Summary of the Core Content
This article uses irony to criticize the long-standing arrogance and hypocrisy of some Europeans. They have previously accused developing countries (such as China) of destroying traditions through modernization, yet now, when faced with heatwaves, they use excuses like “environmental protection,” “tradition,” and “moral correctness” to justify not using air conditioning. There is even a clear class disparity, where the upper echelons use air conditioning while the lower classes suffer from the heat, completely ignoring the basic needs of ordinary people (such as seeking shelter from the heat). The article’s purpose is to expose the hypocrisy of certain European groups—packaging their own inconvenience (or privileges) as something noble while criticizing others’ development.
Detailed Analysis
1. Using European “arrogant logic” to counterattack: “Don’t use air conditioning; it will ruin our tourist photos”
European media used to criticize China, saying things like, “Beijing’s skyscrapers have lost their ancient charm, and Lhasa’s modern buildings have destroyed its traditional character.” The implied message was, “Don’t develop; stay primitive so we can come and tour.” Now, the article uses the same logic in satire: If Europe starts using air conditioning, the streets will be covered with outdoor units, and we won’t be able to take beautiful photos during our visits. It’s like Jolin’s music videos, where the presence of air conditioning units ruins the scenery!
This actually turns the tables on their “dual standards”: You demand that others remain “backward” for your enjoyment; then you should also refrain from modern comforts and maintain a “pristine” state for us to admire. The essence is to reveal their arrogance in only allowing themselves to live comfortably while preventing others from pursuing a better life.
2. The hypocrisy of using environmental protection as an excuse: Only demanding sacrifices from others
Europeans claim that using air conditioning will exacerbate the climate crisis, with French ministers even saying it won’t solve the problem. However, the article exposes this as a form of “double standard.” Obama once said that the Chinese lifestyle is too much for the Earth, yet he didn’t mention that European air conditioning would also increase carbon emissions. At the EU headquarters, the upper management offices have air conditioning on, while lower-level employees are told to turn it off.
Environmental protection has become a cover for their selfish desires: they demand sacrifices from ordinary people (even at the cost of their comfort) while enjoying privileges themselves. The so-called “environmentalism” is merely a rule applied to the lower classes, while the upper echelons continue to live comfortably.
3. The pretense of glorifying not using air conditioning as some form of “spiritual nourishment”: Turning inconvenience into nobility
Some online posts try to present a positive view of Europe’s lack of air conditioning, such as claiming that French people use libraries for reading or that Provence’s breezes and shutters are more comfortable than air conditioning. But the truth is that many old buildings in Europe don’t allow air conditioning, and the cost of installation (e.g., pipe renovations) is high. Ordinary people can’t afford it. These attempts to romanticize the situation are just a way of masking their inconvenience as “civilization” or “poetry,” which is nothing but self-deception. If they truly wanted to “reconcile with the heat,” why would the upper classes still use air conditioning?
4. A stark portrayal of class disparity: The upper classes enjoy air conditioning, while the lower classes suffer
Two examples in the article are particularly poignant:
- At the EU headquarters, air conditioning is temporarily turned off on floors one to seven (for employees), while it remains on on floors eight and above (for officials).
- An investor reported 20 neighbors for using air conditioning, claiming it reduces carbon emissions, yet he himself likely enjoys air conditioning; otherwise, how could he survive the heatwaves?
This shows that Europe’s refusal to use air conditioning is not a universal consensus but a double standard where the lower classes must comply, while the upper classes are exempt. The so-called “moral correctness” and “environmentalism” only apply to the common people.
5. The indifference to human life: “Adapting to high temperatures is morally correct”
During the Paris heatwave, over 100 people died, yet some Europeans (e.g., German netizens) claimed that adapting to the heat is moral. This is not nobility but cold-bloodedness—basic needs for survival are dismissed as “immoral,” and their numbness is covered up with political correctness.
The article concludes by pointing out that a country’s level of civilization is not measured by its historical landmarks but by whether it allows its people to have access to air conditioning (to protect their lives). This is what truly defines “people-oriented” governance, not using hypocritical excuses to sacrifice the rights of ordinary people.
Conclusion
The core message of this article is that certain European groups are arrogant and hypocritical, packaging their own shortcomings (or privileges) as nobility while criticizing others’ development. Behind the irony lies a call for a more “people-oriented” approach. Whether in developing or developed countries, the basic needs of ordinary people (such as avoiding heat and living a modern life) should not be ignored or exploited under the guise of environmentalism or tradition.