Europeans don’t get scolded enough for their resistance to air conditioning. In terms of accounting for preventable deaths, Greece has 2x more heat-related deaths per capita annually than Mississippi has gun deaths.
By comparison, the worst US state for heat related deaths, Nevada - a literal desert - has >10x fewer deaths per capita than Greece.
Living in London and Dublin, what I've observed is that we get the following contradictory statements:
- "We don't need AC, It's only hot a few times during the year."
- "Oh what a terrible heat, global warming is getting worse every year."
Pair to that the fact that in many places windows don't open all the way due to bureocratic regulations and many interior designs are very questionable in terms of air flow and you get some unpleasant scenarios.
I live in Las Vegas and one year at the start of summer my AC went out. It took a week to order the part needed and make the fix. I lived out of casinos for that week (using HotelTonight to get a different place each night) and it was pretty fun. I gained 10lbs. That said, AC's are a necessity out here.
Absolutely this. Arrogance isn't going to hold against the sun. It's very stupid of EU to ignore the fact this is how hot it will be from now on, and 1000 year old dwellings using only windows to cool are no longer acceptable living standards.
But are you really going to tell me that you me that tho evidence that temperatures are getting warmer is bunk? For starters check out the top diagram here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#
No it doesn't. Seriously, where does this meme even come from? It should be pretty obvious just from a solar insolation map that AC is just noise vs the sun. The energy usage is tiny vs vehicles or non-heat pump heating and only electric. What changes temperature overall is the balance of thermal retention by the atmosphere vs radiation into space, hence why net increases in GHG are so dangerous. And at the ground level similarly how heat is dumped to atmosphere. Greenery, whites, shade etc is good, asphalt, mass standard glass is bad (hence many cities being heat islands). Old, leaky units sure, we absolutely should work to reduce that. But it's astonishing how people claim AC makes the outdoors hotter so consistently.
This effect is temporary. Otherwise one could run their AC once for a few minutes and then it'd be cold inside your home for the rest of the year until you turn up heating.
In reality equilibrium is restored quickly (and the thermal mass we're cooling/heating here is insignificant anyhow).
Give a chart with actual numbers on the increase in temperature versus the sun. Not a diagram from an elementary science textbook on how air conditioners work.
I’m not debating that the sun is stronger heating source. I’m just saying air-conditioning increases climate change because it uses fossil fuels and also the law of thermodynamics dictates that he will be created in this instance.
> I’m just saying air-conditioning increases climate change because it uses fossil fuels
It would actually be a much better global warming mitigation strategy to install bidirectional heat pumps (A/C in the summer, heat in the winter) that runs on electricity (which is increasingly produced using renewables) and then get rid of fossil-fuel burning furnaces.
It does on my balcony where the fan pumps to, which has made doing any gardening difficult, but to the overall outside temperature it's just a drop in the ocean.
> "just turn on the AC and keep burning the world down" isn't really the answer.
This is an outdated attitude. PV solar panel output correlates really well with air conditioning demand, no need for storage. Overcool your thick-walled masonry buildings during the day as a form of energy storage.
Is this an argument to do nothing and let people die because there exist awful people in the world that want to profit from climate change? You can do walk and chew bubble gum in this fight.
Went to Germany during the recent heat wave and few of the public buildings and none of the private ones had AC. I found the whole endeavor much more very stressful because of the heat.
In the UK my understanding is there are large subsidies for installing heat pumps in new builds - but you lose the subsidy if you include the cooling part.
NB: a friend in construction explained this to me so I could be wrong but it would explain why even pretty fancy new apartments with heat pumps have no cooling.
I think it's more that air conditioning is (currently) prohibitively expensive. The few people I know that have it spent several thousands of euros on their installations. That's not something most people have lying around.
You'd think the government could subsidize aircon like they did solar for years, and both of those things combined would translate to very pleasant summers spent in energy neutral air conditioned homes.
It's strange what people think is expensive. Double glazing is very expensive but no one in Europe would go without it. Aircon is not expensive within the context of a house's construction costs.
>> Double glazing is very expensive but no one in Europe would go without it.
This isn’t true. I’ve lived in 3 places in London with single glazing. They’re surprisingly common. All new properties come with it but the majority of our housing stock is old.
There’s also little comparison between air con and double glazing. One will be helpful for 4-6 months of the year and reduce my energy bills. The other will be necessary at most 1-2 weeks a year and will cost me thousands of pounds up front. Most people simply can’t afford that.
Unless the aircon is a heat pump, in which case it’s also useful in the winter, it’s more efficient and carbon neutral if your electricity grid is decarbonised.
If most people can’t afford a heat pump, why do we entertain the idea of making them pay an order of magnitude more to better insulate their home, which doesn’t even work in the end?
You’ve been misinformed by European media. Please do your research, it’s all online.
I don't think you have any conception of how little money most people have. Why would I spend £15-20k I don't have on a heat pump so I can get 'free' air con when my house is already heated via another method? Most people don't have £500 spare for a portable air con unit.
On top of that, until a few months ago, government subsidies for heat pumps didn't apply to the versions that include air con so anyone who did get a heat pump didn't get that version.
>> why do we entertain the idea of making them pay an order of magnitude more to better insulate their home
We don't. There have been various schemes over the last couple of decades where people could have this done for free or at very low cost.
>> You’ve been misinformed by European media. Please do your research, it’s all online.
You don't even need an expensive AC. If you can't afford one, you can just get an evaporative cooler[1] for $100 or lesser[2]. Possibly even cheaper if you don't mind buying a second-hand unit.
You don't need to get central A/C or mini splits. You can use an efficient Window unit (not those single ducted portable units that are just barely better than nothing. if portable do dual ducted for efficiency) Those window units are available at Walmart in the US for a couple hundred apiece. Presumably hypermarts like Carrefour would carry them or some places that serve home improvement.
For some reason it's very hard to find window units for sale in the UK, single-duct portables are the only thing available for cheap (although it's a fairly easy mod to convert one to dual-duct).
Probably because the UK - similar to most of Europe - does not use the US vertically sliding sash window type, does it? The typical "walmart window AC" does just not really exist in (most of) Europe, because the windows for it don't exist, afaik.
Edit: Turns out, sash windows are more commonly found in the UK (compared to other European countries), but still not as common as in the US. So, UK = not as hot (so far), thus still probably not worth it (yet) as a market.
Why are the windows different, actually? They don't seem to be smaller overall, just skinnier and taller?
But you should still be able to get two tubes fitted into any kind of window with the right seals. If you were really up for renovations you could get closeable exhaust holes punched through your brick or something maybe.
Sash windows are just not as common. Seems like they are in the UK somewhat, though numbers I found vary, but overall in Europe they're pretty uncommon.
And yes, there are options for tubes/ducts for the more common window types. Like tilt-and-turn windows, horizontally sliding or all the other kinds of inward or outward opening windows - but most of them are the ducted portable units the original comment was speaking of, which aren't great.
There are also some better portable split units, but those are pricier and the install is not as easy. (They're great though.)
one issue with tilt and turn is getting window screens for them. It's possible but mostly they get installed on the inside if you have the proper wall spacing that allows window to function without interfering with the screen. mini splits are great but it's much more money than a simple window unit or portable unit.
If I don't have $30K to $50K to invest in an HVAC for the home, the next best is a relatively efficient Window unit that costs low hundreds and will help me stay alive in the heat. However enticing the price of a single duct portable unit is, do not buy it. It's a complete waste. If you go portable, go with the dual ducted one --but it's still not as good as a Window unit (which I would hope is obviously less efficient than a properly specced HVAC unit.
That's completely false. They work just fine despite not being terribly efficient at least provided you install them correctly (but that caveat naturally applies to any window unit).
In fact despite the low efficiency using only one in a single room is likely far cheaper than cooling the entire house. It's the same principle as an electric space heater versus a whole home heat pump.
Of course running a minisplit only in the one room would be substantially better but for a 1 kW unit the difference is less than $1 per day (unless you're subject to the California electric grid I guess).
You can do a perfectly good, very efficient mini split for USD $5k. Avoids the leaks of window of portable units. And if you're feeling fancy you can get it as a cold climate heat pump. They're great options for retrofitting - can do multiple indoor air handlers, etc., for far less than $50k
I don't mean to pick on an irrelevant detail, but I genuinely don't know how to parse ">10x fewer deaths per capita." Does it mean "fewer than 1/10 as many deaths per capita," i.e., the ratio (heat related deaths in Nevada per capita)/(heat related deaths in Greece per capita) is less than 1/10?
Some buildings in Southern Europe have thick as hell walls which isolate from both heat and cold (the North can be really chilly near the Atlantic, and freezing away from the Mediterranean).
That's a misconception. They are poor insulators, but they moderate temperature well. If the temperature outside is cold but sunny, the walls absorb heat from the sun during the day and retain it during the night. However, when you require heat input (cloudy days, average temperature less than desired interior temperature), the stone conducts it very well to the outside and you need much more power input than even crappy US stick-built houses with R-15 insulation. It's just that Southern Europe's climate is usually so mild it doesn't seem like it's more comfortable, but this situation demonstrates its inferiority well.
I think there's a bit of a definitional skew happening here. The data isn't that good around this stuff.
Heat as the primary factor, vs heat related deaths is significant.
Heat is a system stressor. There's plenty of people having heart attacks and dying from weight related issues that probably got pushed over the edge by a hot day in Nevada that are missed in official stats.
There was a good More Or Less (uk radio programme) episode about this last week. Essentially, the European statistics on this tend to be based on excess mortality during hot periods, while US stats currently are much more about what words are used on death certificates. Very different measures and hard to compare.
I think they’re arguing we’d be doing something about global warming instead of rage baiting each other from the comfort of our cool houses on social media while ignoring it, like we’re doing.
Well, not really ignoring it, more like making it worse while setting giant piles of bills on fire.
I completely agree. Historically AC has not been necessary for the one to two days a year it was needed, but that world is gone now and the situation has changed and the widespread adoption of AC is now necessary.
Its going to be a huge challenge because the buildings are not designed with that in mind, many buildings are hundreds of years old making these sorts of renovations notoriously difficult and expensive, but it has to start because climate change is only going to get worse and worse.
So you are saying temperature has risen enough to warrant an AC now? Due to climate change? I thought climate change was on aggregate ~1C difference but my data is a decade old the last time i looked into it
Pretty easy to look this stuff up rather than depend on decade old memory. Temperature in Europe is rising much faster than the worldwide average. Here it says +2.3C by 2022 - that is significant.
Aicon is reasonable for areas where it's required, but "solving" things in areas where for millenia it wasnt required simply removes the pressure to act. This would be the opposite of what's required right now, which is decisive and heavy action on something we've been inactive on for way too long.
We don’t need to make that choice, since collectively people inflict these things on themselves anyway. It’ll be interesting to see whether it leads to any sensible action. The cynical narrator in me says “it won’t.”
Americans don’t get scolded enough for their abuse of AC. In terms of accounting for preventable waste of energy, US guzzles more electricity on cooling than most countries do on everything else.
AC is sorely lacking in the EU, e.g. right now I have one in my office but not in my bedroom and nights are horrible, but I do read a lot about people overdoing it quite a bit with AC, aiming at 18-20°C during 30s outside which is a huge energy expenditure when a healthy human should be perfectly fine at higher temperatures
And they had 101 people die of heat-related issues last month. [1] 3,832 Spaniards died in 2025 alone from heat. In 2022, 4,789 died, the all-time high.
The entire United States had 2,325 heat-related deaths in 2023, which is the all-time high.
Do the math (US pop 340M vs Spain 49M) and it gets really ugly.
"Extreme Heat" seems to be 37-40 degrees Celsius which is bafflingly mundane to me as an Australian who grew up in rural New South Wales. We'd pack 30 kids and a teacher into an un-airconditioned classroom with just a ceiling fan and the windows open in that temperature.
I imagine the buildings there just aren't built to support that heat plus the body height of hundreds or thousands of attendees?
People tend to rely on air temperatures when in reality the lethality of heat is probably more linked to the wet-bulb temperature.
The human body has a natural resting temperature of about 37°C, and metabolism of course generates more heat constantly, so we constantly have to shed that heat. When the temperature is low, we can rely purely on conducting the heat into the atmosphere to shed the heat (which is probably why internal body temperature is higher than the atmosphere!). At higher temperatures, conduction is less efficient, or sometimes even adds heat load into the system (at above 37°C, obviously), so we start relying on evaporative cooling (i.e., sweat) to cool us down.
The wet-bulb temperature is the minimum temperature that can be reached by evaporative cooling. So when the wet-bulb temperature is in the mid-30s °C… people start to become literally unable to regulate their core body temperature, and the heat is lethal. Wet-bulb is largely a combination of the temperature and humidity, but unfortunately, it's not typically reported in most weather reports, so people go off of the air temperature (and the humidity) that is reported.
Which is a long-winded way of saying "the humidity matters a lot for how much a given temperature is bearable." I don't know what environment you come from purely by rural New South Wales, but my first guess is the semi-arid and thus low-humidity bush regions of the state, which means the apparent wet-bulb temperature of 37-40°C would be a lot lower than the equivalent 37-40°C for most of the humid continental climates of Europe.
I think they have been spreading the paranoia for years as if something abnormal was happening... I am not sure, that first thing. Second: even if the weather keeps shifting (I would say more slightly than what they tell us or continuously "suggest" with headlines in the media), these temperatures are bearable by humans with a few cautions depending on the age group.
I used to go jogging midday in summer in Spain, near Valencia, in the seaside. Almost 40 degrees (sometimes I guess 40 or more).
It is hot, true, but if you can resist this kind of impact and you do not expose yourself to the sun in stupid ways (like many hours in a row) nothing bad is going to happen to you.
The headlines are all the time alarming people and sensationalist, even if the cancellation is there.
I've always assumed there is some sort of "acclimation" period, maybe even related to the conditions you grew up in. I much would rather spend a time outside in -40c (with proper outerwear) than 40c. I'm relatively healthy but I feel like my body shuts down at anything above 36c
That’s because you pay attention to your body and you’re not in denial. Above 37 degrees, your body cannot regulate itself, and it starts being seriously uncomfortable before that. Going outside for a run when it’s 40 is unbelievably stupid.
Same. There definitely seem to be strong genetic factors (just based on my personal experience TBF). I also notice I adapt substantially after two to three weeks of consistent exposure. But it does have to be consistent - hiding out with AC 24/7 prevents it.
Humidity makes a big difference in how stressful the temperature is (wet bulb temperature accounts for this somewhat). The age of the attendees and the tendency of the building to heat would also be factors.
Still doesn’t solve the cost factor. If you don’t have the money you don’t have the money. And if you barely have the money you’re probably going to take the risk because the risk is still very low.
No worries as they'd had their vegemite for brekkie providing all the salt they need to offset the constant sweat. None of this soft modern electrolyte bullshit, just beer dregs on toast.
Depends, In northern NSW, the heat it humid, in the south / west it's usually dry. It gets hot, like opening a oven door, but it's not a wet humid heat that kills you.
A lot of it is acclimatization. In Taipei this morning, at 9:30 it’s already 31C and 73% humidity, forecasted to hit 37C by noon. My first year living here this was unbearable, but now it’s tolerable. It’s just summer, not a spurious heat wave.
I had 40 Celsius today at around 9pm. Middle of the night now and it’s 34. It’s as cool as it’s going to get before it starts heating up again tomorrow. Where I live there are no laws on max temperature in residential housing so the owner (I’m renting) doesn’t have to do anything about it. Never mind the poorly insulated, black slate roof (I’m on the last floor) or lack of AC (I’d have to foot the bill anyway).
By comparison, the worst US state for heat related deaths, Nevada - a literal desert - has >10x fewer deaths per capita than Greece.
- "We don't need AC, It's only hot a few times during the year." - "Oh what a terrible heat, global warming is getting worse every year."
Pair to that the fact that in many places windows don't open all the way due to bureocratic regulations and many interior designs are very questionable in terms of air flow and you get some unpleasant scenarios.
You mean against human-induced global warming.
But are you really going to tell me that you me that tho evidence that temperatures are getting warmer is bunk? For starters check out the top diagram here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#
Would you argue against the physics of greenhouse gases? https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-pinpoint-the-quant...
Are you too young to have noticed climate changes over time in your life?
Edit: And the accumulation of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_atmosphe...
> the fact this is how hot it will be from now on
That sounds to me like an acknowledgement that, in fact, the climate has changed.
And it raises the heat outside of buildings. Not so good for people who have to be outside, think first responders etc.
"just turn on the AC and keep burning the world down" isn't really the answer.
No it doesn't. Seriously, where does this meme even come from? It should be pretty obvious just from a solar insolation map that AC is just noise vs the sun. The energy usage is tiny vs vehicles or non-heat pump heating and only electric. What changes temperature overall is the balance of thermal retention by the atmosphere vs radiation into space, hence why net increases in GHG are so dangerous. And at the ground level similarly how heat is dumped to atmosphere. Greenery, whites, shade etc is good, asphalt, mass standard glass is bad (hence many cities being heat islands). Old, leaky units sure, we absolutely should work to reduce that. But it's astonishing how people claim AC makes the outdoors hotter so consistently.
Yes, it does. It may be small temperature increase but AC use increases outside temperatures. It is just physics.
Here is a simple diagram: https://www.lozierheatingcooling.com/filesimages/heatPump.jp...
In reality equilibrium is restored quickly (and the thermal mass we're cooling/heating here is insignificant anyhow).
It would actually be a much better global warming mitigation strategy to install bidirectional heat pumps (A/C in the summer, heat in the winter) that runs on electricity (which is increasingly produced using renewables) and then get rid of fossil-fuel burning furnaces.
> provides diagram with zero evidence that AC meaningfully influences temperature
Clap, clap.
This is an outdated attitude. PV solar panel output correlates really well with air conditioning demand, no need for storage. Overcool your thick-walled masonry buildings during the day as a form of energy storage.
They don't create heat. It was there in the first place, just a different location.
Especially as air conditioning are heat pumps.
Would have helped solve the large dependency on natural gas heating for free as a byproduct!
NB: a friend in construction explained this to me so I could be wrong but it would explain why even pretty fancy new apartments with heat pumps have no cooling.
You'd think the government could subsidize aircon like they did solar for years, and both of those things combined would translate to very pleasant summers spent in energy neutral air conditioned homes.
This isn’t true. I’ve lived in 3 places in London with single glazing. They’re surprisingly common. All new properties come with it but the majority of our housing stock is old.
There’s also little comparison between air con and double glazing. One will be helpful for 4-6 months of the year and reduce my energy bills. The other will be necessary at most 1-2 weeks a year and will cost me thousands of pounds up front. Most people simply can’t afford that.
If most people can’t afford a heat pump, why do we entertain the idea of making them pay an order of magnitude more to better insulate their home, which doesn’t even work in the end?
You’ve been misinformed by European media. Please do your research, it’s all online.
On top of that, until a few months ago, government subsidies for heat pumps didn't apply to the versions that include air con so anyone who did get a heat pump didn't get that version.
>> why do we entertain the idea of making them pay an order of magnitude more to better insulate their home
We don't. There have been various schemes over the last couple of decades where people could have this done for free or at very low cost.
>> You’ve been misinformed by European media. Please do your research, it’s all online.
I suggest you do the same.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporative_cooler
[2] https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Evaporative+cooler
Edit: Turns out, sash windows are more commonly found in the UK (compared to other European countries), but still not as common as in the US. So, UK = not as hot (so far), thus still probably not worth it (yet) as a market.
But you should still be able to get two tubes fitted into any kind of window with the right seals. If you were really up for renovations you could get closeable exhaust holes punched through your brick or something maybe.
And yes, there are options for tubes/ducts for the more common window types. Like tilt-and-turn windows, horizontally sliding or all the other kinds of inward or outward opening windows - but most of them are the ducted portable units the original comment was speaking of, which aren't great. There are also some better portable split units, but those are pricier and the install is not as easy. (They're great though.)
The reason would most likely be low demand.
Best of the best is about 15-16 SEER
That's entry level central HVAC efficiency
Minisplits are far higher, 20+
That's completely false. They work just fine despite not being terribly efficient at least provided you install them correctly (but that caveat naturally applies to any window unit).
In fact despite the low efficiency using only one in a single room is likely far cheaper than cooling the entire house. It's the same principle as an electric space heater versus a whole home heat pump.
Of course running a minisplit only in the one room would be substantially better but for a 1 kW unit the difference is less than $1 per day (unless you're subject to the California electric grid I guess).
Heat as the primary factor, vs heat related deaths is significant.
Heat is a system stressor. There's plenty of people having heart attacks and dying from weight related issues that probably got pushed over the edge by a hot day in Nevada that are missed in official stats.
In France, the same exact situation would be reported as a heat casualty leading to heart attack.
Oh but what's the problem, just add more air conditioning! :facepalm:
Sure we would, since AC has nothing to do with it.
But climate change is bullshit, right?
By creating and artificial climate in all or our homes we are so disconnected from the world that we think technology will fix it.
Just wait fro the wildfires to blow up this week in the western US. AC will not help.
Well, not really ignoring it, more like making it worse while setting giant piles of bills on fire.
Its going to be a huge challenge because the buildings are not designed with that in mind, many buildings are hundreds of years old making these sorts of renovations notoriously difficult and expensive, but it has to start because climate change is only going to get worse and worse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Europe
Global warming intensifies differences in weather patterns. Hotter hots, colder colds, more intense storms, etc.
Our continent has more extreme weather than Europe... we've adapted accordingly because we value human lives. Have you?
The entire United States had 2,325 heat-related deaths in 2023, which is the all-time high.
Do the math (US pop 340M vs Spain 49M) and it gets really ugly.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/spain-records-h...
We do a lot of things wrong but AC isn’t one of them.
(Unless you’re in the PNW where they never needed it before recently, and somehow continue to build units without it)
I imagine the buildings there just aren't built to support that heat plus the body height of hundreds or thousands of attendees?
The human body has a natural resting temperature of about 37°C, and metabolism of course generates more heat constantly, so we constantly have to shed that heat. When the temperature is low, we can rely purely on conducting the heat into the atmosphere to shed the heat (which is probably why internal body temperature is higher than the atmosphere!). At higher temperatures, conduction is less efficient, or sometimes even adds heat load into the system (at above 37°C, obviously), so we start relying on evaporative cooling (i.e., sweat) to cool us down.
The wet-bulb temperature is the minimum temperature that can be reached by evaporative cooling. So when the wet-bulb temperature is in the mid-30s °C… people start to become literally unable to regulate their core body temperature, and the heat is lethal. Wet-bulb is largely a combination of the temperature and humidity, but unfortunately, it's not typically reported in most weather reports, so people go off of the air temperature (and the humidity) that is reported.
Which is a long-winded way of saying "the humidity matters a lot for how much a given temperature is bearable." I don't know what environment you come from purely by rural New South Wales, but my first guess is the semi-arid and thus low-humidity bush regions of the state, which means the apparent wet-bulb temperature of 37-40°C would be a lot lower than the equivalent 37-40°C for most of the humid continental climates of Europe.
I think they have been spreading the paranoia for years as if something abnormal was happening... I am not sure, that first thing. Second: even if the weather keeps shifting (I would say more slightly than what they tell us or continuously "suggest" with headlines in the media), these temperatures are bearable by humans with a few cautions depending on the age group.
I used to go jogging midday in summer in Spain, near Valencia, in the seaside. Almost 40 degrees (sometimes I guess 40 or more).
It is hot, true, but if you can resist this kind of impact and you do not expose yourself to the sun in stupid ways (like many hours in a row) nothing bad is going to happen to you.
The headlines are all the time alarming people and sensationalist, even if the cancellation is there.
I grew up in a humid city and summers were unbearable. Now I live in a dry climate and 30°C is pretty comfortable.
https://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/fulltext/S0168-9525(20)...
The humidity here it's hell. You feel 35C like ~42C in dry climates.
Last summer my house got to 39, and I didn't have AC (it was broken). I think I'm still recovering.
There’s something about 85F/30C and 80%+ humidity that prevents the temp from going much higher for a longer period of time.
Their climate resilience seems low.
> The event will finish with a fire side chat
Is this a prank?
It's corpo speak for "a more casual discussion"
Glauber's salt is a PCM phase-change material that melts at 90F / 32.4C and starts absorbing thermal energy.
>Venue: LSE Shaw Library, Houghton St, Old Building, London
https://halls.lse.ac.uk/story/25006031/deal-with-the-uk-weat...
> LSE halls (like most houses in the country) don't have air conditioning, it can be quite suffocating.
I blame LSE. Uni should provide safe and comfortable environment for students.
Maybe examine the reflex to dismiss out of hand without evidence?