European soccer fans are currently in the United States for the World Cup, and many are unexpectedly appreciating a simple American luxury that seems frustratingly lacking back home: reliable air conditioning.
Whether in bustling stadiums or packed hotels across the country, they’re enjoying cool, comfortable spaces, even as temperatures rise. In Europe, however, governments deeply committed to net-zero policies often view air conditioning as an environmental transgression rather than the life-saving innovation it has been for over a century.
Recent heatwaves have underscored the human cost. For example, in France, temperatures surged past 40°C (104°F) in June, leading many Parisians to seek relief by jumping into the city’s canals and rivers. Sadly, this resulted in over 40 drownings in just a few days, many directly linked to this frantic need to cool off.
This situation continues a troubling trend seen in recent European summers, where heat-related deaths have consistently ranged from 50,000 to 68,000 in single seasons across the continent.
Climate advocates like Bjorn Lomborg and energy analyst Roger Pielke Jr. have pointed to studies demonstrating the avoidable tragedies. Despite having fewer extremely hot days based on latitude, Europe still has the highest per-capita heat-death rate among wealthy regions.
Across the continent, air conditioning prevalence is around 19%—significantly lower than North America, which sits at approximately 76%, and even lower than the U.S. and Japan, where it exceeds 90%. Should Europe match the adoption rates of the U.S., they could potentially avert around 26,000 heat-related deaths during a hot summer like 2022. Universal coverage could save even more lives.
The rationale is clear: studies show that air conditioning can lead to about a 75% reduction in heat-related mortality risk when it is widely available. Most heat-related deaths in Europe happen indoors, particularly among the elderly and those with chronic conditions—groups that could benefit most from cooling technology.
Yet, policymakers in countries like France, Spain, and the UK focus their priorities on emissions targets over necessary adaptations.
In Britain, the situation is particularly harsh. The Labour government, adhering strictly to Climate Minister Ed Miliband’s net-zero objectives, has empowered local authorities to remove air conditioning units from homes. Local councils implement planning regulations that favor “passive cooling” methods—which can include simply opening windows—and they crack down on outside units deemed unauthorized.
Critics, including former Conservative ministers, argue that the country is being “kept in the dark ages,” denying residents access to modern conveniences that are commonly accepted elsewhere.
France has a long history of limiting air conditioning in public spaces, with regulations implemented in the mid-2000s that typically restrict cooling to no lower than about 26°C (79°F). Such policies have often labeled air conditioning as an “environmental aberration.” This creates a grim acceptance that many will suffer or even die in pursuit of symbolic emissions reductions.
The situation reflects a commitment to a quasi-religious ideology masked in bureaucratic language. Air conditioning isn’t some luxury; it has been commercially available for over a hundred years and has dramatically improved living standards wherever used.
In the U.S., adoption of air conditioning skyrocketed after World War II, which led to a drastic drop in heat-related deaths, even as summers remained scorching. Europe, on the other hand, holds fast to concerns about energy demands and emissions while its energy grids struggle under sporadic renewable sources and self-enforced limitations.
The net-zero ideology promotes reduced energy consumption as a primary goal. Since air conditioning increases electricity use during peak times, it faces discouragement or outright bans in the name of “degrowth” and championing climate initiatives.
Leaders in Europe are not safeguarding their citizens from climate challenges. Rather, they are safeguarding their ideology from uncomfortable truths.
By denying access to established cooling technologies, they are putting vulnerable populations—particularly the sick and elderly—at higher risk of fatality. It’s a concerning contradiction: governments so fearful of climate change that they allow their citizens to suffer and die from unfavorable weather conditions.
In contrast, the U.S. benefits from energy abundance and technological acceptance as a norm. Both citizens and visitors find comfort in the understanding that prioritizing human welfare is essential. Europe’s leaders might need to reflect on the fact that no amount of swimming in canals or advocating for passive cooling will reverse the loss of lives brought on by rigid ideology.
The differences between Europe and America are stark. It’s no surprise that many European soccer fans visiting for the World Cup have expressed amazement on social media about how much cooler it is in every Wal-Mart, Buc-ee’s, and Texas barbecue spot they encounter.
