No sooner has the next heatwave swept across Europe than we’re seeing the resurgence of a familiar ‘argument’: forget about emissions reduction, we need to implement adaptation. So far, so familiar (and so trite – see below). What’s new this year is a twist, in keeping with the current (endlessly tedious) culture war: more air conditioning (‘which you “climate Europeans” abhor out of ideology’), more cooling, more technology. Problem solved.
To state the obvious – and, incidentally, the undisputed fact – clearly: of course we must adapt! We cannot save anyone from heat-related harm or heat-related death in the here and now with moral appeals alone. People, especially the vulnerable, need cool care homes, cool hospitals and cool classrooms. It is also absolutely essential and logical, with regard to coastlines and rivers, to invest in dams, dykes, as well as floodplains and flood retention areas. Only in this way will we be prepared for future extreme weather events. Adapting to climate change is not an option, but a necessity.
What bothers me, however, is the cynical sleight of hand employed by certain circles – whose representatives have recently taken to wearing ankle monitors – and which, thanks to naive stooges, is also being peddled to the public. The trick is to present climate adaptation not as a complement to emissions reduction, but as a substitute. The insidious thing about this is that responsibility is shifted onto the individual: ‘Just buy an air-conditioner! Insulate your house better! Just move away! Start work earlier in the morning!’
Fighting the heat with social indifference
That sounds reasonable – until you stop to think for a moment: for whom, exactly?
For the family in the overheated three-bedroom flat with no budget for renovations and no ‘generous’ landlord? For the care worker and the residents in the non-air-conditioned care home? For the schoolchildren in the sweltering classroom? For the construction worker on the scaffolding in 38-degree heat? Anyone who defines adaptation solely in terms of private consumer choices shifts the costs and risks onto those with the least room for manoeuvre. That is not pragmatic, but – deliberately – socially blind.
Yes, we need more cooling. And we need it quickly. In a socially responsible way, and in places where people are particularly vulnerable and where it is feasible. How does one go about cooling a building site, again?
These certain (and unscrupulous?) people, whose voices we’re currently hearing, are trying to shift the debate on cooling into the arena of the ‘culture war’. After all, supposedly everyone (!) who advocates for climate protection is against technology in general and air conditioning in particular. Yet, as is so often the case, they are either unaware of their own logical inconsistencies or are ignoring them in a Trump-like manner. Because, whilst we’re on the subject of efficient cooling: in many cases, the most sensible solution is the very same technology that provides fossil-free heating in winter – the heat pump. That’s not ideology, but physics. Strangely enough, however, this technology has been – and continues to be – demonised by precisely those people, who attack it with well-thought-out and well-financed campaigns. You’ll believe anything…
If only, if only, if only
And then there’s also the aspect that one really shouldn’t mention, because it sounds like the Sponti slogan quoted above. But, as my frustration is currently getting the better of me, I don’t want to leave it unmentioned. Many of those voices now clamouring loudly for greater climate adaptation have, for years, refused to engage in any serious debate on climate change. Those calling for air-conditioned schools today were the very same people who, only yesterday, were claiming that ‘we used to have hot summers back in the day’. The very same circles that are now clamouring for protection against the heat were, just a few years ago, questioning the need for heat pumps, emissions reductions or, in some cases, the very existence of climate change itself.
Had we conducted discussions ten years ago – or even earlier – objectively, based on available knowledge and common sense, we would probably have more heat-resilient schools, more air-conditioned care homes and more resilient working models today. Of course, kicking someone when they’re down won’t help us any more here than it did Argentina in the World Cup final. But we shouldn’t forget it either.
Tackling and solving the problem sensibly together
As I bring this commentary to a close, and with emotions having ‘cooled down’ somewhat, I’d like to suggest a possible solution. As I said, I consider it obvious: we need adaptation and emissions reduction. No serious player in the climate sector will ever claim otherwise. Let’s not forget one thing: from a purely economic perspective, we’re all in the same boat. Every degree of additional warming also makes adaptation measures more expensive. More operational downtime. Higher healthcare costs. More damage to infrastructure built for a different climate. More money spent on cooling, repairs and emergency measures.
Parallel and serious mitigation efforts ultimately save money – a lot of money. At the same time, they drive innovation and create new business opportunities, providing countries such as Switzerland or Europe as a whole with the competitive advantages they so urgently need (unlike portable air-conditioners…).
Surely we can all agree on saving money and providing a boost to the domestic economy. Or can’t we?
