«Since when have facades become more important than human life?» Why Europe's air conditioner phobia is absurd

Photo: vecteezy.com

Europe is a wonderful place to live, and Europeans do many things much better than Americans. But one of the things where I am unequivocally on the side of Americans (and the absolute majority of other countries) is the attitude towards individual air conditioners (a hot topic these days).

This phobia of air conditioners in Western Europe has no justification — neither economic, nor environmental, nor moral, nor medical, nor cultural. It's simply an absurd and schizoid phobia that annually leads to tens of thousands of excess deaths and discomfort for hundreds of millions of people, especially for the most vulnerable groups: the elderly, disabled, and children.

One of the main arguments against them is that individual air conditioners spoil the facades of buildings. Well, it's interesting, since when have facades become more important than the value of human life?

What an unhealthy priority, which smacks of the worst practices of authoritarian countries and the Soviet era, rather than the humanistic and human-centered traditions of Western civilization.

Moreover, there are now various modifications of air conditioners; technology doesn't stand still. There are multi-split systems where several air conditioners can be connected to one outdoor unit, there are decorative covers that help disguise all aesthetic flaws, there is a monoblock air conditioner from which it is simply enough to run a hose out the window.

Yes, perhaps allowing individual bulky split systems, with an outdoor unit next to each apartment, in UNESCO World Heritage areas is not advisable. But the absolute majority of Europeans do not live in architectural monuments in historic centers. Not every facade is worth protecting. And for those facades that are worth protecting, monoblocks and multi-systems can be used.

The next group of arguments is ecological and eco-moralistic. They say that air conditioners require a large amount of electricity, lead to increased CO2 emissions, which only worsens the climate change situation. Outdoor units only heat up the streets even more. And most importantly — from the point of view of eco-activists, air conditioners only mask the main problem of global warming.

They say, why these cosmetic measures when the main problem is not solved? A person must suffer, because if these sufferings are insufficient, they will not become a sufficiently motivated fighter in the existential struggle against climate change.

Well, here the arguments are even more absurd than with the facades. Air conditioners are becoming more energy-efficient year after year. A significant portion of electricity in many European countries (e.g., France) is already produced not from fossil fuels, but from "green," environmentally friendly energy.

Yes, air conditioners heat the streets because they don't "create" cold, but "extract" heat from indoors outwards, but regular refrigerators and freezers work on the exact same principle, drop for drop. So, should we give them up too?

And the last moralistic argument ("air conditioners are cosmetic measures, and we need to solve the global problem of climate change") — this is an argument from the realm of psychiatry, not common sense.

If a person (or society) has every opportunity to make their life better, here and now, relatively cheaply, with what is within their control, but instead waits for some global solution (which is largely beyond their control, and solving this problem could take decades, or even centuries) — such a person cannot be considered mentally healthy.

Climate change is an absolutely real and serious problem that requires a solution. But this does not mean that we should not fight the negative consequences of this warming here and now, because this is simply a false dichotomy. First help yourself here and now, save the most vulnerable and weak, here and now, and then think about ambitious projects (colonizing Mars, fighting warming, and so on).

You cannot prioritize global, long-term problems, over which your influence is very low, ahead of critical needs that are within your control and easily solved. Anxious pathological alarmism and indifference to human suffering do not help solve these global and long-term problems.

• 32
• 6
• 1
• 7
• 2
• 0
• 0
• 2