OK, so I happen to agree with you that the PP should do what she needs. But who appointed you the comfort police? Heavily pregnant women - can they use aircon: yes or no? The very elderly? People with sensory issues? The very fat? For what categories of people is their comfort more important than the absolute urgency of climate change?
You'd better draw up a list for us all to follow.
The sort of panic that your post (and many, many others on this thread) contains is, frankly, moronic. If it's too late there's fuck all point in hand wringing and bemoaning the decisions one's children will have to make (I mean, you actually had children? Talk about being part of the problem ...) Also, you're making this thread in the middle of a heatwave rather suggests that you are less concerned when it isn't directly affecting you. The sensible approach is to devote resources to future-proofing ourselves for the changes and to push for regulatory and other changes to support living with the anticipated conditions (e.g., I have lived in two new build properties. There need to be changes so that there is sufficient ventilation/cooling/heat dispersal required, just for a starter).
But there is a further point, that you can never make without being accused of being a climate change denier. So before making this point I want to say I absolutely know climate change exists, I absolutely know that some/much/all of that is human induced. The point: this area of science has been so badly politicised that it no longer amounts to science. For example, the NEB film linked above might contain many true facts, it might contain science but it is being driven by activism. Activism is not objective, and so I completely distrust any presentation of scientific information made in the name of such. When scientists become activists, they become dangerous scientists. As a scientist you cannot want or believe in a particular outcome. It is fatal. Of course, the other side are roughly twice as bad, so how do we get reliable information? I am capable (having previously been a scientist) of understanding the source material and papers, but I also severely distrust them because of the politicisation of this (and other areas too); what is not always apparent is whether it is "good" science.
The NEB film is designed to be like a "wartime" briefing, to induce urgency. But that completely misrepresents the position. It suggests that there is an urgency. If it is too late - as above - there is no urgency. Running round like headless chickens will just mean we're running around when it kills us all. If it's not, or if we can mitigate the changes by changing how we live (either reducing our impact on the climate so it "swings back" - if that's possible, I don't know - or adapting so that we can live with those conditions), then to suggest that we need to panic is also stupid. This isn't a war. We can't change it in a matter of years. We can't change it without global agreement on what that looks like. It is turning the proverbial super-tanker. So it's just as pointless to suggest it is urgent; nothing can be done "urgently". We have apparently already passed three "tipping points": increase in sea temperatures of 1.5*C - which means coral reefs will continue to bleach and die; irreversible destabilisation of polar ice sheets and abrupt permafrost thaw. This is anticipated to result in significant increase in sea levels. But if scientists are right about the effects of these things (which they may not be - they are predicting, but they probably are) the urgency is not to stop or reverse global warming (apparently possible, but on a timescale of many, many, many, many human lifetimes), not to stop people flying over Europe, but to prepare for the changes in living conditions, while seeking carbon reduction/removal on a long-term and huge scale.
Posts like this, and frankly the NEB video, are completely pointless. It's shit, but destroying science by politicising it, running round like headless chickens panicking when we feel uncomfortable in the heat is a completely irrational response. Lobby government for a (better) plan to deal with the effects of "locked in" climate change in the short to mid term and to finance the best scientists they can lay their hands on (you know, the ones who want to get it right more than they want to use it to support their perspective or political views) to look at carbon removal and other methods of restoring some balance, taking into account that hysteresis may mean we never get back to where we were.