Media & news

Last year I wrote a couple of times about climate nonsense. Since then, a lot of things have changed. To quote former President Barack Obama, “Elections have consequences.” With Donald Trump’s presidential re-election, the approach on many environmental issues has drastically changed, and the omnipresent focus on all things climate change has waned. However, that doesn’t mean climate nonsense has disappeared.

In the deep south, this summer hasn’t been as hot as some. However, Europe has had a very hot summer, with temperatures over 100℉ for a number of days in France, Spain, and Italy.  The heat and lack of air conditioning in European countries has become the focus of culture wars and political arguments.

Air conditioning is not nearly as prevalent in Europe as in the U.S. Some sources estimate that while 90% of U.S. households have air conditioning, only 7% of French households have it, and only another 20% have fans. Very few French public buildings are air conditioned and most French schools, hospitals, and nursing homes don’t have air conditioning at all.

The French are conflicted on air conditioning. Only about half are in favor of air conditioning public buildings. Those that oppose air conditioning say they are scared of the American extravagance of conditioning their homes and public buildings. Others believe hospitals and nursing homes should have air conditioning, but it should not be available for everyone in their homes. Those against it often cite the environmental damage that increased carbon emissions will do to the climate, although most of the electricity in France comes from nuclear power that is carbon-free.   

During this summer’s heat wave, 1,800 schools closed because of the heat. Patients in hospitals and nursing homes suffered because of the oppressive heat. Public buildings are not well ventilated, and work is difficult in hotter offices. Le Monde, a French newspaper, reported that climate-change-caused heat waves had resulted in 702 drownings in 2025, a 50% increase from 2024, as people sought relief from the heat.  

The heat has caused a greater division between the environmental left and conservatives. Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s conservative movement says, “Air conditioning saves lives. It is absurd that most schools and hospitals in France don’t have air conditioning.” France’s Green Party Leader, Marine Tondelier, counters, “I’m not opposed to air conditioning in schools and hospitals, but the real problem is poor insulation.” Instead of air conditioning, she suggests greening cities and making buildings more energy efficient.

The environmental press and environmentalists are opposed to air conditioning schools and hospitals and also against more air conditioning in homes. Ouest-France, a French newspaper, says, “Air conditioning is an individual solution, but is a collective failure.” Liberation, a left-wing daily paper, argues that air conditioning is “an environmental aberration that must be overcome because it blows hot air onto streets and guzzles up precious energy.” Dan Lert, Paris’ deputy mayor in charge of green transition policy states, “Air conditioning is what you’d call a maladaptation. To fix a problem, you make it worse.”

Conservative newspaper, Le Figaro, defends air conditioning because, “…making our fellow citizens sweat limits learning, reduces working hours, clogs up hospitals.” Atlantico, a French news website, insists, “Environmentalists have deprived France of air conditioning.”

Air conditioning has become not only a cultural issue, but a political issue. The environmental left sees air conditioning as an evil and another example of leaders addressing the symptoms of climate change rather than dealing with its underlying causes. They argue that it is an energy-hungry technology that must be deployed sparingly for those who really need it, while society puts in place solutions that do not exacerbate global warming.

The hypocrisy of the environmental left is difficult to understand. They are willing to require people to change their lifestyles, live less comfortably, and be subjected to the risk of heat exposure today in hopes of maybe, someday, avoiding some risk of climate change. Some religious sects have worn horse hair shirts to punish themselves for their sins and to prove their faithfulness to their religions. They may have required others in their sect to do the same, but we should have moved beyond the requirement that everyone sacrifices their individual rights and choices to satisfy a minority’s concerns about climate change.

 I can’t imagine living in the south without air conditioning. Where do the sacrifices end? There is still an effort to reduce the consumption of red meat to limit the number of cattle and their flatulence. Milk for children is more expensive because California is limiting the number of dairy cows to reduce the amount of cattle waste. An effort continues in some states to eliminate internal combustion vehicles despite changes made by the Trump administration on subsidies for electric vehicles. The war on fossil fuels continues to increase the cost of electricity.  

All these actions either increase the cost of living or make living less enjoyable. Isn’t a better path to help people have a better, more enjoyable life and use the savings to deal with any climate consequences that might arise?

The climate hype is incredible. All this time I thought people drowned because they couldn’t swim.