At the moment the high temperatures apparently caused by climate change seem to be a major part of the news. The football match between England and Mexico was due to be brought forward in order to avoid thunder-storms associated with the very high temperatures in South America. This caused havoc in the timings for broadcasters and fans alike, but in the end the original times were confirmed, with an emphatic win for INGERLAND.

But then we saw storms break out between UEFA and FIFA, led by Gianni Infantino. This was the Infantino who had given the first FIFA peace prize to that great football authority, Donald J Trump. No doubt in the name of peace, Trump objected to the red card given to America’s leading striker for a foul on a Bosnia-Herzegovina defender Tarik Muharemovic in the previous round. And so FIFA made the unprecedented decision to suspend his automatic one-match ban for 12 months - freeing the United States forward, who has scored three goals at this summer's tournament, to be selected for the match against Belgium.

Ironically, the previous president of FIFA, Sepp Blatter said that this was unacceptable conduct. And Mr Blatter knows something about unacceptable conduct – He was president of FIFA from 1998 to 2015 when he was suspended from participating in FIFA activities until 2027 as a result of a FIFA corruption case made public that year. And later on, Trump admitted that he hadn’t even known what a red card was.

P.S. America was beaten by Belgium 4 v 1. There is a god.

In France, according to a commentator in Le Figaro this week:

The last two months have been marked by a sudden surge in controversy. We shall mention here only the three controversies that are currently taking turns at the start of this summer: the one surrounding euthanasia (pardon me, ‘active assistance in dying’), which is about to be implemented due to a lack of opposition, the Senate having, alas, suddenly decided to desert the battlefield; the one just beginning, also in Parliament, concerning the presumption of self-defence for police officers, immediately rebranded as a ‘licence to kill’; and finally, the one concerning the heatwave, which will obviously resurface week after week and is likely to continue well into the new parliamentary term, if not beyond.

Obviously three quite controversial subjects, on the first two of which we can deduce the opinion of the writer. As far as the heatwave is concerned, the debate is over air conditioning. It is between those who would like to adopt air-conditioning for their over-heated houses and those who regard it as the work of the devil.

And the debate is certainly overheated. The statement on air conditioning of Mme Monique Barbut, Minister for Ecological Transition and former UN rapporteur on desertification, is sure to go down in the already extensive annals of contemporary sophistry. She is against the use of air-conditioning units. She claims that those who call for their use assert that ‘all we need to do is install air conditioning everywhere”. How, she asks, will that deal with forest fires, destroyed crops and the effect of climate change on endangered species? A straw man argument if ever there was one. Those proposing it are actually suggesting it as an additional step to be taken to reduce death amongst older people and enable the average person to live their lives more easily.

But she then adds:  ‘What will that prevent? Nothing… It’s an emergency measure: we must ensure people don’t suffocate.’. She says that we must adapt, but air conditioning is in her view a maladaptation. Perhaps though a necessary one? There is of course a serious point to be made about air conditioning units – their power consumption adds to the pressure on global warming.

But this is an argument about their use in France, a country which is mostly powered by nuclear energy and so does not involve fossil fuels to any real extent. There may be an effect on the amount of nuclear powered electricity which can be exported to other less nuclear orientated countries, but is that France’s moral responsibility?

So what are the rest of us supposed to do? We’re told that we should have electric cars, air source heat-pumps and solar panels. But obviously at a cost. The government’s Climate Change Committee (CCC), issued a report last month. This suggested that a typical household with a petrol car and gas boiler could save £1,200 a year by getting an electric car, heat pump and solar panels. The saving is based on homeowners spending £12,640 on a used electric car, £990 on a home charger, £8,620 on panels, and £7,720 on a heat pump (with the government’s £7,500 grant paying for the rest), according to the committee. So then, those savings are reliant on a household spending almost £30,000 up front. But basic arithmetic shows that the initial expenditure would not be recouped until 25 years had passed. A long pay-back time. Which raises questions about the practicalities of the transition to net zero by 2050.

The figures are in fact based on the oil prices being charged since the start of the Iran war. Prior to the outbreak of war, the calculation would have involved an even longer pay-off time. But on the committee’s scenario a typical household would save £570 a year by running an electric car, compared with refuelling at the pump, and £640 a year by switching to a heat pump, and use of off-peak energy tariff and solar panels.

But, of course, we Brits produce only 0.72% of global greenhouse gases. So if we succeed, we shall be able to pat ourselves on the back, but will still share the effects of global overheating with the principal culprits: in excess of 55% of the gases are produced by China, America, India, Russia and Brazil.

The calculation also assumes that households can charge their car at home, which usually requires off-street parking — something only 65 per cent of households have. The £1,210 saving also relies on households being able to shift to off-peak energy tariffs, under which electricity typically costs less overnight, to charge their car. However, this is not practical for everyone. And carers and those with children may have higher energy needs during the day.

The expected lifespan of an electric vehicle is between 10 and 20 years, while a heat pump can last up to 25 years. Solar panels can last longer, although efficiency can start to degrade after 25 years. So then these are not one-off investments. The Climate Change Committee is therefore relying on unrealistic assumptions, including that households can afford significant upfront costs without borrowing and so paying interest. The figures therefore raise questions about the practicalities of the transition to net zero by 2050, signed into law by Theresa May in 2019, but continued with zealotry by Mr Milliband.

And so what do the people think? While most people still support net zero — 60 per cent in favour, with 25 per cent opposed, according to YouGov — when it comes to who should pay for it, the answers were less clear. 68 per cent of all of those surveyed said household bill reduction was more important. Of those who supported net zero, 33 per cent thought reducing emissions was more important than keeping bills down, compared with 21 per cent of all respondents.

What should I do? Obviously we have a driveway and, when I next change my car, I shall probably go electric. On the other hand, the house is not ideally orientated for the installation of solar panels. So probably not a good investment. A heat pump would require changes to radiators throughout the house and better insulation than we have. So I’m not very convinced. But, air conditioning, it’s a ‘yes’ from me...
10 June 2026

Paul Buckingham