A variant of this idea suggests that humans evolved sophisticated intelligence -- and a bipedal stance -- as a way to efficiently let off waste heat in the hot tropical environment. Hard for me to believe, but the idea is out there.
Then on the other side you also have the lower efficiency of small home furnaces compared to large combined cycle commercial power generation. It's not guaranteed to be less -- if your power grid is 100% coal and you're heating with natural gas, it very well might not be -- but in many/most cases it is. The most obvious winning case being where your power grid is predominantly nuclear, hydro and renewables.
If you're in the US they have the breakdown by state here:
Washington, Oregon and Vermont are predominantly hydro. Illinois, New Hampshire and South Carolina are majority nuclear. South Dakota is, surprisingly, >80% hydro and wind. Wyoming is, unsurprisingly, 80% coal.
Electricity generation efficiency from coal is only 25-50% according to [1].
Heating efficiency of modern home furnaces is typically way above 90% according to [2].
Power transmission efficiency across the power grid is around 94% according to [3].
I'm treating natural gas the same as coal since, while the direct emissions are about half the CO2 per thermal unit produced, its production is much more problematic (esp. emission of methane) [4].
I've taken these numbers and the numbers given at the link you provided and calculated that probably (lacking numbers for the mean efficiency of coal->electricity production) only 10-15 states out of 51 satisfy your claim that heating with electricity (via resistive heating) is making lower use of coal than burning coal locally (as mentioned above I'm treating natural gas as an equivalent). I've put my spreadsheet here [5].
Note that the situation would be much different when using heat pumps instead of resistive heaters. (Aside of the coin generation, cryptocurrency mining rigs are resistive heaters.)
Power plants in active service are probably around 50% efficient.
> Heating efficiency of modern home furnaces is typically way above 90% according to [2].
That number is for the newest highest efficiency furnaces. By comparison you could say that commercial power generation with cogeneration achieves even higher efficiencies, but neither is widely deployed.
The average for the existing installed base is probably around 80%.
Someone evaluating this for personal use might research the efficiency of their own furnace or compare the cost of installing a more efficient one vs. the net cost (possibly net profit) and environmental benefit of heating with electricity generated by rooftop solar.
> I'm treating natural gas the same as coal since, while the direct emissions are about half the CO2 per thermal unit produced, its production is much more problematic (esp. emission of methane) [4].
Then you have to count the same thing the other way when you're heating with natural gas. Fuel oil is even worse because it emits more CO2 per unit heat than natural gas and is extracted using the same methane-leaking process. Worse than that, many oil wells capture only the liquid fuel, have no infrastructure for capturing the natural gas and knowingly release it directly to the atmosphere!
Assuming your equivalence between coal and natural gas, that commercial power generation and transmission are 47% efficient (50% x 94%) and home furnaces are 80%, the percent non-fossil fuels needed for breakeven with natural gas heat is 41.25%. Some even lower number for oil heat. That's pretty much exactly the existing US average (and thus already ahead in places like California which are at >51%), and is only going to move in one direction as fossil fuels get phased out of the power grid.
If the question is about deciding what kind of heating to use, more likely than not the choice will be for new gear. For a new house the choice would be between one of the modern furnaces or electric heating. For someone with an old furnace, the choice would be between no change, a new furnace, and electric heater. I haven't checked the payoff and environmental cost of a new furnace versus no change, but it seems relatively likely that also in this scenario the competition to electric heating would be a new furnace.
Would electric heating mostly use electricity during times when solar or wind is abundant? If not, then, until storage is widespread and is efficient, coal might still end up being used to satisfy those customers' requirements and the mix would be worse. Electric heaters that store heat in a large mass exist, but that approach wouldn't work for mining rigs.
I don't dispute that electric heating can be better than gas/oil, depending on location. But I still don't believe it's the majority of cases. And again, this ignores that in many cases the best solution would be a heat pump. If the argument is about making cryptocurrency mining ecological, it would be disingenuous to ignore that alternative.
The heat flux through the walls depends on the temperature of your apartment and your neighbor's apartments -- not on if your thermostat is on or off. So even if you leave your thermostat on at 19° you still benefit. And you have no obligation to turn your thermostat up.
The argument for theft would have to assume that there is a "right" temperature to set. Personally I would be sweating in a t-shirt if I had the heating set to 22C, which would be the only way to prevent the cooling in the example.
As others have pointed out, it's a happy coincidence that the equilibrium is at a point that GP is happy with. If it were higher they would have to actively cool their apartment which can be seen as a cost, sort of comparable to dumping trash on someone's property forcing them to pay to deal with it.
My ground floor apartment has thin laminate flooring over low quality planks over the freezing void below. This floor is very cold in the winter. Noise from above isn't great either. Not recommended.
I loved my 8th floor apartment I used to have. It had an amazing balcony with a view of the ocean. I would have had a view of a wall if I was on the first floor.
Hot air rises; heat doesn't. Heat moves from warm to cold. You would way rather have a heated space above your ceiling than a non-heated space.
In many buildings, the mechanical systems are in the basement and whatever is carrying the heat runs up through the lower units. My old apartment in Cambridge was first floor and the 2nd and 3rd floor ducts were inside my living space and closets. On mild days, I could leave my heat entirely off and just the radiation and small leakage from their ducts was enough to keep my place comfortable. (The furnaces were all atmospheric gas burners with plenty of residual heat leaking into the basement as a result, making it an inadvertently heated space beneath as well.)
On the ground your floor is either a basement or well, the ground. Whereas on higher floors your floor is another apartment and your roof (might) be the actual buildings roof.
Heat leaves far more easily if there is air on the other side of the wall and(!) you have the benefit of ground isolating you on the bottom floor
I was clearly implying that there has to be another apartment on top of yours (so, a 3 floors building). If you compare ground floor vs top floor, then ground floor wins hands on, I agree.
The unit above acts as an insulator, so you have a heated/cooled unit above you versus outside temperature. The ground itself is a fairly good insulator, too.
Depends where you live. Here the apartments outside bathroom floor heating are usually collectively heated and paid... So actually not using the heat is subsidising others...
So heavily depends on where you live, what type of heating is used and if heating is billed per use.
it just sounds like you found the most hospitable climate for yourself, you don't have to feel bad for being a clever biological organism that is more efficient than your neighbors :)
we're all trying to do the same! it's arguably evolution?
If one of your neighbors left for a long vacation and turned their thermostat off, causing your apartment to cool down significantly, would you turn your thermostat back on?
IMO, the fair thing to do is to set your thermostat to a temperature that you're satisfied with and leave it there. If your neighbors want their apartments at 22 degrees that's their business and your benefit. You don't have any codified responsibility here exactly, but it's still best to follow the golden rule.
My first apartment was surrounded on four of six sides like that and I never used heat in winter. It never got cold enough to need more than a light jumper.
I'd be curious to know what difference it made to your power bills turning your heating off, since if it's sitting above 19° then it was probably just running the fan anyway. Thinking about it, you probably get all sorts of interesting feedback loops going on between the thermostats of neighbouring apartments.
I realised this when I lived in a middle flat. I had the heating set to around 20 degrees I think, but it barely ever kicked on. The downside was in the summer it got too hot and I couldn't cool it well at all. Wasn't great for sleeping.
we did that when i was a kid. we had central heating where each radiator has some kind of device with material that evaporates depending on how hot the radiator is. the heating bill was based on how much evaporated. we didn't want to save money or the environment, we just liked it a bit cooler. that was decades ago and there was no temperature control on the thermostat. the only way to get to our desired temperature was to turn the heating off.
the result was that measurement devices didn't evaporate at all, and the company had us investigated for cheating. (apparently some people tried to prevent the evaporation by wrapping them in some isolating material.)
Maybe they have their thermostats set at 20 and are working more to keep those 20 whilst heating your apartment too. Even if they set their thermostats at 25 they would be working extra to compensate.
Is there a mandatory maximum temperature in your country?
It's not that it struck a nerve, it's just that you're wrong.
If the neighbours want absolutely no heat escaping, they need better insulation. Similarly, if grandparent wants less than 19°C, he needs better insulation himself, or he needs an air conditioner. Everyone stands to lose in this situation, but GP just happened to found a sensible balance that works for him and saves him money.
And I would be pissed too, but I can't blame them. The issue here is clearly lack of insulation.
What if the renter moved out and the electricity to that apartment unit was shut off? The result would still be the same (a 19° unit) but nobody would be benefiting from the neighbors’ heat, so it couldn’t be considered stealing.
Even more analogous, what if the resident wants the same temperature as his neighbors, but just because of the position of his unit relative to the others it takes less energy to heat. Is that immoral?
No way it’s stealing. In fact, they are receiving something thing they didn’t ask for. It just so happens that they’re okay with the temperature. What if they wanted it cooler?
The construction of the building and their neighbor’s energy usage are not their problems to fix or be blamed for.
Your neighbours are "stealing" from you, even if you run with that idea. They're not having to insulate your shared walls as much as their outside facing ones.
All I can think here is : so you have individual heat billing in an apartment building? IOW separate electric or gas heaters in each apartment?
I’m used to central heating, basically a water-circulating radiator setup, where the overall water temperature is set by the condo management and thermostats regulate the temperatures in each apartment, within the limits of the total heat provided. No way to monitor what people have their thermostats set to.
And, of course, district heating is a big thing. What I’m trying to say here is, it sounds like there are bigger problems with the heating in your apartment building than whether or not you’re stealing heat from your neighbours.
Of course, the place can't be that well-isolated, and I regularly open the windows to let in fresh air, so that energy must be coming from somewhere. I assume it's heat leaking in from my upstairs, downstairs, left and right neighbors. They probably have their thermostats set to a balmy 21-22°, and the heat flux through my walls must be enough to keep the place at around 19°.
I often wonder whether this constitutes stealing. It's not exactly parallel to the light of my neighbor's lamp, since due to the temperature differential their thermostats are working harder than they would be if I heated my place to 22°. In effect, they're all paying for the energy to keep my place at 19°, and I'm presumably paying only a pittance for heat. But on the other hand, I have no need for a higher temperature, nor do I want to pay or incur the environmental cost for unnecessary heating. Nineteen degrees seems like a perfectly reasonable temperature to me, and it's their choice (again, I'm assuming, but where else can it come from?) to keep it a few degrees hotter.