Britain has become good at issuing heat warnings. The country is much less prepared to live through the conditions those warnings describe.

This week’s extreme heat is the fifth heatwave of the summer. On Thursday, the temperature reached a provisional 38.1°C at Kew Gardens—the highest recorded in the UK this year. Almost three-quarters of England is officially in drought. By Thursday, fire services in England and Wales had dealt with 1,017 wildfires this year. The Government convened Cobra and urged retailers to stop selling disposable barbecues. Health and weather agencies advised people to keep cool, avoid the hottest hours and check on those at greater risk.

That advice is sensible. It may save lives. But every warning also exposes the limits of a response that begins when the temperature is already rising.

A country cannot ask individuals to adapt their way out of buildings that overheat, jobs without adequate protection, care settings that cannot stay cool or neighbourhoods stripped of shade. Personal caution belongs inside a heat plan. It cannot be the plan.

Extreme heat is now a public-service test

The health risk is no longer hypothetical. UKHSA estimated that 1,504 deaths in England were associated with five periods of hot weather in 2025. The highest mortality rates were among people aged 85 and over, and significant effects were recorded in care homes, hospitals and people’s own homes.

There is evidence that preparation helped. The same analysis found substantially fewer deaths than historical temperature-mortality relationships would have predicted. UKHSA cautioned that it could not prove the cause, but said alerts and coordinated action across health, social care and emergency services may have reduced harm.

Warnings are most effective when the person receiving one has meaningful choices. “Stay somewhere cool” is of limited use to a care-home resident whose room overheats. “Avoid strenuous activity” does not resolve the position of a worker whose income depends on completing a physical shift. “Close curtains” cannot correct a poorly ventilated flat that retains heat through the night.

The Met Office warned during June’s extreme temperatures that consecutive nights above 20°C would prevent people recovering from daytime heat. It also identified risks to transport, energy and water. Heat is therefore not merely a health message. It is a test of housing standards, employment rules, infrastructure and local government.

The danger is built unevenly

Extreme heat affects the country unequally. Older people, babies, people with underlying conditions and those taking certain medicines may face greater medical risk. People on low incomes are less likely to be able to alter their homes or move temporarily to a cooler place. Private renters may have little control over insulation, ventilation or external shading. People sleeping rough have no secure indoor refuge at all.

Location matters too. Dense urban areas can hold heat after sunset, while streets with mature trees and accessible green space offer more protection than expanses of concrete. The result is that two people experiencing the same forecast can face very different levels of danger.

The response must start with the places where vulnerability is concentrated. Hospitals, care homes, schools, prisons and supported housing need assessed maximum-temperature standards, reliable monitoring and funded plans for keeping rooms safe. Councils need public cool spaces that people can reach without spending money, accompanied by drinking-water points and clear local information.

These are not calls to install energy-hungry air conditioning everywhere. External shutters, reflective roofs, effective ventilation, shade, trees and building design can reduce indoor temperatures without creating another large source of emissions. Where mechanical cooling is necessary, especially in clinical settings, it should be efficient and powered as cleanly as possible.

Work cannot remain the missing part of the warning

Britain also needs a clearer settlement for work during extreme heat. Employers already have a duty to provide a reasonable temperature, but there is no single statutory maximum at which work must stop.

A universal number would not cover every circumstance: 30°C presents different risks in an office, a kitchen, a warehouse and on a construction site. That is not a reason for vagueness. It is a reason for enforceable heat-risk assessments, access to water and rest, adjusted hours, suitable protective equipment and protection from lost pay or punishment when conditions become unsafe.

Without those safeguards, the burden falls on the person with the least power to refuse.

Drought and fire require preparation before summer

The heat is arriving in a country already short of water. By 10 August, 71.3 per cent of England was officially in drought, affecting about 45 million people, while water-use restrictions applied to 27 million. The Environment Agency had already reported demand rising by as much as 30 per cent on the hottest days. Rivers, wetlands, farmland and protected sites remain under pressure.

The wildfire season carries a similar lesson. Removing disposable barbecues during exceptional danger is a reasonable immediate measure. It cannot replace year-round work: training and equipping fire services, managing land responsibly, improving public warnings, mapping high-risk areas and ensuring new development does not leave communities exposed.

Build for the climate Britain has

The Climate Change Committee’s May 2026 assessment set out how far adaptation must go. It identified better cooling, flood protection and a more secure water supply as the most urgent priorities. Without further action, it estimates that 92 per cent of UK homes could experience overheating by 2050 and water shortfalls could exceed five billion litres a day. Meanwhile, the Met Office confirmed that 2025 was the UK’s warmest year on record and said human-caused climate change had made that annual temperature vastly more likely.

The Government has begun to respond. In July, it announced that departments would plan for a minimum of 2°C of warming by 2050 and promised stronger, measurable objectives for climate adaptation. The Climate Change Committee welcomed that more ambitious direction, while warning that the country would still need a much more concerted effort and significantly more funding. The announcement establishes an important framework; its value will depend on whether it produces funded changes in homes, workplaces and public services.

The direction is clear even when an individual summer varies. Britain must cut emissions to limit how severe future heating becomes, while adapting to temperatures that are already occurring. Treating those as competing priorities is a political excuse, not a practical choice.

A credible national heat plan would join together housing, health, employment, transport, water and emergency response. It would set responsibilities before each summer, publish progress and direct money towards the people and places least able to protect themselves. It would measure success not by the number of warnings issued, but by safer indoor temperatures, resilient services and fewer deaths.

People should still drink water, close curtains where that helps and check on neighbours. Those are acts of care, not a national infrastructure strategy.

The warning tells us the heat is dangerous. The plan must make danger less dependent on a person’s age, income, job or postcode.

Principal sources