

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.
“This historic strike built an unbreakable solidarity across our city, among families, students, educators, and community," said San Francisco's teachers union.
San Francisco teachers and their union celebrated Friday after negotiating a tentative agreement for a new contract with higher pay and fully funded family healthcare, ending a four-day walkout that was the city's first educator strike in nearly half a century.
United Educators of San Francisco (UESF) said its bargaining team reached a two-year tentative deal with the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) at around 5:30 am local time Friday. The 120 public schools that were closed due to the walkout by around 6,000 teachers are set to reopen for classes next Wednesday.
"This historic strike built an unbreakable solidarity across our city, among families, students, educators, and community," UESF said in a statement. "This strike has made it clear what is possible when we join together and fight for the stability in our schools that many have said was out of our reach."
The tentative agreement, which follows 11 months of bargaining, includes the union's main demand for fully funded health coverage for dependents; raises of between 5-8.5%; caseload reductions for special educators; sanctuary protections for students and staff; limits on the use of artificial intelligence; preservation and expansion of the Stay Over program for unhoused students and their families; and better working conditions for librarians, substitute teachers, counselors, and other staff.
“By forcing SFUSD to invest in fully funded family healthcare, special education workloads, improved wages, sanctuary and housing protections for San Francisco families, we’ve made important progress towards the schools our students deserve,” said UESF president Cassondra Curiel “This contract is a strong foundation for us to continue to build the safe and stable learning environments our students deserve.”
SFUSD Superintendent Maria Su said in a statement: "I recognize that this past week has been challenging. Thank you to the SFUSD staff, community-based partners, and faith and city leaders who partnered with us to continue centering our students in our work every day."
"I am so proud of the resilience and strength of our community," Su added. "This is a new beginning, and I want to celebrate our diverse community of educators, administrators, parents, and students as we come together and heal."
However, Su also warned that “we do not have enough funds to pay for this year and the next two years," citing SFUSD's over $100 million budget deficit.
The striking teachers enjoyed widespread support and solidarity across the city, including at a massive rally outside City Hall on Monday.
San Francisco’s first public school teachers strike in 47 years started today with picket lines across the city and a rally at Civic Center. Schools will remain closed on Tuesday. Read live updates: https://t.co/5iRAt8eWdu
📝: Ezra Wallach, @low___impact, @allaboutgeorge pic.twitter.com/KMylN2L3fU
— The San Francisco Standard (@sfstandard) February 10, 2026
San Francisco teachers cheered the tentative agreement—especially its coverage of 100% of premiums on family health plans, which run about $1,500 per month, beginning next January.
“That amount of money is life-changing to us,” Balboa High School English teacher Ryan Alias said during a Thursday press conference.
“If we had that in our pocket, we would be able to save for retirement,” added Alias, who has two children in SFUSD schools. "We would be able to save for college funds. We’d be able to save for student loans. We’d be able to pay for art classes for our kids. This is the thing that is going to keep educators in the city.”
"Chairman Thompson appears poised to check off industry's cruel wish list," one critic warned.
Advocates for animal welfare, environmental protection, public health, and small family farms fiercely condemned various "industry-backed poison pills" in the long-awaited Farm Bill draft unveiled Friday by a key Republican in the US House of Representatives.
"A new Farm Bill is long overdue, and the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 is an important step forward in providing certainty to our farmers, ranchers, and rural communities," said House Committee on Agriculture Chair Glenn "GT" Thompson (R-Pa.) in a statement.
While Thompson has scheduled a markup of the 802-page proposal for February 23, critics aren't waiting to pick apart the bill, which aligns with a 2024 GOP proposal that was also sharply rebuked. The panel's ranking member, Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), said that from what she has seen so far, the new legislation "fails to meet the moment facing farmers and working people."
"Farmers need Congress to act swiftly to end inflationary tariffs, stabilize trade relationships, expand domestic market opportunities like year-round E15, and help lower input costs," Craig stressed. "The Republican majority instead chose to ignore Democratic priorities and focus on pushing a shell of a farm bill with poison pills that complicates if not derails chances of getting anything done. I strongly urge my Republican colleagues to drop the political charade and work with House Democrats on a truly bipartisan bill to address the very real problems farm country is experiencing right now—before it's too late."
Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, similarly blasted the GOP legislation on Friday, declaring that "this Republican Farm Bill proposal is a grotesque, record-breaking giveaway to the pesticide industry that will free Big Ag to accelerate the flow of dangerous poisons into our nation's food supply and waterways."
"This bill would block people suffering from pesticide-linked cancers from suing pesticide makers, eviscerate the EPA's ability to protect rivers and streams from direct pesticide pollution, and give the pesticide industry an unprecedented veto over extinction-preventing safeguards for our nation's most endangered wildlife," he said, referring to the Environmental Protection Agency.
"If Congress passes this monstrosity, it will speed our march toward the dawn of a very real silent spring, a day without fluttering butterflies, chirping frogs, or the chorus of birds at sunrise," Hartl warned. "No one voted for Republicans to allow foreign-owned pesticide conglomerates to dominate the policies that impact the safety of the food every American eats. But this bill leaves no doubt that's exactly who is calling all the shots."
Food & Water Watch (FWW) managing director of policy and litigation Mitch Jones also sounded the alarm about industry-friendly poison pills, arguing that any draft containing the "Cancer Gag Act" that would shield pesticide companies from liability or the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act—which would block state and local policies designed to protect animal welfare, farm workers, and food safety—"must be dead on arrival."
Sara Amundson, president of Humane World Action Fund—formerly called Humane Society Legislative Fund—also made a case against targeting state restrictions for animals like Proposition 12 in California, which the US Supreme Court let stand in 2023, in response to a challenge by the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation.
"Once again, the House Agriculture Committee Republican majority is bending to the will of a backwards-facing segment of the pork industry by trying to force through a measure to override the preferences of voters in more than a dozen states, upend the decisions of courts all the way up to the Supreme Court, and trample states' rights all at the same time," Amundson said Friday.
The National Family Farm Coalition highlighted that "instead of addressing the widespread concerns of family-scale farmers—ensuring fair prices for farmers, improving credit access, addressing corporate land consolidation, and creating a trade environment that benefits producers—this draft perpetuates the status quo that enriches and empowers corporate agribusiness. The result is an accelerating farm crisis that continues to hollow out rural communities across the US."
Thompson also faced outrage over other policies left out of the GOP legislation—particularly from those calling for the restoration of $187 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump forced through last year with their so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act (HR 1).
"HR 1 shifts unprecedented costs to already cash-strapped states, expands time limits, and strips food benefits away from caregivers, veterans, older workers, people experiencing homelessness, and humanitarian-based noncitizens," noted Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center.
"HR 1 is an unforgiving assault on America's hungry, deliberately dismantling our nation's first line of defense against hunger," she continued. "Yet, when given the opportunity to correct this harm in the latest Farm Bill proposal, Chairman Thompson unveiled a package that will only deepen hunger instead of fixing it. Hunger is not something Congress can afford to ignore."
Jones of FWW said that "families and farmers are hungry for federal policy that supports small- and mid-sized producers and keeps food affordable. Instead, Chairman Thompson appears poised to check off industry's cruel wish list."
"America needs a fair Farm Bill," he emphasized. "It is imperative that this Farm Bill repeal all Trump SNAP cuts and restore full funding to this critical nutrition program; stop the proliferation of factory farms; and support the transition to sustainable, affordable food."
"Germany’s concentration camps didn’t start as instruments of mass murder, and neither have ours," wrote talk show host Thom Hartmann recently. "History isn’t whispering its warning: It’s shouting."
President Donald Trump's anti-immigration agenda has supercharged opposition in cities where he has deployed federal agents to conduct raids, and communities in states including New York and Missouri are already working to block the next step the Department of Homeland Security plans to take in its push for mass deportations: acquiring massive warehouses across the country to use as immigrant detention centers.
US immigration and Customs Enforcement documents that were provided to Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire—one of the states where ICE aims to acquire a building and retrofit it to house at least 1,000 people at a time—show that the administration plans to spend $38.3 billion on its mass detention plan.
It would buy 16 buildings across the country to use as "regional processing centers" that could hold 1,000-1,500 people. Another eight detention centers would hold as many as 10,000 people at a time, with the detainees awaiting deportation.
The Washington Post reported that a review of state budget data showed that the amount of money the White House intends to pour into the project over the next several months is larger than the total annual spending of 22 US states.
"Thirty-eight billion dollars," said Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.). "That's what Trump is spending to turn warehouses into human holding facilities. Not on schools. Not on healthcare. Not on veterans. On warehousing humans."
Moulton also condemned ICE's claim that the new network of detention facilities will ensure the “safe and humane civil detention" of immigrants.
At least six people died in ICE detention centers in January, and one of the deaths, that of Geraldo Lunas Campos at Camp East Montana in El Paso, Texas, was ruled a homicide.
Medical neglect and abusive treatment—including some that amounts to torture—has been reported at multiple facilities.
ICE has already spent more than $690 million purchasing at least eight warehouses in Maryland, Arizona, Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Michigan in recent weeks. Documents posted on Ayotte's website show the agency is pursuing additional acquisitions in New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, and Georgia.
Communities are already rallying against the plan and questioning whether the small towns ICE has selected have sufficient water and sewer infrastructure to support thousands of people detained in a warehouse.
In New York, Rep. Pat Ryan (D-NY) said last week that 25,000 people in his district have signed a petition opposing the use of a local warehouse to house immigrants and pointed to the "major corruption and graft" evident in the plan to purchase and run the warehouses.
"The site in my district that's proposed is owned by one of Trump's multibillionaire donors, who would directly financially benefit from this site," said Ryan, referring to former Trump adviser Carl Icahn.
“I’m telling you, we are not going to let this happen in my district.”@PatRyanUC is pushing back on the Trump administration’s plan to buy warehouses across the country to turn them into mass detention centers, including one in his New York district. pic.twitter.com/KYOQb4WJx6
— The Recount (@therecount) February 5, 2026
As Common Dreams reported Friday, private prison firm GEO Group raked in a record $254 million in profits last year as it secured contracts with the Trump administration to build new ICE facilities across the US.
ICE has attempted to make purchases in Oklahoma City; Kansas City, Missouri; and in Virginia, but those plans have fallen through, with the Kansas City Council passing a five-year ban on new nonmunicipal detention centers after the public learned that DHS was the potential buyer of a warehouse in the city.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) has also joined his constituents in speaking out against ICE's $100 million purchase of a warehouse in his state to house at least 1,000 people at a time.
"This administration is spitting in the face of communities from Minneapolis to Maryland and wasting our tax dollars. We won't back down," said Van Hollen late last month.
The details of the administration's planned conversion of warehouses were reported less than two weeks after Pablo Manríquez of Migrant Insider revealed that a US Navy contract originally valued at $10 billion "has ballooned to a staggering $55 billion ceiling to expedite President Donald Trump’s ‘mass deportation’ agenda" and to help build "a sprawling network of migrant detention centers across the US."
At Common Dreams last week, talk show host and author Thom Hartmann wrote that the warehouses Trump plans to use to hold people—purchased by an agency whose own data shows it has largely been detaining people with no criminal records—are best described as concentration camps like those used in Nazi Germany.
"By the end of his first year, [Adolf] Hitler had around 50,000 people held in his roughly 70 concentration camps, facilities that were often improvised in factories, prisons, castles, and other buildings," wrote Hartmann. "By comparison, today ICE is holding over 70,000 people in 225 concentration camps across America," with hopes to "more than double both numbers in the coming months."
"Germany’s concentration camps didn’t start as instruments of mass murder, and neither have ours; both started as facilities for people the government’s leader said were a problem. And that’s exactly what ICE is building now," he continued. "History isn’t whispering its warning: It’s shouting."