Extreme heat exposes a global divide in cooling access
This summer, record temperatures across Europe and the United States dominated media coverage, with images of heat maps, school closures, rail slowdowns, wildfires, and emergency rooms treating heat-related illnesses. Public officials advised staying indoors, drinking water, and using air conditioning. However, millions of households in wealthy nations already struggle with electric bills, and rising temperatures increase their energy needs for safety.
In the global south, the situation is more dire. Dangerous heat collides with unreliable electricity, overcrowded housing, limited air conditioning, weak public health systems, and widespread poverty, creating potential human catastrophes. Inequality—within and among countries—could decide the fate of millions. Solutions include helping lower-income families afford cooling, investing in resilient infrastructure, and adopting cleaner technologies. The question is political will.
Heat kills thousands, but solutions differ by region
Extreme heat is the deadliest weather form, killing about 2,000 people annually in the US. Europe's heat dome in June 2024 killed over 1,300 people in less than two weeks. In the US, low-income energy assistance is a core solution because most households have electricity and cooling. In much of the global south, the challenge is fundamentally different. During a visit to India, Mark Wolfe found government officials knew what needed to be done—expanding electricity, improving housing, increasing efficient cooling, and strengthening public health—but lacked resources.
The Lancet estimates hundreds of thousands die from heat each year, with the burden growing fastest in south Asia and Africa. The United Nations warns extreme heat widens inequality, slows economic development, and takes a growing human toll. Those most at risk have contributed least to greenhouse gas emissions.
Western nations must invest in global cooling infrastructure
The solution is not simply shipping air conditioners to developing countries, as many grids cannot support them. Instead, the west should help invest in cheaper, more stable clean energy to build infrastructure for safe living in a warmer climate. Low-income countries cannot do this alone. Development banks, climate funds, private investors, and wealthier nations must become partners in financing climate adaptation. This is not traditional foreign aid but an investment in global health, economic stability, and human resilience.
Wealthy countries have not solved their own cooling challenges. Millions of American and European households struggle with rising electricity bills, and many choose between paying the bill and staying safe. Funding for the US Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) helps only about one in six eligible families. The US has the economic capacity to address this shortfall; it is a question of political priorities.
Strategic investment in climate adaptation is essential
Helping lower-income countries build reliable electricity systems is a strategic investment. If the US and Europe fail to partner in financing climate adaptation, other countries will fill the vacuum, expanding economic influence and geopolitical ties across the developing world. Climate policy has long focused on reducing carbon emissions, but it must also be judged by whether wealthy nations help billions adapt to a hotter planet.
In the US and Europe, affordable cooling is a question of political priorities. In the global south, it is a question of resources and survival. The next phase of the climate debate must include investing in reliable electricity, affordable cooling, and heat resilience in the countries that can least afford them. Otherwise, the next great climate divide will be between those with resources to adapt and those without.
Mark Wolfe is 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.
