Thierry Albert, a 69-year-old French retiree, says he receives a pension of 2,700 euros a month, but chose to live practically without heating, with a thermometer close to 10 degrees and “eight layers” of clothing, as he believes this reduces his impact on the climate.
The case was publicized in France and taken up in Spain by the Spanish portal Huffpost, which describes an option of “energy sobriety” taken to the limit, in a winter in which the debate on consumption and energy is gaining strength again.
Thierry lives in La Ferté-Saint-Aubin, in the Loiret department, and admits that he avoids receiving visitors at home because he fears criticism due to the cold. According to the pensioner: “I don’t invite anyone to the house because they would tell me to turn up the heating.”
A radical (and assumed) choice since 2019
According to the report, the decision took shape in 2019, when Thierry chose to reduce heating to a minimum, not for lack of money, but for environmental conviction, summed up in one sentence: “I try not to worsen climate problems; that is my only motivation.”
In everyday life, the strategy starts with the body: “eight layers” of clothing, wool socks and additional reinforcements when the temperature drops, in a routine where the coat does not come off.
The house itself was “shrunken” in winter, with improvised insulation and use concentrated in the lowest area, to reduce heat loss in a property described as energy-poor.
Less than 1,000 kWh per year and discomfort as the “rule”
The goal, according to the article, is to reduce annual electricity consumption to less than 1,000 kWh, a value presented as much lower than usual, and which Thierry interprets as consistent with his idea of “sobriety”.
The report also includes choices with a direct impact on comfort, such as limiting the use of hot water and adapting routines to “withstand” the cold, keeping the house at a level that, at times, is around 10 degrees.
Thierry makes a point of highlighting that, in his case, the cold is not imposed: “I don’t suffer the cold like those who have no other option. They don’t impose it on me.” distinguishing their decision from energy poverty.
When the cold is not a choice: 41% say they were cold in France
The contrast with social reality is inevitable. In France, the Housing Foundation (Fondation pour le Logement) released data from an Ipsos survey at the end of 2025, according to which 41% of people said they had been cold at home at least once in the last two years, in a context of worsening precariousness.
That’s why the case arouses such different reactions: for some, it’s environmental discipline; for others, a symbolic gesture that can be read as distant from the reality of those who do not have the financial margin to heat their home.
Even those who value reducing emissions tend to draw a red line: to what extent individual responsibility must go beyond levels of discomfort that can have an impact on health, especially at older ages.
In Spain, millions do not heat their homes in winter due to lack of money
In Spain, and according to , the scale of the problem due to necessity is quantified in a recent technical report by the Pontifical University Comillas: 17.56% of the population declared in 2024 to not have the economic capacity to maintain adequate thermal comfort in winter (around 8.6 million people).
The same report indicates that late payment of energy bills affected 9.7% of homes in 2024, close to one in ten households, a sign of persistent vulnerability despite the drop in prices compared to previous years.
There are also relevant indicators of “hidden energy poverty”: the report estimates that around 27,10% of households may be in this situation (consumption below what is necessary due to economic incapacity), showing that the problem is not always visible in the monthly accounts.
What this case changes in the debate (and what doesn’t)
Thierry Albert’s story does not prove a model to follow, nor does it solve the structural problem of those who are cold due to lack of money, but it works as a mirror: it forces us to distinguish between voluntary sobriety and energy precariousness.
Basically, the case opens up two conversations at the same time: that of conscious consumption (isolation, efficiency, habits) and that of public policies that protect those who have no alternative, in a winter in which millions continue to be unable to heat their homes.
Also read:
