Climate Alarmists Sweat “Aircon” (air conditioning)

By Robert Bradley Jr. -- July 13, 2026

“The multi-decade failure of climate mitigation policies has naturally given way to adaptation, which is the free-market, government-free approach to climate policy.”

Richard Black, head of communications at Climate Analytics (Germany), is frustrated about adaptation rather than this preferred course of “drastic” cuts in CO2 (think societal upheaval). “It’s important to see the recent transatlantic aircon spat for what it was – a deliberate distraction,” he complains. Chalk up another messaging failure and more futility for the anti-CO2, anti-modern-living lobby. [1]

Rhetorical Dead Cat?

Black continues:

Important, because it will come again. At some point soon, the mercury will rise higher still and recently-set records will be broken – driven by man-made climate change.

And, desperate to avoid a proper conversation about climate change, contrarians will once more throw the rhetorical dead cat onto the table of overheated hospital wards, parched crops and buckling railways and blame ’the left,’ ‘greens,’ ‘woke regulations’ or ‘Old Europe’ for blocking use of air conditioners or, even more dramatically, forcing them to be ‘ripped out.’ And ’the left’ and ‘greens’ will instinctively let this frame the debate.

Right! Here-and-now problems will define human betterment, not anti-energy policies that make adaptation more difficult. But to Black, it is the “wrong approach.”

By all means, let’s talk about air conditioning – but let’s do so under the proper framing, of it signifying the need both to adapt to and constrain climate change impacts.

Once, residents of cities such as Paris could cope with summer heatwaves by opening shutters and windows during the night, and closing them again in the morning to trap the cool air inside. That doesn’t work nearly as well now, because both daytime and nighttime temperatures during heatwaves are too high. We’ve reached a limit to this sort of adaptation.

So let’s talk about limits to adaptation, which climate scientists and economists have been highlighting for decades, in the face of constant claims that ‘we should just adapt.’

Next comes the question of why people who have serially professed their lack of concern over victims of sweltering summers (remember the ‘but cold kills way more people than heat’ meme?) should now suddenly be advocating ’solutions.’

And next, let’s draw a Venn diagram showing the huge and hypocritical overlap between people who advocate air conditioning and people who see heat pumps as a dastardly totalitarian threat, when heat pumps are capable of cooling as well as heating.

After that, let’s talk about the myriad impacts of climate change-exacerbated heat that air conditioning can’t do anything about – many of which are happening in the US, from where some of the loudest voices on the aircon distraction are emanating.
Like crop yields, for example, which are already being affected by higher temperatures and which are likely to see further decline in coming decades. Like the spread of diseases carried by insect vectors and in water. Like the increase in intense wildfires, posing a rising danger to lives and property.

Black then turns to public policy, specifically drastic action that is all pain, no gain–and increasingly rejected by citizen-voters.

Can you see what it is yet? And having challenged the air-conditioners on all of these impacts, let’s come to the most fundamental point of all: without sharp falls in carbon emissions, all of these impacts will continue to get more serious, more damaging and more costly. So unless you’re advocating emission cuts, you don’t merit a serious place in the conversation. 

I responded:

The problem is that “emission cuts” do not appreciably affect global climate for decades, if ever, and adaptation (the rational policy in a high-energy world) requires non-emission-cuts public policy. Affordable, reliable energy are what consumers require for adaptation. Wind, solar, and batteries are full of their own economic and environmental problems.

P.S. Check your premises on all the climate alarmism–a fair accounting of the benefits of CO2 enrichment is fair.

No response from Mr. Black to my comment or the majority of comments that were critical. Hit-and-run and ignore-the-skeptics time. But they are losing the energy/climate messaging war. [1]

Conclusion

The multi-decade failure of climate mitigation policies has naturally given way to adaptation, which is the free-market, government-free approach to climate policy. Yet adaptation depends on affordable, reliable energies, the ones that consumers naturally choose without Big Climate Brother. Richard Black has a tiger by the tail with his vague, open-ended “emission cuts” plea. The world will be moving on without him.

—–

[1] Other climate messaging posts are here:

Affordability In, Renewables Out (again) (June 25, 2026)

Left Progressives Cool It on Green New Deal: Progressive Policy Institute (May 13, 2026)

Is Public Stupidity Behind Climate Change Apathy? (March 23, 2026)

Democrats Retreat from Climate Activism (energy affordability, electability in play) (March 19, 2026)

Climate Alarmists Question Climate Exaggeration (November 4, 2025)

Climate Out, Affordability In (October 23, 2025)

Climate Activism Fail from the Inside (July 31, 2025)

Climate Messaging: The Alarmists are Alarmed (July 29, 2025)