>>"Yet some local governments are still not taking extreme heat seriously" Given that extreme heat is not even close to being at the top 50 ways that Americans

>>"Yet some local governments are still not taking extreme heat seriously" Given that extreme heat is not even close to being at the top 50 ways that Americans die on an annual basis, it seems to me that there is much better bang for the buck having federal state and local governments focusing on those things that kills the most people first - if the goal is saving lives (which it should be), than attack those societal/public health problems that kill the most people first. Basic triaging is necessary - if you don't have unlimited resources, and you can't save everybody (both of those things are objectively true), then the best benefit to society is to attack the problems that will save or extend the lives of the most people. The top ten causes of death alone account for 1.5 million USA deaths per year; extreme heat is less than 1/10 of 1% of just those top 10 - I want the government to prioritize making progress on those things first. Just having a healthier population alone would probably cut way down on # number of people that die from extreme heat - a healthier person will almost certainly fare better in extreme heat than someone that already has 2-3 comorbidities.