English schools could exceed an “overheating” threshold of 26C for one-third of the academic year if global warming reaches 2C above pre-industrial temperatures, a new study finds.
The study, published in Climate Risk Management, assesses the risk of overheating in around 20,000 schools across England, using data on the schools’ location, the type of building and the climate.
The authors identify the indoor temperature of 26C as the upper “comfortable” limit in classrooms. While the average school would be expected to surpass this limit for more than one-third of the academic year under 2C of warming, it rises to half of the year for 4C of warming.
The authors also investigate a 35C threshold, above which “important health impacts” are seen. They find that, currently, schools only exceed this temperature threshold once every year, on average.
However, under 4C warming, the average school is expected to exceed this threshold around nine times per year, accounting for 5% of the academic year.
Newer schools are more likely to overheat than their older counterparts, the authors say, because they typically have better insulation and lower ceilings. They add that schools in the south and east of England, as well as London, are at greatest risk of overheating.
The study shows the need for adaptation measures such as improved ventilation, a scientist not involved in the study tells Carbon Brief. She adds that “school buildings need to be designed today with tomorrow’s climate in mind”.
Overheating schools
Over the past month, millions of children in the Philippines, Bangladesh and India stayed home as a record-breaking heatwave forced schools across southern Asia to shut.
However, schools in more temperate climates can also be affected by the heat. In July 2022, the UK experienced a record-breaking heatwave that saw temperatures exceed 40C for the first time on record. During this period, the UK put out its first red heat alert and many schools finished early or closed their doors entirely for the safety of their staff and students.
Extreme heat can be deadly. During a heatwave, the number of “heat-related deaths” – where exposure to heat either causes or significantly contributes to a death – tends to increase.
Children are particularly vulnerable to high temperatures. When it is hot, the human body produces sweat to cool itself down. However, children do not sweat as much as adults and are therefore less able to regulate their body temperature.
Even when temperatures do not reach headline-grabbing highs, any increase above the “optimal” temperature can be harmful. A recent World Bank report estimates that in “middle and high-income settings”, the ideal classroom temperature lies between 19.5C and 23.3C. The report says:
“In those settings, any temperature above 24C can compromise reaction time, processing speed and accuracy through changes in heart rate and respiratory rates…
“Across five experimental studies, high temperature produced declines in student performance ranging from 2 to 12% for each 1C increase in classroom temperature.”
Furthermore, when teachers work in classrooms that are too hot, they can become fatigued or lose concentration, making them more likely to put themselves and the children in their care at risk.
UK guidance suggests a minimum working temperature of 16C, if employees are not carrying out physical work. However, there are no legal maximum working temperatures for schools in the UK.
“Our children spend 30% of their lives in schools,” says Prof Lucelia Rodrigues – chair of sustainable and resilient cities at the University of Nottingham. Rodrigues, who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that it is “imperative that we provide them with comfortable, healthy environments to thrive and achieve their best”.
Newer buildings
The new study assesses how often English schools overheat, which schools are most at risk and how climate change could exacerbate the problem. The study authors define two temperature thresholds:
- 26C: The “upper limit of comfortable operative temperature in schools”.
- 35C: The temperature at which “important health impacts” are seen.
The authors use the open-access CLIMADA platform to simulate the risk of English schools overheating, combining information on hazard, exposure and vulnerability.
The authors use climate data from the UK Climate Projections 2018 (UKCP18) to determine annual variations in temperature across England over 1998-2017. They then model those temperatures in worlds with average global temperatures of 2C and 4C above pre-industrial levels. This provides the hazard data.
They then quantify exposure using data on the location of around 20,000 primary and secondary state schools in England. And vulnerability is assessed using “physics-based building models” to quantify the link between outdoor and indoor temperature for different types of buildings.
The plot below shows an example of the relationship between outdoor daily average temperature (blue) and indoors daily maximum temperature (red) in two different schools. The dashed and dotted lines indicate the 26C and 35C temperature thresholds, respectively.
The authors find that schools built before 1918 are generally most able to keep cool, while those built after 1967 overheat the most easily.
Dr Laura Dawkins – an “expert scientist” in climate risk and resilience at the UK Met Office, and lead author of the study – tells Carbon Brief that this is due to “differences in typical floor-to-ceiling heights”. Newer schools are typically built with lower ceilings, which cause the room to heat up more quickly, she explains.
Rodrigues adds that newer schools are built to “more stringent building regulations designed to reduce heating energy demand”, making them more airtight and well-insulated. Citing her 2010 study, she continues:
“In classrooms within schools built post-2010, overheating occurred for more than 40% of school hours, whilst in older schools with leakier and non-insulated envelopes overheating was rarely reported.”
Rodrigues says that ventilation is key, noting that it not only prevents buildings from overheating, but can also “improve air quality, which will have a significant impact on productivity” in pupils.
Mapping heat
The study’s findings include a series of maps to show where the most at-risk schools are located.
The maps below show the expected total number of days in an academic year that each school will cross the 26C (left) and 35C (right) temperature thresholds. The top row uses the climate of 1998-2017, the middle row a 2C-warmer world and the bottom row a 4C-warmer world. Darker red indicates more overheating days.
The authors assume 195 days in a school year, to account for weekends and holidays. The analysis does not include August – the hottest part of the year – because schools are typically closed for the summer holidays during this time.
The authors find that schools in south and east of England, as well as London, are at greatest risk of overheating. They add that this is largely due to the urban heat island effect – in which a combination of factors, such as buildings, reduced vegetation and high domestic energy use, cause urban areas to become hotter than more rural regions.
By combining the data from all 20,000 schools, the authors determine how many days the average school is expected to cross the 26C and 35C warming thresholds under different global warming levels. The authors also calculate values for “at-risk” schools – which rank in the highest 10% on their risk metric.
These results are shown in the table below.
| 26C threshold, average school | 26C threshold, at-risk school | 35C threshold, average school | 35C threshold, at-risk school | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recent climate | 59 | 59 | 1 | 1 |
| 2C warming | 71 | 75 | 3 | 5 |
| 4C warming | 89 | 92 | 9 | 13 |
Number days during the academic year that “average” and “at-risk” schools are expected to cross the 26C and 35C warming thresholds under different global warming levels. Adapted from Dawkins et al (2024).
The average school currently exceeds the 26C threshold for 59 days – accounting for around one-third of the academic year – according to the study. However, the authors warn that this could rise to 71 and 89 days under the 2C and 4C scenarios, respectively.
Meanwhile, England’s most at-risk schools currently face one day per year of indoor temperatures above 35C. This could rise to five days per year under a 2C warming scenario, and 13 under a 4C scenario.
This study is “a first attempt at applying the novel spatial risk assessment framework to this real world problem”, according to Dr Dan Bernie climate resilience science manager and health science lead at the UK Met Office and an author on the study.
Bernie tells Carbon Brief that he is currently working on “generating more robust results using individual school building models and higher resolution climate projections”.
Prof David Bresch is a professor at the department of environmental systems science at ETH Zurich and is the founder and senior scientific advisor at CLIMADA. He tells Carbon Brief that the authors have used the platform well, providing a good “prototype” for this type of study.
The biggest “challenge” in the study is the team’s use of fixed temperature thresholds, he says. However, he calls the paper an “important contribution” to the literature, and says that it will allow schools and governments to start thinking about adaptation measures.
Bresch emphasises the importance of adaptation. He tells Carbon Brief that it is crucial to “take a forward looking view of risk”, adding that it comes with the win-win situation of limiting impacts and likely coming with a lower price tag than waiting for major impacts to hit.
Government plans
Every five years, the UK government publishes its Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA), which assesses the “current and future risks to and opportunities for the UK from climate change”.
The National Adaptation Programme (NAP) is published shortly afterwards, allowing administrations such as the Department of Education (DfE) to outline how they are planning to adapt to climate change.
In July 2023, the UK government published its third National Adaptation Programme (NAP3). In this report, the DfE recognised the “significant threat” of rising overheating in schools, and highlighted the need for further research to better understand this risk.
The new study was carried out partly in response to this call for research and has experts from both the UK Met Office and DfE in its author list. Bernie tells Carbon Brief that this study was a collaboration between “climate science, data science, building performance models and stakeholder insights”.
The DfE tells Carbon Brief that it has already allocated £138m to make education buildings more sustainable or more resilient to the impacts of climate change. The UK government’s “strategy for the education and children’s services systems” adds:
“All new school buildings delivered by DfE (not already contracted) will be net-zero in operation. They will be designed for a 2C rise in average global temperatures and future-proofed for a 4C rise, to adapt to the risks of climate change, including increased flooding and higher indoor temperatures.”
However, Rodrigues tells Carbon Brief that “there is still no requirement to design for future climate conditions, even though schools typically have at least a 50-year lifespan, with many occupied continuously for over 100 years”. She adds that “school buildings need to be designed today with tomorrow’s climate in mind”.
The DfE tells Carbon Brief that they are working with partners including the Met Office on the next iteration of this research and will provide more information about it later this year.
The post English schools face ‘overheating’ for one-third of year under 2C warming appeared first on Carbon Brief.
English schools face ‘overheating’ for one-third of year under 2C warming
Britain’s new prime minister announced in his first week that he will cut the cost of public transport and electricity, making lower-emission technologies like bus travel, electric vehicles and heat pumps more affordable for voters. But some of the funding for those policies will come from the budget for international climate finance, the government has said, raising concerns about fairness.
Former Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham took over from Keir Starmer as Labour Party leader and prime minister on Monday, appointing climate advocates Ed Miliband as foreign and development minister and Miatta Fahnbulleh as climate and energy minister.
On Tuesday, Burnham said his government would cut the value added tax (VAT) households and some small businesses pay on their electricity bills from 5% to zero from October 1, saving households £45 ($60) a year.
On Wednesday, he said the maximum fare bus companies in England can charge for a single journey will be reduced from £3 ($4) to £2 ($2.67) from January 1, 2027. The government said the subsidies to achieve this would be mostly funded by switching money set aside for overseas climate finance projects from grants to loans. It did not give further information in its announcement, while the UK’s transport minister told Sky News the plan is still being worked out.
-
Tropical forest protection fund at risk after UK stalls on pledge
The Brazil-led TFFF was launched at COP30 as an innovative financial model to keep rainforests standing, but is still short on startup cash -
UK halves Green Climate Fund contribution, as it spends more on security
After promising £1.6 billion to the UN’s flagship climate fund in 2023, the UK government has now said it will only hand over half as much -
EU, UK lead push for electrification as “powerful weapon” against fossil fuels
A group of dozens of countries seeks to build momentum for a COP31 pledge to electrify 35% of global energy use by 2035 as an alternative to fossil fuels
The floated changes to the climate finance budget were immediately criticised by groups working on climate justice for developing countries, including Bond, the UK network for NGOs, which described the decision as “disappointing”.
“Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not the answer and pitches marginalised communities in the UK against marginalised communities in lower-income and climate-vulnerable countries,” BOND CEO Romilly Greenhill said in a statement. “Climate finance must not worsen the debt burden of countries that are already suffering the worst – and most costly – impacts of a climate crisis they did not cause.”
Hunt for money
Burnham promoted both policies as measures to combat the rising cost of living and “give people breathing space”, with climate campaigners and industry groups noting they are also likely to reduce the UK’s climate-heating emissions by encouraging bus travel and the use of electric vehicles and heating.
But thorny questions remain over how the policies will be paid for. The government said Tuesday’s VAT cut for electricity would be funded by scrapping the previous government’s digital ID programme, but Darren Jones, a former minister involved with that policy, said it had been “unfunded” – a statement that dominated media coverage.
A day later, the government said the new bus fare cap would cost £454 million ($606m). Transport minister Heidi Alexander told Sky News that £54 million would be taken from an under-spend in the budget of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) and £400 million would come from changing unspecified international climate finance from grants to loans. The details “still need to be worked through”, she said, adding that the government “had wanted to make an announcement today”.
Mohamed Adow, director of Nairobi-based think-tank Power Shift Africa, said “climate finance was never meant to be a pot of money that governments raid when they need to pay for domestic spending”.
DESNZ had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication. “We’re not wanting to fleece anyone here, and we actually want to maximise the development potential of this money that is available,” minister Alexander said in her TV interview.
Aside from the controversy over their funding, the policies themselves were widely welcomed by climate campaigners. Jess Ralston, energy lead at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), said the tax cut on electricity bills “could help households to switch to electric heat pumps, protecting UK homes from becoming ever more exposed to the whims of Putin and Trump when turning on their gas boiler”.
The last few months have seen global momentum build behind electrification, spurred by the US-Iran war disrupting oil and gas supplies and driving up prices. The Turkish and Australian COP31 presidencies have announced a global target to boost electrification, backed by the European Union, Canada, Philippines, UK and others.
Campaigners call for lower power prices
While reaction to the VAT cut was supportive, some questioned whether £45 a year of savings per household is enough and called for more measures to cut electricity bills.
Friends of the Earth’s energy lead Imogen Dow said those on the lowest incomes should be given cheaper electricity through a “social tariff” and the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) think-tank – which is close to the Labour Party – said levies on energy bills should be shifted to general taxation.
Matthew Paterson, a politics professor at Manchester University, told Climate Home News that the most effective way to reduce electricity bills is to take on the UK’s private electricity companies, while consumer-oriented measures like the VAT cut are “tinkering around the edges”.
Jarrod Birch, head of policy and public affairs for the EV charging industry association Charge UK, said that while the policy would make home-charging cheaper, people who charge their vehicles at public points will still have to pay 20% VAT. The UK’s tax authority is fighting a court ruling that ordered it to reduce the tax motorists pay on public chargers to the current household rate of 5%.
Further measures will be the responsibility of Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero Miatta Fahnbulleh, who is relatively new to politics after a career at left-wing, pro-climate think tanks the IPPR and the New Economics Foundation.
Michael Jacobs, political economy professor at Sheffield University and former adviser to UK Labour prime minister Gordon Brown, said Fahnbulleh would be a “climate advocate” who would continue the “progressive climate agenda” of her predecessor Ed Miliband.
“She’s a very creative policy wonk so I expect there to be lots of policy innovation under her,” he said, “I think she will be looking at new ways to encourage take-up of heat pumps and domestic batteries.”
Aid budget in Miliband’s hands
Despite reports he could be made finance minister, Miliband has been appointed Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Miliband has attended many climate COP meetings over several decades, most recently representing the UK at COP29 and COP30, and has been targeted by the right-wing media for his support for climate action and opposition to new oil and gas drilling in the UK’s part of the North Sea.
In his new role, Miliband will be responsible for the UK’s overseas aid budget including its international climate finance, which the Starmer government had slashed to fund increases in defence spending.
UK cuts support for climate action abroad to fund military instead
Jacobs said he expected Miliband to prioritise climate and development in the UK’s foreign policy and to push Burnham and new finance minister John Healey to reverse Starmer’s aid cuts.
But there are fears Healey could try to cut the aid budget further to fund the military. Healey was a surprise pick for Chancellor of the Exchequer and grabbed headlines when he resigned as Starmer’s defence minister in June over what he saw as insufficient defence spending.
The post Will new UK PM’s green measures at home cause climate finance pain overseas? appeared first on Climate Home News.
Will new UK PM’s green measures at home cause climate finance pain overseas?
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands, 22 July 2026 – Greenpeace Netherlands has launched legal proceedings against a multi-billion-dollar global expansion plan by the biggest meat producer in Australia, JBS, in an escalation of climate litigation against the livestock industry.
Greenpeace petitioned a Dutch court to compel the meat giant to disclose information in order to challenge its business policies in court, including a US$6 billion global expansion, for which almost half is earmarked for Nigeria.
Elizabeth Atieno, Food Campaigner at Greenpeace Africa, said: “JBS’ meat empire expanded hand-in-glove with Amazon destruction, colossal emissions, human rights and corruption scandals, all with barely a semblance of transparency. This is the business model it wants to export to sub-Saharan Africa. JBS promises food security, but its expansion in Nigeria risks causing irreversible environmental damage and the displacement of smallholder farmers to line the pockets of wealthy global elites.
“Nigerians know well from the legacy of companies like Shell the destructive impact wrought by unchecked corporate power. As Greenpeace Africa has argued before the African Court of Human Rights, states with jurisdiction over multinationals must hold those corporate actors accountable – wherever they operate in the world. We welcome this bold legal action: the Netherlands and other European states must not be safe havens for corporations like JBS seeking to evade their responsibilities.”
In light of JBS’ longstanding failure to publish accurate and reliable information on its climate, nature and human rights impacts or its expansion plans, Greenpeace Netherlands views accessing this data as a necessary precursor to formal litigation in order to support its case. The case has the potential to be the first climate litigation of this scale against the livestock industry. This could set a major precedent for future legal challenges against the industrial agriculture sector, a major source of global emissions, particularly of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, responsible for 0.5°C of warming since the Industrial Revolution.[1]
JBS, via its subsidiary JBS Foods Australia, is the largest meat and food processing company in Australia. With a weekly processing capacity of over 50,000 cattle, it accounts for almost a quarter of all beef processing in the country, as well as a significant presence in the lamb, pork and farmed fish markets. [2] In 2022, ABC’s Four Corners accused the company of ‘repeatedly failing to protect its workers from horrific injuries.’ [3]
Marieke Vellekoop, Executive Director at Greenpeace Netherlands, said “In a month where JBS has thrown its flagship environmental commitments onto the scrap heap, JBS’ disdain for basic transparency only adds to the impression that this meat giant has something to hide and is desperate to prevent its expansion plans from going public. We were hoping we wouldn’t have to trouble a judge with this matter, but JBS has left us no choice but to seek our right to information through the Dutch courts.
“JBS appears to believe that despite moving to the Netherlands, our rules do not apply to it. This legal action aims to prove it wrong – and lay the ground for a first major climate and nature lawsuit against the dangerous expansion of the global meat industry.“
At the centre of the dispute is JBS’ planned US$ 2.5 billion investment in industrial livestock production in Nigeria.[2] Civil society groups in Nigeria have raised urgent warnings that the aggressive expansion will threaten local food security, drive regional instability, and accelerate ecological degradation. There is no available evidence that JBS has conducted any impact assessments or community consultations in Nigeria, and local efforts to gather more information via Freedom of Information requests have reportedly been ignored.[3]
The escalation to the courts follows the refusal of JBS, the world’s largest meat company, to comply with a formal disclosure demand delivered by Greenpeace Netherlands in April. The environmental group is utilising new Dutch legislation, which grants parties with a legitimate interest the right to demand access to specific corporate data necessary to build litigation against Dutch companies.[4]
Greenpeace Netherlands’ lawyers allege that JBS’ historic business practices and future expansion plans are inconsistent with the company’s climate and biodiversity obligations and represent a breach of its Dutch duty of care, which requires companies to act in line with international human rights law.[5]
If the court rules in favor of Greenpeace Netherlands, it is entitled to seek the required information in the form of documents and from senior JBS figures under oath, raising the prospect of the Batista brothers being forced to testify in Dutch court. JBS reincorporated as a Dutch entity (JBS N.V.) last year to facilitate a dual listing on the New York Stock Exchange.
In April, JBS was forced to temporarily suspend its first annual general meeting since moving its headquarters to Amsterdam after it was disrupted by dozens of Greenpeace Netherlands activists.
Last week, JBS scrapped two flagship commitments to reach Net Zero emissions by 2040 and eradicate deforestation from its supply chain. It also removed any explicit reference to Indigenous lands from all of its current policies. Greenpeace Netherlands is concerned this indicates JBS is seeking to expand unconstrained by the climate, nature and human rights impacts of its business.
–ENDS–
Notes:
[1] The livestock sector is estimated to be responsible for 31% of global methane emissions (more than oil and gas operations). In comparison to CO2, methane is shorter lived (around 12 years) but has a much stronger ability to trap heat in the atmosphere over its lifetime: it has approximately 80 times more climate impact than CO2 when measured over 20 years. This means that changes in methane emissions have a more rapid effect on the climate than changes in CO2. See Greenpeace Netherlands letter to JBS dated 30 April 2026.
[2] JBS Foods Australia, Our Business
[3] ABC, Australia’s biggest meat company JBS is repeatedly failing to protect its workers from horrific injuries, 25 April 2022
[4] JBS announcement
[5] Experts raise concerns over the risks of industrial animal farming (The Sun Nigeria)
[6] Simplification and modernisation of Dutch evidence law (Fieldfisher)
[7] Greenpeace Netherlands petition to Dutch court available here. Media briefing with further details on JBS expansion plans, including in Nigeria, available here.
Greenpeace launches legal challenge against Australia’s biggest meat company
Climate Change
“Next year is too late for regulations”: Beetaloo Energy’s 2GW gas-powered AI data centre a “disaster proposal” destined to cause climate chaos
SYDNEY, Wednesday 22 July 2026 — Beetaloo Energy has secured land from the NT Government for a massive $40 billion “hyperscale” AI data centre near Darwin, which would be powered by 2 gigawatts (GW) of gas power fracked directly from the Beetaloo basin, prompting calls from Greenpeace for urgent federal legislation.
The proposal marks a dangerous escalation in the AI data centre industry’s expansion, which threatens to entrench fossil fuel infrastructure for decades and put immense pressure on the region’s fragile water resources — while continuing to be unregulated.
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This disaster proposal for a 2GW gas-powered AI data centre in the NT is a shocking example of the unchecked expansion of hyperscale data centres in Australia. It is also, critically, more evidence for the urgent need for a moratorium on all new data centres until strong, binding regulations are put in place to protect our communities and climate.
“This proposal mirrors the frenzied, unchecked expansion currently wreaking havoc on communities in the US. We are seeing cowboy data centre operators treat Australia like a playground, steam-rolling ahead with projects that would lock down precious water resources and spike emissions, despite the overwhelming community opposition.
“Every day, more councils, communities and environmental groups are joining Greenpeace’s call for a moratorium on data centres, yet as of today there is still no system of safeguards or rules in place to regulate these companies.
“While Beetaloo Energy and the NT Government prepare to bulldoze ahead with this climate and water disaster, the Prime Minister is asleep at the wheel, promising to legislate a vague set of standards next year.
“Next year is too late, and anything less than mandating data centres cover their own energy demand, and then some, with new renewable energy is not enough.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Lucy Keller on 0491 135 308 or lucy.keller@greenpeace.org
-
Climate Change11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测