It’s much easier to heat something than to cool it. You can build a fire without any technology at all, but you can’t do anything about unsurvivable heat without a working power grid.
Sure, it takes no technology to start a fire in an emergency, but that can't be done at a mass scale for non-emergency habitability without making the problem worse in the long run. AC can run from the very same energy that's heating up a dwelling, and power grids will need to be adjusted to incorporate more clean power sources.
...only in low humidity. Also, PV solar efficiency drops quite a bit as the temperature goes up. Carnot efficiency also drops noticeably as your cold sink, the ambient environment around you, heats up.
Are you going to provide AC to all the livestock and crops as well? Because they're kind of important in the long run too.
Temperature control for livestock applies to cold climates too, so kind of a moot point to mention one and not the other.
Running AC in hot areas does not necessitate making climate change worse. Heat pumps are very efficient in cold climates too, but it doesn't change the fact that much more energy is required due to the temperature deltas being dealt with.
- The simplest is just having thermal mass to average day and night temperature. As long as the night is cold enough you can just stay in a brick or clay building with thick walls, preferably painted white.
- If you want to get a bit more advanced, you can use evaporative cooling, like Persian Yakhchāls [1].
- If you go high-tech, certain paints can cool surfaces down by a couple degrees (by radiating heat at frequencies that don't get absorbed by the atmosphere, thus breaking the equilibrium between heat absorption and heat emission).
Of course there is a point where those fail. Evaporative cooling is dependent on a low wet-bulb temperature and fails quickly in humid climate. Thermal mass needs temperature differences. Paints only buy you a couple degrees. In contrast an AC can be scaled to much higher temperatures.
It wouldn't take much humidity to turn those temperatures into wet-bulb of 100+ - fatal to humans. Expanding the area of this level of heat a couple of hundred miles in any direction would probably be enough.
I'm not sure who we is, and it wasn't clear anyone was talking about wet bulb temperatures. It's a comment on an article about Death Valley. At this point, you're just responding with things completely unrelated(behind paywalls).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_cooling?wprov=sfla1
Where it gets really problematic is places that used to have a moderate climate (vs always having been hot) so the people and structures have no adaptations for the sudden extreme heat.