Extreme heat responses: what local leaders know about climate ethics and health risks
Environmental Health

Extreme heat responses: what local leaders know about climate ethics and health risks

a woman holding a greenpeace logo
Photo by Artem Podrez

Research by Hugi Hernandez, Founder of Egreenews

Introduction

Extreme heat kills more people in the United States each year than hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes combined. Yet, as the planet warms, the gap between the growing threat and effective policy action remains stubbornly wide. This report examines the current state of understanding among state legislators and city mayors across eleven distinct jurisdictions: Montreal, Toronto, San Juan, Hawaii, San Francisco, Montgomery, Tallahassee, New York City, Chicago, and Atlanta. Drawing exclusively on peer-reviewed academic literature published between 2016 and 2026, we assess how elected officials in these cities and regions perceive climate ethics, climate risk, and the specific health dangers posed by extreme heat. The evidence suggests that while technical knowledge of heat-health risks is often present, ethical frameworks that would prioritize action for the most vulnerable are inconsistently applied.

A cityscape showing heat rising from asphalt and concrete under a hazy summer sun
Urban heat islands trap heat in dense neighborhoods; a 2025 study of Montreal found adaptation efforts often overlook the social and equity components of vulnerability.

Part 1: Climate ethics and extreme heat

Climate ethics, in the context of extreme heat, asks a deceptively simple question: Who should bear the cost of protecting people from rising temperatures, and who is responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions that cause them? Across the jurisdictions examined, ethical reasoning is most explicit where past injustices are most visible. In Chicago, a 2025 analysis noted that the 1995 heat wave—which killed more than 700 residents—disproportionately killed Black residents in poorer neighborhoods, many living without air conditioning in brick buildings that trapped heat. That finding has pushed some local policymakers to frame cooling as a matter of environmental justice rather than mere public health.

In Hawaii, the legislature went further. In 2025, the Hawaii State Legislature adopted a resolution declaring climate change a public health emergency—the first U.S. state to do so. The resolution explicitly cites increased heat, vector-borne diseases, and food insecurity as direct threats. Here, ethical reasoning is embedded in the formal recognition of a crisis. By contrast, in Florida, the legislature passed a bill in 2024 stripping local governments of authority to adopt heat protections such as guaranteed shade and rest breaks for outdoor workers. Ethical language is absent; the policy choice instead prioritizes employer flexibility over worker safety.

San Francisco offers a hybrid approach. The Board of Supervisors declared a climate emergency in 2019, requesting immediate action to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. However, a 2025 study of San Francisco’s climate-sensitive populations noted that while the city acknowledges unequal impacts, actual program delivery often remains fragmented.

Key finding No. 1: Explicit ethical frameworks—such as environmental justice or human rights—are most developed in jurisdictions with a documented history of heat-related inequity (Chicago, Hawaii) and least developed where legislative action has actively rolled back protections (Florida).

“Extreme heat has received fragmented and scattered responses in cities, often overlooking the crucial social and equity components.”

Part 2: Perceptions of climate risk among state legislators

Direct survey data on state legislators’ perceptions of climate risk remains surprisingly scarce. Most peer-reviewed research focuses on public opinion or on the behavior of legislators inferred through bill sponsorship. A 2021 study examining 25,000 state legislators across the U.S. found a robust relationship between local temperature anomalies and climate bill sponsorship for Democratic members, while Republicans were unresponsive to such factors. That suggests that for a substantial portion of state lawmakers, rising heat alone does not translate into legislative action; partisan identity filters the interpretation of climate risk.

In Alabama, no peer-reviewed survey specifically targeting state legislators’ heat risk perceptions was identified within the date range. A substitute indicator is legislative output: between 2014 and 2024, the Southeastern U.S. saw more than 200 heat-related bills, but the region consistently ranks low on heat protection adoption. In Tallahassee, the Florida legislature has not only failed to pass heat protection bills but has actively preempted local governments from doing so. This pattern suggests that for many Southern state legislatures, the perceived political risk of regulating heat outweighs the perceived physical risk of heat itself.

California presents a more active case. The state Assembly passed a series of extreme heat bills in 2025 that provide safeguards for residents during heatwaves, though these await Senate action. Yet a 2021 analysis noted that California had failed to pass a meaningful climate bill since 2018, despite extreme heat killing more residents than all other weather events combined. Perception of risk, in other words, does not always compel action when economic or political costs are high.

For New York, a 2025 study on extreme heat in New York City found that while the city has sophisticated heat vulnerability maps, state-level action on workplace heat protections (the TEMP Act) died in the legislature. The gap between city-level awareness and state-level inaction is a recurring theme.

Part 3: Health risks—what policymakers know

The health risks of extreme heat are well-documented in academic literature. Heat stress exacerbates cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, increases mortality risk, and disproportionately affects the elderly, socially isolated, and low-income populations. In Montreal, a 2025 study found that heat action plans have reduced mortality, but differences in effectiveness persist by age, sex, and socioeconomic status. Researchers have noted that while the number of days over 30°C in Montreal is projected to rise from 11 annually (1981–2010) to 30–41 by 2050, current adaptation efforts focus narrowly on greening initiatives and emergency care, neglecting structural factors like social isolation and housing quality.

In San Juan, a 2025 survey of 500 Puerto Rico residents found that fewer than half perceived heat as a high level of personal health risk, even though older adults (65+) are significantly more vulnerable. The study noted that older adults reported lower levels of risk perception and fewer symptoms, a dangerous mismatch between actual and perceived vulnerability. This finding is critical for policymakers: if vulnerable populations do not see themselves at risk, education campaigns must be redesigned. The study also found that only 2.93% of public schools in Puerto Rico had air conditioning, compared to 17.28% of private schools.

In Toronto, a 2025 city report indicated that days with temperatures exceeding 30°C could more than triple by mid-century, from about 20 to 66 days annually. The city council has debated a maximum indoor temperature bylaw for more than a decade, but action has been delayed by concerns about affordability, landlord retrofits, and pressure on the electrical grid. Current city law mandates a minimum winter temperature of 21°C but lacks a similar rule for summer cooling. Public health data from Toronto estimate heat contributes to an average of 120 deaths per year.

For Atlanta, a 2023 heat vulnerability study found that heat risk is overwhelmingly concentrated in neighborhoods west and south of downtown. In response, the city council passed a “cool roof” ordinance in 2025 requiring solar-reflective materials for new and replacement roofs. Georgia Tech researchers noted that the policy marks a major step forward in climate adaptation, especially for heat-vulnerable communities. Yet state-level action in Georgia remains limited; a 2024 scorecard from the Georgia Conservation Voters shows wide variation in legislative voting on environmental issues.

Key finding No. 2: Health risk knowledge is high among city-level officials in nearly all jurisdictions studied, but this knowledge often fails to translate into protective regulations when state-level preemption or cost concerns intervene.

A public health official checking on an elderly resident during a heatwave
Elderly residents face disproportionate heat risk; a 2025 study in Puerto Rico found older adults reported lower risk perception despite higher vulnerability.

Part 4: Vulnerable populations and protection gaps

A consistent finding across all jurisdictions is that extreme heat interacts with pre-existing social and economic inequalities. In Chicago, an analysis of the 1995 heat wave’s unequal death toll has led some alderpersons to advocate for cooling as a human right, but implementation remains uneven. In New York City, an estimated 350 to 580 residents die prematurely due to extreme heat each year, with low-income communities and communities of color disproportionately affected. A 2018 study in NYC found that awareness of heat risk is high among residents, but protective behaviors are constrained by lack of air conditioning and energy costs.

In Montgomery, Alabama, no direct peer-reviewed survey of state legislators’ perceptions was found. However, a 2021 study on Alabama’s Black Belt noted that rising temperatures worsen social vulnerabilities for the elderly, increasing heat-related health risks. Despite this, the Alabama legislature has introduced bills to prevent state regulators from adopting pollution limits stricter than federal standards, a stance that indirectly limits climate action.

In San Francisco, a 2025 community-academic partnership found that climate-sensitive populations—seniors, those with pre-existing conditions, and those without access to cooling—are most at risk. The city’s Heat and Air Quality Resilience Program aims to address these inequities, but a 2021 analysis noted that extreme heat funding remains a tiny fraction of California’s climate budget.

“In the vast majority of U.S. counties, public concern about extreme heat is lower than … assessed heat risk.”

Part 5: Urban heat islands and adaptation planning

Urban heat islands (UHIs)—where built environments absorb and re-emit heat—compound extreme heat risks in dense cities. In Montreal, a 2025 study found that UHI effects are strongest in lower-income neighborhoods with less tree canopy. The city has identified priority areas for greening to reduce heat wave impacts, but researchers argue that current planning biases favor technical greening solutions over deeper attention to chronic socioeconomic vulnerabilities.

In Toronto, a 2025 heat vulnerability mapping project based on exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity identified neighborhoods where renters without air conditioning are most at risk. The city’s Heat Relief Strategy focuses on cooling centers and public education, but advocates note the absence of a maximum indoor temperature bylaw leaves renters unprotected. In Atlanta, the Urban Climate Lab at Georgia Tech created a climate vulnerability map ranking all neighborhoods by heat risk, flood risk, and overall climate vulnerability. That mapping directly informed the cool roof ordinance.

Key finding No. 3: Heat vulnerability mapping exists in most large cities studied (Toronto, Atlanta, Montreal, San Francisco), but only Atlanta has translated that mapping into a comprehensive citywide ordinance within the study period.

A city planner reviewing a digital heat vulnerability map on a tablet
Atlanta’s climate vulnerability map, created by Georgia Tech researchers, directly supported the city’s 2025 cool roof ordinance.

Part 6: The preemption problem—state vs. local authority

A critical structural barrier to heat protection emerges in several U.S. states: state-level preemption laws that forbid local governments from enacting their own heat safety standards. Florida is the most extreme case. In 2024, the Florida legislature passed and the governor signed a law deleting most references to climate change from state statutes and preventing local governments from requiring workplace heat protections. Cities including Tallahassee and Miami-Dade have been blocked from enacting heat protection ordinances.

In Alabama, no specific preemption of heat protections was identified, but the state’s general resistance to climate action (including bills limiting pollution standards) creates a similar chilling effect. By contrast, in Canada, provincial and municipal relationships differ: Montreal and Toronto operate under provincial frameworks that do not preempt local heat action in the same way, though Toronto has cited provincial tenancy laws as a reason for delaying its maximum indoor temperature bylaw.

In Hawaii, no preemption issue exists; the state legislature has actively encouraged heat protection for students and outdoor workers through resolutions and bills, though statewide guidelines remain under development.

Part 7: Regional synthesis and data gaps

No verifiable university source found for Montgomery, Alabama, within the date range; the nearest available substitute is a regional study on heat legislation in the Southeastern U.S. (Duke University, 2025). Similarly, no peer-reviewed survey of Tallahassee city commissioners’ heat risk perceptions was found; evidence is drawn from state-level legislative action analysis. For Hawaii, while the legislature has issued resolutions declaring a public health emergency, peer-reviewed studies of legislators’ perceptions are absent. A 2019 public perception study ranked Hawaii among states with the highest heat risk perceptions among residents, but legislator data is indirect.

This pattern of data gaps is itself informative: systematic, peer-reviewed research on what state legislators and city mayors actually think about extreme heat remains sparse. Most academic work focuses either on public perceptions or on modeled climate impacts, not on the cognitive and political frameworks of elected officials.

Part 8: Three open questions

  1. Why does partisan identity appear to filter heat risk perception more strongly than local temperature data, even in regions with documented mortality from extreme heat?
  2. Can city-level heat action (e.g., Atlanta’s cool roof ordinance) be scaled effectively when state-level preemption blocks other forms of protection?
  3. What would a comprehensive heat ethics framework look like in jurisdictions with no current heat action plans?

Four key takeaways

  • Health risk knowledge is high among city officials but often blocked by state preemption or cost concerns, especially in Florida, Alabama, and Georgia.
  • Ethical reasoning about heat is most explicit where past injustices have been documented (Chicago, Hawaii) and least where economic priorities dominate (Florida).
  • Heat vulnerability mapping exists in most large cities but has produced binding policy only in Atlanta within the study period.
  • Peer-reviewed data on what state legislators actually think about extreme heat is critically sparse; most evidence is inferred from voting records.

A single call for action

Academic researchers, in partnership with city and state governments, should design and field standardized, replicable surveys of elected officials’ perceptions of extreme heat risk, health impacts, and ethical obligations. Such surveys should be conducted every three years across all 50 U.S. states and Canadian provinces to enable longitudinal comparison and evidence-based policy design.

Five current hashtags about this topic

#ExtremeHeatRisk #ClimateEthics #HeatPolicy #UrbanHeatIsland #PreemptionWatch

Citations

photo of gypsum head covered with plastic bag
Photo by cottonbro studio