

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.
“Trump is getting Americans coming and going. He’s forcing higher power bills on them by blocking clean energy, then he’s fattening the wallets of his cronies," said former Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee.
President Donald Trump's obsession with canceling clean energy projects is bad not just for the climate, but for the US economy as a whole.
An analysis released Thursday by nonprofit green energy advocate E2 and conducted by consulting firm BW Research estimates that clean energy projects that have been shut down or downsized during Trump's second term would have added $55 billion to the annual gross domestic product (GDP).
The analysis finds that, in addition to delivering a hit to GDP, scrapping the projects lead to 470,000 fewer jobs, including 42,000 construction jobs related to battery storage, 33,000 construction jobs related to solar projects, and 28,000 construction jobs related to electric vehicle projects.
The cancelations will also hit governments' coffers, as they are projected to deliver a $12 billion annual reduction in tax revenues.
The report points to two big components in Trump White House's attack on clean energy: the Republican Party's 2025 budget law, which rolled back tax credits for clean energy programs, and the administration's own policies, including payoffs to companies to halt project development and a permitting ban on new solar and wind projects.
Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, said the numbers outlined in the analysis show that "making it harder to build clean energy projects means lost jobs, lost investments, lost electricity supplies, and lost local tax revenues."
"Add it all up and it’s clear," Keefe added, "that federal actions to stop clean energy are costing all of us—consumers, businesses and our national economy—big time."
Michael Timberlake, director of research and publications at E2, commented that Trump's policies are "hitting exactly the kinds of projects America needs most: domestic manufacturing, battery storage, solar, wind, and electric vehicles."
“The losses go far beyond the direct jobs announced by companies," Timberlake said. "Every cancelled factory or power project means fewer construction workers on site, fewer suppliers filling orders, fewer dollars flowing through local economies, and fewer tax revenues for schools, fire departments, roads, and public services."
A Friday report in The Guardian similarly highlighted the economic damage being done by Trump's war on clean energy, with a particular focus on the Trump administration's unprecedented policy of paying energy companies to relinquish leases for offshore wind projects they had already purchased.
Jenny Rowland-Shea, senior director for conservation policy at the Center for American Progress, told The Guardian that the administration is "trying to snuff out an entire form of energy," which she said was a particularly irrational thing to do when Americans' utility bills are spiking.
"It’s at a time when the United States needs more energy," said Rowland-Shea. "As people’s rates are going up for electricity, as we see data centers gobbling up more energy."
Former Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, whose 2020 presidential campaign focused heavily on combating the climate crisis, accused Trump and his administration of "mugging" the American public by forcing them to needlessly pay more for energy.
“Trump is getting Americans coming and going,” said Inslee. “He’s forcing higher power bills on them by blocking clean energy, then he’s fattening the wallets of his cronies—all with billions of our tax dollars.”
"Every dollar withdrawn from women's organizations is a dollar withdrawn from survivors of conflict-related sexual violence, displaced mothers, girls forced from school, and communities struggling to survive."
At least 1 million women and girls in conflict and disaster zones around the world have lost access to humanitarian aid as a result of massive funding cuts by the US under the Trump administration and other developed nations.
A report out on Friday from the United Nations Women's Program surveyed over 800 women's organizations across 52 countries, which provide emergency supplies, shelter to women fleeing violence, financial assistance to those in need, healthcare, mental health services, childcare, and treatment for sexual violence, among other support.
Sofia Calltorp, chief of humanitarian action for UN Women, described these organizations as "the muscle and lifeblood of the humanitarian response" in some of the world's most vulnerable war zones and disaster areas, including Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and Yemen.
But according to the report, since January 2025, 90% of these groups say they cannot meet current needs, and 60% say they are reaching fewer women and girls than before.
Three-quarters of the groups say that as a result of the cuts they have been forced to reduce staff, and four in ten expect to close in the next 12 months.
At the beginning of his second term, President Donald Trump conducted a sweeping and abrupt purge of US humanitarian aid, which fell from $14.1 billion in 2024 to just $3.4 billion in 2025.
Immediately after taking office, he froze all foreign assistance. And under the leadership of the world's first trillionaire, Elon Musk, and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), his administration suddenly canceled most funding from the US Agency for International Development (USAID), cutting development assistance by more than $40 billion, including over $10 billion in humanitarian assistance.
The US had previously provided 40% of all global humanitarian aid, and its stripping of funds was by far the most devastating. It was made worse when other nations, including France, Germany, and the UK, also cut billions as part of what is predicted to be a collective 28% reduction in aid from Group of 7 nations by the end of 2026, according to the Women's Refugee Commission.
As a report from Refugees International found, the Trump administration's cuts were especially targeted at programs that served women and girls around the world. They canceled 88% of maternal and child health funding, 94% of sexual and reproductive health funding, and 80% of gender-based violence prevention funding.
"Every dollar withdrawn from women's organizations is a dollar withdrawn from survivors of conflict-related sexual violence, displaced mothers, girls forced from school, and communities struggling to survive," Calltorp said.
The effects on the women who benefit from these programs have been swift and brutal, especially as global conflicts become more widespread and deadly.
While cases of conflict-related sexual violence doubled in 2025, nearly two-thirds of the women's groups surveyed said that the number of safe spaces and gender-based violence services has been significantly reduced or completely eliminated in their communities.
"Behind these numbers are devastating consequences," the UN said in a statement. "A woman seeking refuge from violence might show up at the door of a shelter that has shut down; a pregnant woman may have to walk for hours to reach a health clinic; or a mother may be denied food for her children."
“If I had funding, I would have supported her… helped her heal and rebuild her life."
The report contains testimony from leaders of some of the organizations bearing the burden of the cuts. To protect them from harm, the report did not include their names or the organizations they worked for.
A representative from one women-led organization in Sudan told UN Women that the cuts have forced them to scale back their services and resources.
As a result, one 17-year-old survivor of sexual violence went untreated for four days. She became pregnant before later attempting suicide and died after six months.
“If I had funding, I would have supported her… helped her heal and rebuild her life," said a representative from the organization.
Nine out of 10 organizations said they'd seen increases in poverty among women they serve, 8 in 10 have seen increases in girls dropping out of school, and 7 in 10 have seen an increase in forced marriage.
“Due to a lack of outreach workers in one neighborhood, within a few months we observed a sharp rise in adolescent pregnancies," said the representative of one organization in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Another group in the DRC said that they were forced to put more than 1,500 women-led households on waiting lists for aid.
"The most affected groups are single mothers and their children, for whom postponing support has worsened food insecurity and malnutrition," the group said.
"The cuts to women’s organizations are happening at the same time we are seeing women’s rights being eroded—and these two things are so deeply connected," Calltorp said.
Nearly two-thirds of the organizations also said that their staff was working without pay so they could continue providing support to the women and girls who needed them despite the cuts.
"These sacrifices are a testament to their commitment, but the expectation cannot be that women absorb these costs," Calltorp said.
She called for "immediate action from donors and the humanitarian community to prioritize funding for women’s organizations," adding, "We will not and cannot allow them to become another casualty of war."
"Andy Burnham knows that war crimes are being committed in Gaza, but has he got the courage to do anything about it?" asked the Greens' deputy leader.
Labour MP Andy Burnham, who is on track to become Britain's next prime minister following Keir Starmer's resignation last month, apologized Thursday for his party's initial response to Israel's genocidal war on Gaza—but critics said his circumspect atonement fell short of the mark.
"Let me start by saying the unbearable suffering in Gaza is a scar on our collective conscience," Burnham, the erstwhile Manchester mayor who won last month's Makerfield by-election, said in a three-minute video. "It's completely unacceptable that innocent Palestinians, including children, continue to be killed, that there's still a humanitarian crisis with too little aid getting in, and that the Israeli military continues to expand the area it controls in Gaza."
"We've got to do more to put pressure on the Israeli government," he asserted. "The response has too often not been good enough. We need to do better. Yes, we have taken some important steps. These include recognizing the Palestinian state, placing sanctions on Israeli ministers, and imposing waves of sanctions on violent settlers and the organizations that support them."
"But let's be honest, the UK was too slow to call for a ceasefire, and we must now do more to strengthen our approach," Burnham continued. "Israel continues to violate the ceasefire agreement, killing innocent Palestinians. We're seeing a surge in settler violence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the continued expansion of illegal settlements, displacing Palestinian communities."
The lawmaker accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's far-right government of "clearly attempting to make a two-state solution impossible."
"That's why we need to do more, which includes looking at further sanctions, both on those involved in the violence in Gaza, but also looking at measures to ban trading goods with illegal settlements," he said.
"There's increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed," Burnham added. "There must be accountability for the depth of the suffering the people of Gaza have experienced. Ultimately, however, it must be for the international courts to determine, rather than politicians."
The International Criminal Court has already issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defense minister, for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, where more than 250,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded, most of them civilians, since the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023. The International Court of Justice is currently weighing a genocide case against Israel filed by South Africa and formally supported by nearly 20 nations.
While some Zionist UK MPs denounced Burnham's comments as anti-Israel, Burnham's pledge of a "fair and balanced approach" to Israel and Palestine, his placing of the onus on courts and not elected officials, and the fact that he did not say the word "genocide" in his apology drew criticism from Palestine defenders.
"Gaza has now endured more than 1,000 days of genocide," Green Party Leader Zack Polanski said in response to the video. "Andy Burnham must answer: As prime minister, will he end Britain's participation in genocide or continue it?"
Deputy Green Leader Mothin Ali told The Guardian that Burnham is hiding behind international courts “because admitting that the British government knows war crimes are being committed would trigger a legal duty to immediately halt arms sales."
Andy Burnham knows that war crimes are being committed in Gaza, but has he got the courage to do anything about it?Britain must halt arms sales to Israel immediately
[image or embed]
— Mothin Ali (@mothinali.bsky.social) July 9, 2026 at 2:58 PM
Adnan Hmidan, chair of the Palestinian Forum in Britain, said that Burnham's "recognition that far stronger action is needed to confront the grave violations committed against the Palestinian people" is an important step.
"But the scale of devastation, killing, starvation, and forced displacement inflicted upon Gaza demands far more than acknowledgement," he continued. "It requires courageous political action."
"As an increasing number of legal experts and international human rights organizations have concluded, we hope more British political leaders will recognize that the atrocities committed in Gaza constitute genocide under international law, and will support the measures necessary to ensure accountability, end impunity, and uphold international law without exception or double standards," Hmidan added.
British political commentator Saul Staniforth said on social media that "it was clear from the very start that what Israel was doing in Gaza was genocide... and yet over two-and-a-half years later, Burnham still refuses to call it genocide. Why? Because if he did, he'd have to take action as PM."
"Burnham only made his statement yesterday on Gaza because of pressure, and meaningful action by a government led by him will only happen because of pressure," Staniforth added.
Queen Mary University of London politics professor Tim Bale told Al Jazeera that Burnham is “trying to repair damage, but his remarks are probably more symbolic than substantive."
Noting that Labour has “only just recovered from the accusations of antisemitism that were swirling around it during the [Jeremy] Corbyn era," Bale asserted that “the UK is already at the edge of what it’s likely to do and say on Israel.”
“It also has to worry about maintaining relations with a profoundly pro-Israel US administration,” the professor added.