Britain’s Overheating Crisis: A Tale of Two Systems

Britain is facing an unprecedented overheating crisis as record-breaking heatwaves expose the country’s woefully inadequate infrastructure. Thousands of people in England and Wales lose their lives prematurely during heatwaves, with thousands more suffering from heat-related illnesses.

The statistics are stark. Up to 440 deaths per day occurred during the May and June heatwaves, highlighting the need for urgent action. However, current workplace regulations fail to provide clear guidelines on indoor temperatures. Employers are legally required to maintain a “reasonable” temperature, but there is no maximum threshold above which action must be taken.

In contrast, Belgium has explicit heat thresholds for different types of work: 29°C for office work, 26°C for moderate work, and 22°C for heavy work. When these temperatures are exceeded, employers must take measures such as cooling, ventilation, extra breaks, and providing drinks. Britain would benefit from adopting a similar approach.

New-build homes in the UK also struggle to cope with heatwaves. Building regulations prioritise improvements to internal and external components of homes over mechanical cooling, which can contribute to increased ambient air temperature and exacerbate urban heat. Moreover, there is currently no mandated maximum temperature threshold for rented homes.

The private rented sector comprises approximately 19% of all UK households, many of whom are vulnerable to extreme heat due to substandard living conditions. Introducing mandated maximum temperature thresholds would protect tenants from serious health effects and shield them from adapting buildings owned by others.

New Westminster in British Columbia became the first city in Canada to pass a maximum heat bylaw, requiring landlords to keep at least one room in every rental unit below 26°C between 8pm and 8am. This serves as a reminder of what can be achieved with concerted effort.

However, Britain’s overheating crisis extends beyond individual buildings or workplaces. The country’s network of public cooling spaces – parks, pools, libraries, leisure centres, and street furniture – is being eroded due to austerity measures. Over 500 public pools have been lost in England since the heyday of Labour’s New Deal programme.

This erosion has severe consequences: communities most at risk of heat are least likely to have access to cooling infrastructures. The situation is particularly dire in areas with high levels of deprivation and low social mobility. London’s most deprived boroughs, for instance, stand to lose the most from public pool closures.

Cities like Toronto and Paris are investing heavily in blue-green infrastructure – rivers, parks, and green spaces that not only cool the city but also provide shade. Local residents have established community-led initiatives to create shaded green spaces, providing a model for Britain’s cities.

Greening programmes can lower temperatures by 1-7°C, as seen in Paris’s extensive network of green parks and rivers. However, these interventions come with risks: “green gentrification” – when urban greening increases property values and results in displacement – must be recognised and mitigated.

Ultimately, reducing the UK’s heat risk requires a strong political will to invest in equitable solutions that avoid locking Britain into a system dependent on energy-intensive cooling technology. This means prioritising policy interventions over expensive fixes like air conditioning, which exacerbate the urban heat island effect and compromise climate targets.

The stakes are high: will Britain’s leaders choose to heed the warnings of climate scientists and invest in sustainable solutions that protect vulnerable communities?