

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Ashley Siefert Nunes at UCS
asiefert@ucsusa.org
202-331-5666
Increases in potentially lethal heat driven by climate change will affect every state in the contiguous U.S. in the decades ahead, according to a new report and accompanying peer-reviewed study in Environmental Research Communications, both by the Union of Concerned Scientists, released today. Few places would be unaffected by extreme heat conditions by midcentury and only a few mountainous regions would remain extreme heat refuges by the century's end.
Without global action to reduce heat-trapping emissions, the number of days per year when the heat index--or "feels like" temperature--exceeds 100 degrees Fahrenheit would more than double from historical levels to an average of 36 across the country by midcentury and increase four-fold to an average of 54 by late century. The average number of days per year nationwide with a heat index above 105 degrees Fahrenheit would more than quadruple to 24 by midcentury and increase eight-fold to 40 by late century.
"Our analysis shows a hotter future that's hard to imagine today," said Kristina Dahl, senior climate scientist at UCS and co-author of the report "Killer Heat in the United States: Climate Choices and the Future of Dangerously Hot Days." "Nearly everywhere, people will experience more days of dangerous heat even in the next few decades. By the end of the century, with no action to reduce global emissions, parts of Florida and Texas would experience the equivalent of at least five months per year on average when the 'feels like' temperature exceeds 100 degrees Fahrenheit, with most of these days even surpassing 105 degrees. On some days, conditions would be so extreme that they exceed the upper limit of the National Weather Service heat-index scale and a heat index would be incalculable. Such conditions could pose unprecedented health risks."
In the U.S., these "off-the-charts" days now occur only in the Sonoran Desert--located on the border of southern California and Arizona--where historically fewer than 2,000 residents have been exposed to the equivalent of a week or more of these conditions per year on average. By midcentury, these "off-the-charts" conditions would extend to other parts of the country, and areas currently home to more than 6 million people would be subjected to them for the equivalent of a week or more per year on average. By late century this would increase to areas where more than 118 million people--over one-third of the U.S. population--live.
"We have little to no experience with 'off-the-charts' heat in the U.S.," said Erika Spanger-Siegfried, lead climate analyst at UCS and report co-author. "These conditions occur at or above a heat index of 127 degrees, depending on temperature and humidity. Exposure to conditions in that range makes it difficult for human bodies to cool themselves and could be deadly."
Overall, the study showed that the Southeast and Southern Great Plains would bear the brunt of the extreme heat. With no action to reduce emissions, areas of states in these regions would experience the equivalent of three months per year on average by midcentury that feel hotter than 105 degrees Fahrenheit, possibly as hot as 115 degrees, 125 degrees, or worse. In this time frame, parts of those regions and the Midwest would experience "off-the-charts" heat days for the first time. By late century, communities in each state in the contiguous U.S. would experience days with a heat index exceeding 105 degrees Fahrenheit, with nearly one-third of the population enduring the equivalent of two months of such heat. Similarly, "off-the-charts" heat days would spread to communities in 47 states.
In addition, the analysis found that by midcentury with no reduction in global emissions:
According to the analysis, by late century with no reduction in global emissions:
The analysis calculated the frequency of days with heat index thresholds above 90 degrees Fahrenheit--the point at which outdoor workers generally become susceptible to heat-related illness--as well as above 100 and 105 degrees Fahrenheit, when the National Weather Service (NWS) generally recommends issuing heat advisories and excessive heat warnings, respectively. The number of high heat-index days was calculated by averaging projections from 18 high-resolution climate models between April and October. The report looked at these conditions for three possible futures. The "no action scenario" assumes carbon emissions continue to rise and the global average temperature increases nearly 4.3 degrees Celsius (about 8 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by century's end. The "slow action scenario" assumes carbon emissions start declining at midcentury and the global average temperature rises 2.4 degrees Celsius (4.3 degrees Fahrenheit) by century's end. In the "rapid action scenario," global average warming is limited to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)--in line with the Paris Agreement. All population data presented here, including for future projections, is based on the most recent U.S. Census conducted in 2010 and does not account for population growth or changes in distribution.
"The rise in days with extreme heat will change life as we know it nationwide, but with significant regional differences," said Rachel Licker, senior climate scientist at UCS and report co-author. "For example, in some regions currently unaccustomed to extreme heat--those such as the upper Midwest, Northeast and Northwest--the ability of people and infrastructure to cope with it is woefully inadequate. At the same time, people in states already experiencing extreme heat--including in the Southeast, Southern Great Plains and Southwest--have not seen heat like this. By late century, they may have to significantly alter ways of life to deal with the equivalent of up to five months a year with a heat index above--often way above--105 degrees. We don't know what people would be able and willing to endure, but such heat could certainly drive large-scale relocation of residents toward cooler regions."
The report notes that the rising heat could particularly affect outdoor workers and thus sectors depending on their labor.
"By the end of the century, on most days between April and October, construction workers in parts of Florida won't be able to safely work outside during the day because the heat index would exceed 100 degrees," said Dahl. "Likewise, agricultural centers such as Illinois and California's Central Valley could struggle to keep farm workers safe, with the heat index exceeding 90 degrees and 100 degrees, respectively, for the equivalent of about three months a year. If farm workers are unable to work as a result of extreme heat, this could affect the productivity of farming enterprises."
People exposed to the same heat event can have different levels of heat-related health risk, with children, elderly adults, people with special needs, and outdoor workers having higher risks of heat-related illness and death. City-dwellers contend with the urban heat island effect--a phenomenonwhere where heat-retaining materials and surfaces drive up temperatures, particularly at night--which can increase rates of heat-related illness. Meanwhile, residents of some rural areas may face higher risk of heat-related hospitalization and death given their distance from cooling centers and medical facilities.
"Low-income communities, communities of color and other vulnerable populations may be particularly at risk when exposed to extreme heat," said Juan Declet-Barreto, climate scientist at UCS and report co-author. "Longstanding social and economic inequities have led to these communities often having more limited access to transportation, cooling centers, and health care, and they may lack air conditioning, or the financial resources to run it."
The report clearly shows how actions taken, or not taken, within the next few years to reduce emissions will help determine how hot and humid our future becomes. The longer the U.S. and other countries wait to drastically reduce emissions, the less feasible it will be to realize the "rapid action scenario" analyzed.
"The best ways to avoid the worst impacts of an overheated future are to enact policies that rapidly reduce global warming emissions and to help communities prepare for the extreme heat that is already inevitable," said Astrid Caldas, senior climate scientist at UCS and report co-author. "Extreme heat is one of the climate change impacts most responsive to emissions reductions, making it possible to limit how extreme our hotter future becomes for today's children."
Governors and state legislators have begun moving toward 100 percent clean energy and Congress is considering a range of energy and climate policies--including renewable energy standards, climate resilient infrastructure and innovation incentives, which may see bipartisan support--that could help keep the worst at bay.
"To ensure a safe future, elected officials urgently need to transform our existing climate and energy policies," said Rachel Cleetus, lead economist and policy director at UCS and report co-author. "Economists have advised putting a price on carbon emissions to properly account for damages from the fossil-fuel-based economy and signal intentions to protect the environment."
The report includes a range of preparedness recommendations for governments, including: investing in heat-resilient infrastructure; creating heat adaptation and emergency response plans; expanding funding for programs to provide cooling assistance to low- and fixed-income households; directing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to set up protective occupational standards for workers during extreme heat; requiring utilities to keep power on for residents during extreme heat events; and investing in research, data tools and public communication to better predict extreme heat and keep people safe.
To view the report PDF, click here.
Spreadsheets with our data on extreme heat are available and can be sorted by city, by county, by state, by region and by population.
To get the results for your city or county by using our interactive widget, click here.
To use the interactive mapping tool, click here. The map allows you to learn more about extreme heat in specific counties. When you zoom in, the maps become more detailed.
For all other materials, including regional press releases, our methodology document and Spanish-language materials, click here.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
"Asking the handful of wealthiest Californians to contribute less than the annual appreciation on their fortunes to mitigate these crises is a small, reasonable, and administrable request," argued a group of experts.
Billionaire outrage against a proposed one-time wealth tax on the richest Californians reached a fever pitch in recent days as organizers began the process of gathering the hundreds of thousands of signatures needed to get the initiative on the November ballot.
Without providing specifics, billionaire Bay Area investor Chamath Palihapitiya claimed in a social media post that he knows people "with a collective net worth of $500 billion" who "scrambled and left California for good yesterday" to avoid the potential 5% wealth tax, which would apply to billionaires living in California as of January 1, 2026. (The evidence for significant billionaire tax avoidance via physical relocation is virtually nonexistent.)
Palihapitiya characterized the proposed ballot initiative, which is aimed at raising revenue to avert a healthcare crisis spurred by federal Medicaid cuts, as an "asset seizure tax."
Bill Ackman, a billionaire hedge fund manager who lives in New York, similarly described the proposed tax as "an expropriation of private property."
The Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post, meanwhile, published a hostile editorial on Thursday denouncing the proposed tax and mocking its supporters, including Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW).
"Many progressives think of taxation the way teenage boys think about cologne: If some is good, more must be great," the editorial reads. "California, already reeks of overtaxation, but it’s thinking about trying out its most potent scent yet: a wealth tax. Just a whiff has some of the state’s wealthiest residents fleeing."
The Wall Street Journal reported that "the firms of two high-profile California investors issued announcements on New Year’s Eve about establishing new offices out of state, without saying anything about the proposed Golden State tax."
"Tech investor Peter Thiel’s investment firm, Thiel Capital, said it signed a lease in December for office space in Miami," the newspaper added. "The office will 'complement Thiel Capital’s existing operations in Los Angeles,' the company said."
Supporters say the response from billionaires and other opponents of the proposed tax—including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is helping raise money to fight the initiative—badly misses the mark. According to organizers, most billionaires see larger capital gains increases in months than the amount they would pay if California voters approved the tax.
“Asking those who have benefited most from the economy to contribute more—particularly to stabilize healthcare systems under direct threat—is not radical. It is reasonable,” Suzanne Jimenez, the chief of staff of SEIU-UHW, told the Journal.
Earlier this week, as Common Dreams reported, US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) endorsed the proposed wealth tax, which proponents say would raise roughly $100 billion in revenue from around 200 California billionaires. Under the proposal, most of the resulting revenue would be allocated to a Billionaire Tax Health Account, while the rest would go toward an account to fund food assistance and education.
A new expert analysis of the proposal, authored by some of those involved in drafting the initiative, argues that the one-time tax is urgent because "decisions at the federal level have put—and will put—California's healthcare system, education system, and broader economy under severe stress."
"Asking the handful of wealthiest Californians to contribute less than the annual appreciation on their fortunes to mitigate these crises is a small, reasonable, and administrable request," the experts write. "And that is all that this ballot measure does."
Journalists called out missing details from the latest disclosures, with one outlet saying that "US authorities no longer bother to specify where they're conducting the extrajudicial murders."
President Donald Trump's administration ended 2025 by driving up the death toll from its boat-bombing spree aimed at alleged drug smugglers, announcing US strikes on five more vessels that brought the total number of people killed to at least 115.
Legal experts and some members of Congress have condemned the dozens of deadly strikes in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean since September 2 as "war crimes, murder, or both," but that hasn't stopped the administration from dropping more bombs.
US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) said on social media Wednesday afternoon that the previous day, at the direction of US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, "Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted kinetic strikes against three narco-trafficking vessels traveling as a convoy," which killed three people on the first boat.
"The remaining narco-terrorists abandoned the other two vessels, jumping overboard and distancing themselves before follow-on engagements sank their respective vessels," added SOUTHCOM, which notified the US Coast Guard "to activate the search and rescue system."
The Trump administration has faced particular criticism for its first boat attack, in which the US military killed a pair of survivors of an initial strike who were clinging to debris. Since then, two other survivors have been captured by the United States and returned to their home countries, Colombia and Ecuador. In another case, Mexican authorities searched for but never found a survivor.
The Washington Post's Dan Lamothe on Wednesday called out the "woeful gaps in disclosure in this new statement," noting: "1) No details about where this occurred—not even a body of water. 2) It says a search and rescue effort was initiated, but includes no details about what has happened in the roughly 24 hours since. 3) How many survivors?"
Reuters correspondent Idrees Ali reported: "A US official tells me that eight people abandoned ship and are now being searched for. The Coast Guard says it is working with vessels in the area and a Coast Guard C-130 aircraft has been deployed to the Pacific to help in the search."
Just hours after its first statement, SOUTHCOM said the task force "conducted a lethal kinetic strike" on two more boats Wednesday, killing "three in the first vessel and two in the second."
As with the earlier post, there was a video but SOUTHCOM declined to disclose the location. Venezuelanalysis responded on social media, "US authorities no longer bother to specify where they're conducting the extrajudicial murders."
Although the US Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to declare war, the Trump administration has argued that the strikes are justified because the United States is in an "armed conflict" with drug cartels, which the president has designated as terrorist organizations.
Despite lawmakers in both major parties rejecting that argument, both Republican-controlled chambers of Congress have so far failed to advance various war powers resolutions aimed at ending the boat bombings and reining in Trump's march toward war with Venezuela—which he also attacked in December, according to Monday reporting.
After SOUTHCOM on Monday announced a Sunday boat strike that killed two people in the Pacific, Amnesty International USA declared on social media: "Once again, this is murder, plain and simple. Tell Congress to put a stop to it."
"For too long in our city, freedom has belonged only to those who can afford to buy it," said the new mayor. "Our City Hall will change that."
"Tax the rich. Tax the rich. Tax the rich."
The chants broke out at City Hall in New York on Thursday as US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) addressed the crowd before swearing in Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist who campaigned on a platform that prioritized NYC's working class.
"Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations start paying their fair share of taxes is not radical. It is exactly the right thing to do," declared Sanders—who endorsed Mamdani even before his June primary victory over former Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and "the billionaire-backed status quo."
The 34-year-old mayor on Thursday described Brooklyn-born Sanders—50 years his senior—as "the man whose leadership I seek most to emulate, who I am so grateful to be sworn in by today."
During the afternoon inauguration ceremony—which followed an early morning swearing-in at the abandoned subway station beneath City Hall—Mamdani also called for taxing the rich as he reiterated the agenda that secured him over 1.1 million votes in November.
"Beginning today, we will govern expansively and audaciously. We may not always succeed, but never will we be accused of lacking the courage to try," he said. "To those who insist that the era of big government is over, hear me when I say this: No longer will City Hall hesitate to use its power to improve New Yorkers' lives."
"Here, where the language of the New Deal was born, we will return the vast resources of this city to the workers who call it home," Mamdani vowed. "Not only will we make it possible for every New Yorker to afford a life they love once again, we will overcome the isolation that too many feel, and connect the people of this city to one another."
The mayor said that "the cost of childcare will no longer discourage young adults from starting a family, because we will deliver universal childcare for the many by taxing the wealthiest few. Those in rent-stabilized homes will no longer dread the latest rent hike, because we will freeze the rent."
"Getting on a bus without worrying about a fare hike or whether you'll be late to your destination will no longer be deemed a small miracle, because we will make buses fast and free," he continued. "These policies are not simply about the costs we make free, but the lives we fill with freedom. For too long in our city, freedom has belonged only to those who can afford to buy it. Our City Hall will change that."
The ceremony also featured remarks from another early Mamdani supporter, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), as well as the swearing-in of Jumaane Williams for a third term as New York City's public advocate and Mark Levine, the new comptroller.
"New York, we have chosen courage over fear," said Ocasio-Cortez, whose district spans the Bronx and Queens. "We have chosen prosperity for the many over spoils for the few. And when the entrenched ways would rather have us dig in our feet and seek refuge in the past, we have chosen instead to turn towards making a new future for all of us."
AOC: New York City has chosen the ambitious pursuit of universal childcare, affordable rents and housing and clean and dignified public transit for all. We have chosen that over the distractions of bigotry and the barbarism of extreme income inequality
[image or embed]
— Acyn (@acyn.bsky.social) January 1, 2026 at 1:47 PM
As NYC kicked off the new year with progressive city leadership, 2025 findings from the Bloomberg Billionaire Index sparked fresh wealth tax demands. According to the tracker, the world's 500 richest people added a record $2.2 trillion to their collective fortunes last year. About a quarter of that went to just eight Big Tech billionaires: Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, Jensen Huang, Elon Musk, Larry Page, and Mark Zuckerberg.
In New York, Mamdani has proposed raising the state corporate tax rate from 8.85% to 11.5% and hiking taxes for individuals who make more than $1 million a year. Achieving those goals would require cooperation from state legislators.
Mamdani acknowledged Thursday that for much of history, the response from City Hall to the question of who New York belongs to has been, "It belongs only to the wealthy and well-connected, those who never strain to capture the attention of those in power."
In the years ahead, he pledged, "City Hall will deliver an agenda of safety, affordability, and abundance, where government looks and lives like the people it represents, never flinches in the fight against corporate greed, and refuses to cower before challenges that others have deemed too complicated."
"Together, we will tell a new story of our city," the mayor said. "This will not be a tale of one city, governed only by the 1%. Nor will it be a tale of two cities, the rich versus the poor. It will be a tale of 8.5 million cities, each of them a New Yorker with hopes and fears, each a universe, each of them woven together."