George Monbiot: Right’s dismissal of heat risks puts children’s lives on the line

Right-wing newspapers and columnists have dismissed the dangers of extreme heat as “alarmism” and “nannying”, urging the public to “tough it out” — a position that contradicts a substantial body of evidence showing that heatwaves kill and that warnings save lives. Editorials in the Daily Telegraph, columns in the Sun and features in the Daily Mail have all, in recent days, played down the health risks of soaring temperatures, particularly in schools. They have invoked nostalgic memories of the 1976 heatwave as a golden age of common sense, while ignoring the fact that schools did close early that year, that the heat was dry rather than humid, and that temperatures never reached the records set last week.

In the Telegraph, an editorial headlined “Hot weather alarmism treats the public like children” argued that “officialdom now feels the need to lecture the public about the risks of hot weather at every opportunity” and that the government should trust people to “take the appropriate precautions”. Columnist Ysenda Maxtone Graham wrote that during the 1976 heatwave — which she recalled as “two months of blissful messing about” — “common sense was applied by most without the need for nannying intervention”. She claimed that “schools didn’t close because of the heat”, and that children and teachers “sweltered in 30-degree classrooms”. Writing in the Sun, Jane Moore similarly remembered 1976 as “the best summer of my life”, praising a “gung-ho spirit” that “should be used as a standard benchmark for common sense”. The Daily Mail ran an article whose subheading stated “in 1976 … the schools DID stay open”. Yet, as Leo Hickman of Carbon Brief has pointed out, schools did close early during the 1976 heatwave — and at that time June temperatures never reached the records set last week, while the humidity was far lower, compounding the health risks in the present.

This pattern of denial cuts against the findings of organisations such as the Red Cross, which in 2023 discovered a “strikingly poor understanding” of heatwave health risks in the UK. A survey published in the journal Energy Research & Social Science last year found that 49% of participants had “little to no knowledge on how to cope with extreme heat”. The evidence that warnings and advice save lives is powerful, yet government warnings remain vague, hard to interpret and unsupported by effective action.

Vulnerable groups pay the price for performative toughness

Children are among those most at risk during extreme heat, yet their vulnerability is consistently overlooked in media narratives that urge resilience. Children have higher metabolisms and lower sweating rates than adults, and heat up three to five times faster. Their thermal comfort levels are, on average, 1.9 to 2.8 degrees Celsius lower than those of adults. Reports of children vomiting and losing consciousness in class during heatwaves are not uncommon. Temperatures above 25°C limit their cognitive performance: the government’s Climate Change Committee has found that “taking an exam on a 32°C day leads to around a 10% lower likelihood of passing compared to a 22°C day”. A new study of schools in Hampshire reveals that 66% of classrooms already present a “cognitive impairment risk”, a figure projected to rise to 92% by 2050. Six per cent of classrooms are already at “heat strain” — physiologically dangerous temperature levels.

Beyond children, older adults, pregnant people, individuals with underlying health conditions (heart and breathing problems, diabetes, kidney disease), those who live alone, and people who work or spend significant time outdoors are all at heightened risk. The UK’s recent heatwaves — including record-breaking temperatures above 40°C in July 2022 — underscore the urgency. Yet, as the research shows, many individuals who are not categorised as “vulnerable” do not perceive themselves to be at personal risk, a “perception gap” that undermines the willingness to adopt protective behaviours.

Class disparity in heat shielding: the uncomfortable truth

The most striking gap revealed by the evidence is along class lines. The same study in Energy Research & Social Science found that 82% of households reported difficulty keeping at least one room cool during the summer. The rate of overheating for the poorest half of households was twice that of those in the top half of higher-income earners. Steady temperatures, in other words, are the preserve of the rich — and the commentary urging everyone to simply “tough it out” comes overwhelmingly from columnists writing from air-conditioned offices or well-insulated homes.

This class disparity is especially acute in Britain, where homes and public buildings are woefully unsuited to extremes. Many school buildings, particularly those constructed from the 1950s onwards, are “lightweight, overglazed, single-sided” models that are grossly ill-suited to hot summers. Years of austerity have left school infrastructure in a terrible state: around 700,000 pupils are learning in schools that require major rebuilding or refurbishment due to underinvestment, including issues with Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC), which has led to the closure or partial closure of over 100 schools. Funding gaps mean urgent repairs take precedence over planned maintenance, creating a cycle of deterioration. The government’s own Climate Change Committee has warned that “taking an exam on a 32°C day leads to around a 10% lower likelihood of passing” — yet private schools, which can generally afford better buildings and air-conditioned exam rooms, are far less affected.

The government has confirmed that it sets no maximum temperature limit for schools. Its guidance — advice to open and close doors and windows, and to minimise heat from equipment — leaves teachers with sealed windows and impossible heat loads in despair. Unions and expert bodies, including the Climate Change Committee and the Trades Union Congress, have called for a legal maximum working temperature limit. In Germany, children are sent home if classroom temperatures exceed 25°C. In the UK, no such protection exists.

The class dimension is not accidental. As the columnist George Monbiot has argued, the same right-wing commentators who demand the removal of “feeble protections” are those whose own lives are cushioned by wealth. Their call for “toughness” always seems to translate into “they need to be tough”, while the rich remain insulated. The nostalgic appeal to 1976 — a dry summer of lower temperatures — ignores the humid, record-breaking reality of today. And it ignores the fact that, globally, heatwaves are increasingly affecting children: in Europe alone, nearly 400 children are estimated to die from heat annually. The narrative of “alarmism” is itself a form of privilege — one that, if heeded, will leave the most vulnerable to suffer the consequences.