France VS air conditioning: cultural and political differences in the face of heatwaves

Increasingly unlivable summers (and springs)

The starting point is the thermometer. Heat waves are no longer exceptional events spaced years apart: they have become more frequent, more intense, and longer, and now extend beyond the height of summer. The most striking proof came from spring 2026, The hottest ever recorded in France since the beginning of the measurements. As early as the end of May, the country experienced The earliest heatwave ever observed : between May 23rd and May 30th, no fewer than 115 heat records were broken in the Centre-Val de Loire region alone, with peaks exceeding 34°C. This is unprecedented for this time of year.

This was just a preview. A few weeks later, at the end of June, a heatwave of exceptional severity—compared by Météo-France to that of 2003—swept over the country: on June 24, one in two French departments were on red alert; the next day, three-quarters of the territory were affected. In Paris, the mercury surpassed 40°C on June 24 and 25.

On the current emissions trajectory, France is heading towards warming of around 4°C by the end of the century. As some climatologists summarize, the summer we find unbearable today will likely remain one of the freshest of the rest of our lives. The question is therefore no longer whether we will have to adapt, but how – and how quickly.

A French mismatch that costs lives

This gap between a changing climate and our unchanging habits has a direct human cost. The European heatwave of June 2026 caused massive excess mortality: the European monitoring platform EuroMOMO recorded over 14,000 excess deaths in the last week of June alone, across 24 countries. This figure is still provisional and is considered «probably underestimated» by Public Health France. This is on the same order of magnitude as the trauma of 2003.

The Point Genius video recalls a striking figure that summarizes it all: more people are dying from heat in Paris today than in São Paulo. Not because it's hotter there—quite the opposite—but because we are not prepared for it, neither in our buildings, nor in our equipment, nor in our minds.

The reason for this delay? A largely ideological rejection of air conditioning, despite the clear health benefits. In the face of heatwaves, AC is no longer a superfluous luxury: it has become a public health tool, especially for the most vulnerable — the elderly, children, the sick, or those working remotely confined to poorly insulated apartments.

Jean-Marc Jancovici «The main problem with the heatwave isn't the air conditioning».»

In this excerpt from an interview, Jean-Marc Jancovici reminds us that air conditioning is not the primary concern of heatwaves. The real problem lies more in the consequences for agriculture with various knock-on effects. It also affects rivers, whose flow decreases as there is less snow in winter. Regarding the question of massive air conditioning installations in public services, raised by some politicians, Jancovici replies that we must be nuanced and consider each case individually. He points out that air conditioning is not the only solution to heat: other physical protection measures like blinds can improve the situation and suffice in some cases, or simply improve the efficiency of air conditioners. Just as we protect our homes from the cold, we must also protect them from the heat.

Real losses in productivity and concentration

Le Point Genius also points to another major problem: heat directly impacts cognitive performance and productivity. In a country where remote work is becoming more common, how many people are now spending their days in apartments under the roof where the temperature exceeds 30°C, even at night? This is not just a matter of comfort; it's a real economic loss of efficiency and a degradation of working conditions. Not sleeping well due to heat also means being less effective the next day: the lack of cooling at night weighs as much as the lack of it during the day.

Whether at school or at work, there's a significant drop in productivity when the temperature rises. This can be seen very clearly in the following graph with students (dashed curves) and office workers (solid lines).

While companies are encouraged to adjust their hours and provide water, as the government reminds us in its announcements, this remains a band-aid on a broken leg if we don't address the core issue: the thermal environment of living and working spaces.

Is heating a right and cooling a luxury? The real taboo

This is undoubtedly the most revealing blind spot in the French debate. Nobody today disputes that heating in winter is a basic need: it is even a right enshrined in law, and cutting off heating in an occupied dwelling is prohibited. However, heating is technically a comfort—that of not shivering in one's home. So why do we readily accept fighting the cold, but still view fighting the heat as a whim?

The answer lies in our history: our winters have always been cold, our summers long and mild. The thermal standard was therefore built around heating alone. As a result, all our building regulations aim to conserve heat — insulation, airtightness — without ever thinking about to protect oneself from it. We have thus built very high-performance housing in winter, which turns into veritable human ovens in summer.

Now, the desired comfort is symmetrical. We feel good, generally, between 18 and 25°C. Below that, we heat without question. Above 26°C, we struggle to work; at 30°C, we are in difficulty; and without cooling, a home even with shutters closed can climb to 35°C or more — not to mention many of our fellow citizens living under the roofs. Refusing any means to bring down this temperature, while finding it normal to raise a room's temperature by 5°C in winter, amounts to a double standard that climate warming makes increasingly untenable.

Recognizing cooling as a basic need, just like heating, does not mean air conditioning blindly. It means stopping to treat it as a sin, and starting to seriously consider it—in buildings first, with air conditioning as a supplement where necessary.

Air conditioning: choosing the right equipment to limit energy impact

Air conditioning, often demonized in France, is not as energy-intensive as one might think, especially if it is used and chosen wisely. Le Point Genius makes an essential distinction between two types of air conditioners:

1. All-in-one air conditioners Very common in rentals or emergency solutions, they consume a lot of energy because they extract indoor air and expel it through a duct to the outside. The unit then creates negative pressure in the home, drawing in hot outdoor air from all the cracks and crevices of the home (doors, windows), which effectively cools the room where the air conditioner is located, but heats the others. This greatly reduces its efficiency. They are energy-guzzling, noisy, and inefficient, but for a long time, they remained the only option for renters.
2. Split air conditioners Much more effective, these units separate the indoor unit from the outdoor unit. Indoor air is cooled in a closed loop, allowing for better energy efficiency and much lower consumption. Their installation cost is higher, and this requires being an owner or obtaining their agreement, as it generally involves drilling through the wall.
3. Portable split air conditioners Good news for tenants: this third way has emerged (or rather, re-emerged in a modernized version). It's air conditioners no installation reconcile the two worlds. They offer performance close to that of a fixed split system and very quiet operation, without any construction work or hole in the wall—the link between the indoor and outdoor units passes through a simple window opening (to be sealed, however). Once rare, expensive, and of poor quality, these models have improved: the Midea PortaSplit, For example, it was so successful against heatwaves that it was sold out almost everywhere, while its competitors remained older, noisier, and much more expensive. It is now the most credible option for effectively cooling a home that one is not allowed to modify. However, it will be necessary to be able to mount the outdoor unit on a windowsill or place it on a balcony.

The key message: well-chosen, well-adjusted air conditioning (around 24-26°C, not 14 or 20°C like in American malls), running on low-carbon electricity (as is the case in France thanks to nuclear power and increasingly present renewable energies), has a limited environmental impact, especially compared to the health and economic benefits it provides.

Focus on heat pumps

One point too often ignored: most splits, whether portable or fixed, are actually reversible heat pumps. The same device that cools in the summer can Heat the winter with formidable efficiency. Where an electric radiator gives off 1 kWh of heat for 1 kWh consumed (same for gas, which also emits CO2), a heat pump gives off several times more : over a full heating season, its actual efficiency—the SCOPE, as measured according to the European standard EN 14825 — is generally between 3 and 4. In other words, it produces 3 to 4 times more energy than it consumes. And even in extreme cold, when its efficiency drops, it remains 2 to 3 times more efficient than direct electric heating.

As for refreshments, the cost remains modest: Cooling a home in the summer uses far less energy over the course of a year than heating it in the winter. The issue is not the temperature difference, but the fact that an air conditioner does not product not cold: he's content with move heat from the home to the outside—a process that consumes relatively little energy—the same principle that makes heat pumps so efficient in the winter. Added to this is a cooling season much shorter and less intense than the long heating season.

In practical terms, replacing old electric radiators with a reversible air conditioner can cut the heating bill by two-thirds to one-fourth, an order of magnitude that ADEME Field data confirms that, despite variations due to settings or weather conditions, the vast majority of households equipped with the system are realizing substantial savings. The savings in the winter far exceed the costs in the summer, Ultimately, we use less energy over the course of the entire year. In other words, when designed properly, an air-conditioning system does not represent an additional energy expense: it is an investment that makes a difference lower the household's annual consumption, while providing a cool respite in the summer.

Refrigerant gases: a real issue, but one that needs to be put into perspective

One of the arguments frequently put forward against air-conditioning is that it can damage the environment. refrigerant gases used in cooling systems. It's true that these gases, particularly the HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons), have a significant impact on the environment. very high global warming potential (GWP), often several thousand times greater than that of CO₂. Their accidental release or poor end-of-life management can therefore contribute significantly to climate change. However, it's essential to put this impact into context: according to the International Institute of Refrigeration, approximately 20 % of air conditioning emissions come from these gas leaks, while 80 % of emissions are caused by electricity consumption. In France, where electricity is largely carbon-free and where electrical circuits must be handled by a professional, this impact is much lower than in countries powered by coal- or gas-fired power plants.

In addition, technologies are also evolving: manufacturers are tending to gradually replace the most polluting gases with low-GWP fluids, or even natural alternatives such as propane or CO₂ (in some industrial systems). This is a very real risk, is not inevitable : It can be drastically reduced through proper maintenance of the equipment, stricter manufacturing standards, and effective end-of-life recycling. This is a matter of good industrial practice, not a sufficient reason to reject air conditioning outright, especially in regions where it has become a health necessity.

The real debate is political: inaction and false arguments

If the health evidence is so clear, why is France still lagging behind? Because, by the summer of 2026, air conditioning had become a genuine political issue—an ideological battleground on which each side was staking its claim, sometimes at the expense of common sense and the facts.

On the one hand, the right has made it a rallying cry, sometimes to the point of caricature: «Air conditioning is civilization,» declared Louis Sarkozy on BFM-RMC in May 2026. On the other hand, there is a segment of the left and the environmentalists who are digging in their heels on a matter of principle. The Ecologists' Platform describes individual air conditioning units as «an inappropriate solution that causes cities to heat up,» while Jean-Luc Mélenchon judge that «installing air conditioning everywhere means increasing the damage.» As for Marine Tondelier, she has summarized the position in a phrase that has become famous: «Air conditioning »heats up the street and warms up your neighbors.’”.

Are all these arguments really serious when people are living in 40 °C heat under their roofs, can no longer sleep, give birth in maternity wards that have turned into saunas, or die at home because they have no way to cool off?

Because these aren't just assumptions. In Paris, tenants on the top floor were telling By the end of June, they had been sleeping only two hours a night in apartments where the zinc roofs can reach temperatures of up to 80 °C—veritable «giant radiators.» Another tenant described A Haussmann-style studio apartment where the temperature was stuck at 34–35 °C, «episodes of anxiety from not being able to breathe,» and nights where she could only fall asleep around 4 a.m. At the same time, at the maternity ward in Mantes-la-Jolie, Some rooms exceeded 35 °C For four days straight: a mother watched her daughter—who had been born just a few hours earlier—run a fever of 38 °C, and the administration eventually allowed families to bring their own air conditioners.

«It heats up the city»: the truth... and the misinterpretation

Yes, The air conditioner releases heat outside. It's basic thermodynamics—an air conditioner doesn't destroy heat, it moves it move from the dwelling to the street, adding the energy it consumes.’APUR study on air conditioning in Paris (April 2025) the documents: on a street at 30 °C, a commercial air conditioner can blow out air at 50 °C, [It's] embarrassing for pedestrians and prevents residents of upper floors from airing out their homes at night. On this point, The objection deserves to be heard.

But it needs to be scaled up. APUR itself classifies air conditioning as heat discharge. anthropogenic, just like car engines or the district heating network — and these are not the biggest contributors. The overwhelming majority of heat stored by a city comes from elsewhere. from the asphalt of roads, dark roofs, and mineral facades that store the sun all day and release it at night. This is called the’urban heat island, and it existed long before air conditioning became widespread: A city has always been hotter than the surrounding countryside. Making air conditioning the cause of the problem is To confuse a drop with the bucket.

Here's the true part — and it deserves to be recognized rather than swept away. But once the scale is re-established, the argument «it warms your neighbors» reveals its true flaw: it treats as a fatality which is only a Installation question.

Car The way an air conditioner is installed changes almost everything. Several works, notably Chinese ones, have quantified this in high-density neighborhoods. By comparing discharge positions, a 2024 study Show that units placed on the facade walls warm the urban canyon by about 2.3 °C, as opposed to only 1.6 °C for a roof discharge. The observation is confirmed in France: a Simulation in a dense district of Lyon, during the 2019 heatwave, measure +1.75 °C at street level for facade units, where a rooftop discharge saves the air that pedestrians breathe. Other studies recommend’Orient the units in the direction of the wind, group them, or space them out to dissipate heat instead of trapping it on the ground.

In other words, The problem isn't the air conditioning, it's the poorly installed air conditioning.. Solutions already exist and are documented; it would be enough to draw inspiration from them—or to conduct our own research adapted to French urban planning—then to translate to installation standards. Rejecting air conditioning because it «heats the street» is condemn the tool for a defect that is mainly related to its installation — and, in passing, leave those who truly suffer from the heat without a solution.

An arbitration that must be faced

What are we actually saying when we refuse air conditioning in the name of street temperature? We are implicitly asking an elderly person, an infant, or a sick person to endure potentially deadly heat in their home, in order to preserve a few tenths of a degree on the sidewalk at night. When compared to more than 14,000 deaths Of the single heatwave in June 2026, this arbitration becomes very difficult to defend.

This is precisely why early stances are cracking. Those who once refused air conditioning now admit, heatwave after heatwave, that it's indispensable everywhere. Marine Tondelier, after summarizing the anti-AC argument, now concedes that it should not be «neither a taboo, nor an answer to everything» and there are places where you can no longer do without air conditioning’ (Late Career PensionFrance Info notes it directly: ecologists, long opposed to air conditioning, see it as henceforth «a solution to the emergency despite its flaws» (France Info).

The real dividing line is therefore no longer «For or against air conditioning» — that debate is being settled by the facts. She's caught between those who want a Smart deployment — passive protection first, then well-installed, well-adjusted air conditioning powered by decarbonized electricity — and those, on the right as on the left, who prefer to stick to the posture.

From posture to method

With the debate of principle behind us, what's most important remains: the method. And on this front, the good news is that we already know what to do — the order of priorities is a consensus among specialists. Passive protection first, then air conditioning., as a complement where the structure is not sufficient.

The problem is that France has normalized the first half of the equation, and forgotten the second. All our regulations aim to conserve heat in the winter; almost nothing requires protection from it in the summer. Result: according to a bill submitted to the National Assembly in 2025, 9 out of 10 homes are not suitable Regarding the «summer comfort» criterion of the energy performance diagnosis, 70 % of French people say they suffer from the heat at home (National Assembly. Walls as simple as shutters or exterior blinds — which block the sun before it enters — remain optional, even though they alone can greatly reduce the need for cooling.

Some communities believe they are leading the way. Paris bioclimatic urban plan, in effect since November 2024, states in black and white that «Summer comfort must be sought primarily through passive devices», individual air conditioning only intervening in «last resort» (APUR studyThe intention is good, and the order of priorities is correct: no one disputes that a building must first defend itself.

But to stop there is to still reason with blinders on. Passive protection has a physical limit, and recent heatwaves are happily surpassing it. Shutters closed, insulated walls, blinds deployed: all of this slows down the entry of heat, but does not expel it. During an episode where it is 40°C during the day and the temperature does not drop below 28°C at night — these tropical nights which Météo-France sees multiplying—the building's inertia ends up saturating. Without wind to ventilate, without night-time coolness to let in, a well-protected dwelling stagnates at 33, 34, 35°C despite everything, day after day. The passive then only Delay discomfort, not prevent it.

That's where the doctrine of «last resort turns against those it claims to protect. Pushing air conditioning to the end of the line is acceptable for a two-day heatwave; it becomes untenable for a heatwave lasting a week or more, the kind that kill. Passive protection and air conditioning are not two successive steps, but two complementary tools. : the first reduces the need, the second covers what the first cannot—and this remainder, in a warming climate, is growing. A lucid policy does not prioritize the two, it to normalize the two together.

Conclusion: leave dogma behind and embrace reason

As a’web host committed to ecology, LRob is sensitive to climate issues and sobriety. In data centers, the situation is quite different, since in some areas, every watt consumed has to be cooled. That's why we've chosen a geolocation allowing natural air cooling 98% of the year. But as the climate evolves, this number could fall in the years to come.

Nevertheless, for home office (remote work), after years of braving the heat, air conditioning now appears indispensable for the smooth continuation of services. Aided by the unbearable heat, we thus defied French-French dogmatism to equip ourselves with air conditioning since 2025 (mobile air conditioner) with an upgrade in 2026 to a mobile split system (a solution that seems best for renters). Thus, the customer support will remain cool, clear-headed and efficient so that we can continue to provide you with the very best web hosting.

Whether we are citizens, businesses, or public decision-makers, it is time to accept that air conditioning is part of the productive, even vital, solution, provided it is used with common sense and responsibility. Heating has never been a shameful luxury; cooling should be no different. Air conditioning is not the enemy. Its misuse is. As Le Point Genius explains very well, it's not about air conditioning everything to 14°C like in New York, but about creating livable environments adapted to new climate realities.

It's time for France to move away from this anti-climate culture that is marginalizing it compared to some of its European neighbors. This outdated culture prevents it from effectively responding to a growing public health problem. Better information, better equipment, and better regulation are the most reasonable path forward today.

---