Fortune magazine published an article explaining that Europe’s own policies have created the overheating problems being faced during the present heatwave, noting that by comparison the United States has dealt with similar heat easily over the decades. Fortune is right, Europe’s persistent rejection and America’s widespread adoption of air conditioning, not climate change, is the difference between the suffering many Europeans are experiencing during the present heat wave as compared to the relative comfort most Americans experience every summer. Air conditioning doesn’t cause climate change but it does save lives.
In the article “Top climate tech exec: Europe is sweating through a heat crisis America solved decades ago,” Taco Engelaar describes the different responses and outcomes between Europe and America during periods of extended extremely hot temperatures. Engelaar writes:
The heat is on this week. As Europe sizzles amid another record-breaking heatwave, many American states are preparing for a similar event. A double whammy of heat and humidity is set to drive temperatures over 100°F.
But while both sides of the Atlantic face the heat, the reality for families and businesses could not be further apart.
The difference, once again, is air conditioning.
Find yourself in the U.S. this week and you’ll likely move seamlessly between air-conditioned offices, malls, and homes, barely registering the heat outside.
In Europe, that same week means hunting for a desk fan or racing to one of the few public spaces with real cooling.
European governments blame U.S. air conditioning use for climate change, in some cases going so far as to actively remove air conditioners from homes. In their ill-considered pursuit of net zero to fight climate change, European elites stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the life saving benefits of air conditioning. Evidently, Europe’s elites, who by and large have air conditioning installed in their own homes and the public buildings they find important, would rather use heat related deaths as a talking point to further the “climate change causes everything bad” narrative than prevent such deaths by adopting air conditioning if that might marginally increase global carbon dioxide emissions. European elites’ hypocrisy on the matter of air conditioning, “air conditioning for we, but not for thee,” shares much in common with the Chinese Communist Party’s recent harangue about the use of air conditioning, as discussed in a previous Climate Realism post.
Air conditioning use contributes an extremely miniscule amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and thus, even if one thinks carbon dioxide is driving global warming, a marginal amount of temperature. A recent study in Nature, for example, found that “if all low‑income regions gained the same access to air-conditioning as rich regions, related global emissions would jump dramatically—adding up to 0.05°C extra warming even in the most climate‑friendly scenario.” In fact, what the researchers found was that should hundreds of millions of poor people gain access to air conditioning it could, under some climate model scenarios, add 0.003–0.05 °C of warming by 2050. But, leaving aside the flawed nature of climate models, even if accurate, that amount of warming, over the next 24 years, is so small no one is going to feel change, and no weather dynamics are going to be impacted by that minor variance.
That modeled, virtually unmeasurable increase in future temperatures should be weighed against the tens of thousands of lives that research published in the Journal of American Medical Association’s Internal Medicine and by the International Energy Agency (IEA) show could be saved by expanding access to air conditioning. During periodic heatwaves in countries that naturally experience high temperatures, the adoption of widespread air conditioning use is rapidly becoming the most effective life saving measure.
“Lack of access to indoor cooling puts much of the global population at high risk for heat stress, adversely affecting thermal comfort, labour productivity, and human health,” the IEA report said. “[A]ccess to effective cooling has saved tens of thousands of lives . . . the average annual number of heat-related deaths averted by AC increase[d] 3-fold, reaching an estimated 190 000 lives saved per year during 2019-2021.”
Accordingly, any effort to limit the expansion of air conditioning use is logically going to lead to more sickness and probably death, especially in vulnerable populations like the elderly. With this truth in evidence, how can Europe’s leaders actively prevent wider adoption and use of air conditioning? It’s unconscionable!
To be fair, Engelaar notes that much of the infrastructure and housing stock in Europe was built before air conditioning exited or became widely available, making retrofitting expensive. Costly, but if lives saved and GDP growth matter, worthwhile. Indeed, in the United States, most houses and public buildings built before air conditioning was invented had air conditioning installed decades ago.
One hurdle to Europe expanding air conditioning use its outdated electric power infrastructure. Europe’s power grid, as currently constituted, is ill-suited to handle additional demand for electricity needed for widespread air conditioning adoption. This is true, pointing to the need for expanded and improved reliable electric power infrastructure and generating sources, rather than allowing people to die unnecessarily from heat. One step to improving Europe’s electric power supply is to end its net zero ambitions, which have lead to the premature closure of baseload power plants fueled by coal.
Engelaar, by contrast, offers as a solution, expanded use of solar, writing “. . . accelerate solar connections — solar flourishes in the heat and could sustainably power energy-hungry AC systems.” More solar, however, will not solve the problem. Heat comes on cloudy humid days in the summer as well, when solar energy production might be low. Also, solar doesn’t work at night – especially on hot summer nights when demand for home air conditioning use often peaks. In addition, solar panels lose efficiency during heatwaves, with the power they supply dropping off just when it is needed most. Solar panels lose 0.3 percent to 0.5 percent of their efficiency for every 1.8°F above 77°F. Thus, during a heatwave like Europe is currently experiencing, the expected electricity from solar installations could be substantially lower than the grid might require. For instance, on a 100°F day, because actual panel temperatures might reach up to 149° F, the power solar provides would be 12 percent to 20 percent less than expected.
Fortune should be applauded for publishing Engelaar’s piece acknowledging that Europe’s leaders’ energy policies, not climate change, are to blame for the deaths and lost economic activity caused by extreme heat. If Europe’s leaders keep their heads in the sand on this matter, changes in government might be necessary. Greater mainstream and social media attention to this matter is warranted. Indeed, it is literally a matter of life and death for some people.
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is the Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy and the managing editor of Environment & Climate News. In addition to directing The Heartland Institute’s Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy, Burnett puts Environment & Climate News together, is the editor of Heartland’s Climate Change Weekly email, and the host of the Environment & Climate News Podcast.
