By Robert Bradley Jr.
“If I am elected president, I will put into place a massive air-conditioning plan, starting in places with the most vulnerable populations.” – Marine Le Pen, leader, National Rally Party (French National Assembly)
It is not easy being green. “Green” energy is hardly green (think wind/solar/battery industrialization), and virtually all climate mitigation activism has negatives for consumers, taxpayers, and freedom. This is less the law of unintended consequences as it is Deep Ecology’s assault on modern living and human betterment.
Fast forward to the summer of 2026. As long predicted, a warming world (natural and anthropogenic) requires adaptation. That means air conditioning, mist machines, and ice generation in increasing amounts to meet the summer peak. Yet the activists despise such basic adaptation on grounds that higher electricity demand will require more fossil-fired generation from existing or new capacity. But pragmatism is sure to win out as adaptation overtakes the anti-consumer, anti-comfort mitigation policy.
Anti-Conditioned Air
“Air conditioners have detrimental health effects on our bodies,” according to one source, “though that is not the only problem with air conditioners.” The “many negative impacts on the environment itself” include energy usage, CFC/HFC emissions, and construction with either steel or non-biodegradable plastic.
Fifty-five years ago, Paul Ehrlich targeted air conditioning as a major ill of society. A/C could “in large part be closed” except “where people must work around hot machines” or heat-sensitive electronics were present. Not to worry— “the summer heat can be beaten by most of us in many other ways (as it had to be beaten by all of us only two or three decades ago!).” Ehrlich (and co-author Richard Harriman) go on to recommend 20-hour work weeks to reemploy “all the unemployed air conditioner repair men.” [1]
The recommended “climate-friendly” temperature range of 78°F (26°C) summer and 68°F (20°C) winter compares to comfort levels for most people of around 72°F (22°C) year-round. Beware of ‘smart meters’ in this regard–and don’t forget Jimmy Carter’s thermostat police back in the 1970s. He first recommended a winter high of 68°F or less. A month later he instructed federal buildings set (winter) temperatures at no more than 65 degrees during the day and 55 degrees during the night. President Reagan ended Carter’s 22-month program in early 1981.
EU/UK Heat Wave
The current heat wave in Europe is front page news. Climate change is responsible, it is said. But what about most of the rest of the world that is experiencing normal summers? Extremes always occur somewhere.
But more to the point, what is the role of climate alarmism/activism in human discomfort and even death from heat waves? A recent AP story–“Europe’s Extreme Heat Would Be Impossible Without Climate Change, Scientists Say“–begs this question. Where is the study/story “Europe’s Heat Crisis Exacerbated by Climate Policy”? The paucity of air conditioning (etc.) from high electricity prices and even government mandates is the major problem, it turns out.
Amid heat misery, the rush to purchase small A/C units is on. But some political jurisdictions steeled on climate concern do not allow such acts of self-preservation. Paris Mayor Emmanuel Grégoire (Parti Socialiste) wants only public cooling for the most vulnerable, not “the scourge” of home A/C. “To adapt together,” he said, “we need to change our way of life.”
The Current Green Dilemma
Bill McKibben in a recent 2,150-word essay failed to mention air conditioning once. A week later, he wrote: “There has been much pointless social media back-and-forth about air conditioning in Europe, which of course we need now,” he wrote, adding parenthetically: “We need it even more desperately in Asia, South America, and Africa.”
Perhaps this article in the New York Times between McKibben’s two posts got his attention. Michael D. Shear and Jeanna Smialek’s “As Europe Sweats, Some Politicians Talk of Air-Conditioning, Not Climate Action” (June 26, 2026) began:
Heat-related deaths and disruptions to daily life are forcing politicians to reckon, in different ways, with a rapidly warming planet…. Increasingly, the answer from right-wing politicians is to focus on a short-term fix that almost everyone agrees is necessary–the installation of air-conditioning units in European homes, schools, public buildings and hospitals….
In France, far-right politicians who have advocated cutting net zero initiatives hope to gain from the heat wave, using it to accuse the government of failing to make the country more resilient, but also as a cultural issue against the hard left, which has often opposed the use of air-conditioning on environmental grounds. “If I am elected president, I will put into place a massive air-conditioning plan,” Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Rally party, pledged on Friday, “starting in places with the most vulnerable populations.”
The climate campaigners are in a difficult spot, the Times article continues.
In the context of northern Europe’s traditionally mild, temperate climate, some left-wing and green parties opposed air-conditioning and have instead favored renovating buildings with architectural fixes to keep them cool when it gets hot. But the dangers to health posed by this week’s heat wave are piling pressure on that view — and changing minds.
Responding to a local plea by a municipal leader for residents to use fans and plant a new tree, one politician responded:
It is absurd that all governments in our country, under pressure from left-green mumbo-jumbo, advise against the use of air-conditioning. The most efficient and best solution. How many deaths would the government already have on its conscience with this kind of absurd advice?
That’s good enough for the last word.
[1] Paul Ehrlich and Richard Harriman, How to Be a Survivor, Ballantine Books, 1971), pp 73–74.
