Extreme heat is a growing global crisis, and access to air conditioning is becoming a matter of life and death. This summer, Europe and the United States have been grappling with record-breaking temperatures, leading to a familiar set of consequences: heat maps in deep red, schools closing, rail lines slowing, wildfires spreading, and emergency rooms treating an increasing number of heat-related illnesses. Public officials offer the same advice: stay indoors, drink plenty of water, and, if possible, turn on the air conditioning.
However, this issue extends far beyond the developed world. In many parts of the global south, the challenge is not just about staying cool but about survival. Inequality, both within and between countries, is a critical factor in this crisis. While the US and Europe have the resources to provide low-income energy assistance and help families pay their electric bills, the situation is starkly different in much of the global south.
In India, for example, government officials understand the need for expansion of electricity systems, improved housing, increased access to efficient cooling, strengthened public health planning, and protection of vulnerable populations. Yet, their lack of resources hinders their ability to implement these solutions. The Lancet estimates that hundreds of thousands of people already die from heat each year, and the burden is expected to grow most rapidly in south Asia and Africa. The United Nations has warned that extreme heat is widening inequality, slowing economic development, and taking a growing human toll, disproportionately affecting those who have contributed the least to global greenhouse gas emissions.
The solution is not as simple as shipping air conditioners to developing countries. Many of these regions lack the electrical grid capacity to support such a massive influx of cooling systems. Instead, the west should focus on helping these countries invest in cheaper, more stable forms of clean and secure energy to build the necessary infrastructure for a safer, warmer climate. Low-income countries cannot achieve this alone.
Development banks, international climate funds, private investors, and wealthier nations must become partners in financing the next generation of climate adaptation. This should not be seen as traditional foreign aid but as an investment in global health, economic stability, and human resilience. It is a strategic move, as the US and Europe's failure to become meaningful partners in climate adaptation could lead to other countries filling the gap, expanding their economic influence and geopolitical ties across the developing world.
Climate policy has traditionally been measured by the amount of carbon emissions avoided. However, over the coming decades, it may also be judged by whether wealthy countries were willing to help billions of people in the global south adapt to a hotter planet. In the US and Europe, access to affordable cooling is a matter of political priorities. In the global south, it is a matter of resources and survival.
The next phase of the climate debate must go beyond reducing emissions. It must also focus on helping people survive the climate we have already created by investing in reliable electricity, affordable cooling, and heat resilience in the countries that can least afford them. Otherwise, the next great climate divide will not be between the highest and lowest emitters of carbon but between those who had the resources to adapt and those who did not.
Mark Wolfe, executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, co-director of the Center on Energy Poverty and Climate, and an adjunct professor at George Washington University, emphasizes the urgency of this issue. He argues that addressing this crisis is not just a humanitarian obligation but also a strategic investment in the future of the world's wealthiest countries.
