Comment by bcoughlan

It was fairly impossible to find a restaurant in Paris that had an AC not so long time ago. It’s totally not an issue in states.

I just toured Europe and none of the lodgings (private dwellings) had AC. It was not fun when it was 35C out. South of Spain is actually one of the most comfiest places to be in summer despite being hotter on average, because many homes have AC due to it being cheap to install (and to my knowledge being run on near complete renewable energy).Some European countries' stance on this is bizarre, like Switzerland outright not allowing residential ACs.

I'm well aware of the memes and discourse on Twitter (although I don't seek it out). My point is that that original comment had none of that. No calling people "europoor." Just important advice delivered unsensationally.

>but in some coutries there are laws banning A/C below 25°C (77°F) in public places, so (US) tourist don't get the cold air hit

To be fair - cold air hit (I'm talking about big gaps betweet temperatures) is pretty bad for you.

Ideally you don't want the temperature in a room to be (immediately) lower than T-5°C or so.

I've only heard of this "meme" on this forum.

Something like 90% of US residential buildings have AC. For Europe, it's around 20% (for good reason, mind you). It's not a meme if it's an actual fact that many European homes are not prepared for these kinds of increasingly common heat waves, and I got the impression that the parent was showing genuine concern.

That's how I read it as well. It really sucks that one of the ways we will have to cope with climate change is to build a lot of energy intensive, expensive infrastructure, but it seems pretty much inevitable at this point. The silver lining is that solar is cheap and accessible, and produces the most energy at the time where we will want to run AC as well.

The problem with AC units is that they end up producing yet more heat, so whilst it may be "health-sensible" for the people inside, it's not so good for the people outside.

> ideologically insisting not to install proper AC or even ventilation

This is not supported by facts. People won't spend money on equipment they don't need. Most places in France do not need air conditioning (or did not need it).

It makes no sense that a building owner or transit agency would spend limited funds on something that they do not need.

One may argue that the government of France should have imposed some mandate that people install air conditioning, similar to how Texas failed to mandate insulation for its natural gas infrastructure.

Such mandates would not have been popular unless they were funded. And even then I doubt they would have been popular but they also would have come with considerable cost to the taxpayer.

There is additionally a cultural feeling in some parts of Europe (Germany) that conditioned air is stale and unhealthy. This is not "ideology" but it will certainly contribute to the idea that mass spending on rarely used equipment is wasteful.

Finally, the entire world is unprepared for global warning, Including the USA.

If the next massive climate disaster hits the US, say a drought or mega storm will the message be that "US climate denial ideology caused this" or will it be "nobody could have predicted this; random act of God; thoughts and prayers; nothing to be learned?"

> The US is not trying

https://usclimatealliance.org/

I don't expect people outside of the U.S. to keep up on state level politics but it is worth noting that many in the U.S. are trying and given our form of government state level action isn't anything to sneeze at.

> There's a lot to criticise of every country, but we're trying. The US is not trying (*)

I'd argue that it's a bit misleading to treat the US as a single entity for this topic.

The population is deeply divided on issues like this one.

Even if the US isn't part of any climate agreements, it has still made substantial progress toward achieving climate goals – yes, even under the Trump admin and much to his chagrin. You need only compare the country's emissions and green energy output from 2016 to 2026 to see it.

>* Not aimed at all the wonderful, sane and reasonable people of the USA.

I am sure both of them appreciate the exception

There is no such thing as a binding 'agreement' like this in the USA system of government. We have treaties. That have to be ratified by the Senate. The governments of the world understood this, and understood that the Paris climate agreement was an attempt by the US executive branch at the time to bluff to a hollow 'deal' (instead of creating a true binding treaty) hoping future politicians would be too embarrassed to go against it. It was incredibly disingenuous/misleading of the United States Executive branch at the time to do play politics this way outside of the actual US system of treaties. It was part of the breaking of American laws/norms by the executive that led us to where we are today (with chaos, tribalism instead of a legal system, and a breakdown of our government).

Agreed, but then there's also Norway, the absolute champ of hypocrisy.

You also turned off nuclear power and stayed with lignite, the dirtiest of coals. Soon you'll stop using coal since you won't have much industry left to power. Germany seems confused.

You destroyed your auto industry by ceding it to countries with higher emission intensity of production. USA, China, Japan have higher intensity than even Germany which is on the upper end of Western European countries. That's not steering anywhere except more sharply into the wall!

You've been lied to by your own ruling class. What else have they been lying to you about, I wonder?

In terms of greenhouse it also depends on type of meat. Very acidental but europeans eat much less beef and eat pork/chicken instead. Chicken protein for example is in many cases better than cheese emission wise.

Also i don't think europeans don't use AC to save the planet. It's just expensive and it didn't use to be a problem.