The Heat That Brought America to Its Knees

Heatwaves have struck the U.S. countless times, but few compare to the catastrophic summers of 1901 and 1936—two of the deadliest climate disasters in American history. In July 1901, cities from New York to Chicago turned into sweltering death traps, with temperatures soaring above 110°F (43°C) in some regions. Then came the summer of 1936, a time when the nation was already crippled by the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. The 1936 heatwave officially claimed over 5,000 lives, making it the worst in recorded U.S. history. The true toll? Likely much higher, as deaths in rural areas, among marginalised communities, and from indirect causes often went uncounted. In both years, the unbearable heat melted infrastructure, devastated crops, and left thousands of Americans gasping for relief in a world before air conditioning.
Yet, the government’s response was shockingly inadequate—in 1901, officials largely ignored the crisis, and in 1936, despite growing scientific knowledge, relief efforts were too little, too late. The Dust Bowl’s barren fields turned into burning wastelands, amplifying temperatures to an unimaginable degree. Entire towns suffocated as heat records were shattered, with North Dakota reaching an unimaginable 121°F (49°C). Cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, and St. Louis saw thousands perish—people collapsed in the streets, children and the elderly were most vulnerable, and even railway tracks warped under the relentless sun. Livestock perished in mass numbers, and America’s already fragile economy took another devastating hit as crops shrivelled and food shortages spread.
But what’s even more shocking? The stark contrast in media coverage—the 1901 heatwave, despite its devastation, was barely documented compared to the sensationalised headlines of 1936. Was this an oversight, or were political and economic factors at play? And as climate disasters grow deadlier today, are we making the same mistakes—ignoring warning signs until it’s too late? These two deadly summers are not just relics of the past; they are grim warnings for our future.

The 1901 Heatwave: The Forgotten Scorcher
The heatwave of 1901 remains one of the deadliest and most overlooked climate disasters in U.S. history. Spanning much of the summer, this brutal heatwave struck the Northeast, Midwest, and parts of the South, with cities like New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago reaching dangerously high temperatures above 100°F (38°C). Unlike the 1936 disaster, the 1901 heatwave largely flew under the radar, both in terms of media coverage and government response. There was no nationwide recognition of the immense toll it took on the urban poor, factory workers, and vulnerable populations. The working-class neighbourhoods, where people lived in overcrowded tenements with poor ventilation, were hit the hardest. In cities like Chicago, the sick and elderly—already weakened by the grueling heat—were disproportionately affected. The combination of sweltering temperatures, poverty, and overcrowding created a deadly situation that claimed hundreds, if not thousands, of lives.
What’s particularly disturbing is the lack of documentation. There were no official heat-related death counts, and the press barely covered the tragedy. Unlike the 1936 heatwave, where photographs and personal stories flooded newspapers, the 1901 disaster was treated as an inconvenient fact that was quickly brushed aside. Public awareness was minimal, and there was little to no political outcry about the poor state of urban infrastructure that left people vulnerable. The absence of cooling centres, inadequate medical responses, and a lack of preventative measures meant that the majority of victims were left to suffer in isolation. The focus of the era was on industrial growth and urban expansion, not on public health or climate resilience, leaving the working poor and vulnerable communities to endure the heat without support.
Despite the staggering loss of life, the 1901 heatwave has been largely forgotten. The national conversation surrounding climate disasters in the early 20th century was dominated by events like the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 and the rising tensions of industrial labour strikes. The failure of government agencies to address the clear signs of climate-related suffering would set the stage for similar patterns in future heatwaves. Though the tragedy of 1901 should have been a wake-up call, it was ignored, paving the way for an even deadlier summer 35 years later.

The 1936 Heatwave: America’s Worst Climate Disaster
The 1936 heatwave stands as one of the most catastrophic climate events in U.S. history, claiming more than 5,000 lives across the country. This was no ordinary heatwave; it was a punishing, sustained assault on a nation already reeling from the Great Depression. The summer began with soaring temperatures, and by mid-July, virtually every state from the Midwest to the Northeast was in the grips of a deadly, suffocating heat. Cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, and St. Louis recorded some of the highest temperatures in history, with North Dakota reaching a blistering 121°F (49°C). The heat, coupled with the devastating drought of the Dust Bowl, created an environment that was virtually impossible to survive. Fields turned into barren deserts, crops withered under the oppressive sun, and farmers were forced to abandon their lands as the temperature continued to climb.
The death toll of the 1936 heatwave is still staggering, but it’s likely that the actual number was much higher than reported. Thousands of deaths went unrecorded, especially in rural and impoverished areas, where lack of access to medical care and poor infrastructure exacerbated the effects. The elderly, children, and the poor were hit the hardest. Many people simply couldn’t escape the heat—without air conditioning or even widespread electric fans, cities became suffocating death traps. The poor neighbourhoods, where people lived in overcrowded conditions with little relief, suffered most. Even public spaces like parks and streets became hazardous, with public health systems completely overwhelmed. People collapsed in the streets, and hospitals were flooded with heat-related illnesses. In many ways, the heatwave exposed the country’s inability to protect its most vulnerable citizens during extreme weather events.
Adding to the horror, the government’s response to the crisis was slow and ineffective. Despite the rising death toll and clear signs of extreme weather, relief efforts were insufficient. The Federal Emergency Relief Administration, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was still grappling with the Depression’s economic effects and failed to respond in time to prevent the devastation. By the time the public and government fully realised the scope of the crisis, it was already too late to stop the death toll from climbing further. The 1936 heatwave was a bitter reminder of the nation’s lack of preparation for extreme weather events—something that, tragically, would repeat itself in the decades to come.

Deaths, Misery, and the Government’s Failure to Act

• Death toll comparison between 1901 and 1936:

The 1936 heatwave was far deadlier, officially claiming over 5,000 lives across the U.S., though many estimate the true toll was much higher, potentially reaching 7,000-8,000 when considering unreported rural deaths and those who died indirectly (such as from starvation or dehydration).
The 1901 heatwave, while less documented, was still lethal, with reports indicating up to 1,500-2,000 deaths in major cities, although the actual number is likely higher due to unreported deaths, particularly in poorer urban areas where no proper death records were kept.
Key difference: The 1936 heatwave saw a much more widespread and sustained period of extreme heat, whereas the 1901 event was more localized and short-lived, leading to fewer overall deaths but a more severe impact on certain communities.

• Economic impact and infrastructure damage:

The 1936 heatwave didn’t just cause death—it crippled the nation’s economy. In addition to thousands of lives lost, the heat resulted in the destruction of crops across the Midwest and South, contributing to already existing economic struggles. An estimated 50% of crops in states like Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska were destroyed.
In 1901, although the economic impact was felt, especially in terms of the agricultural and labour sectors, the lack of industrial cooling in cities meant that factories ground to a halt, further damaging the economy. Reports suggest massive livestock deaths and agricultural losses, particularly in the Midwest, but overall the economic fallout was less severe than the 1936 disaster.
Key difference: The 1936 heatwave’s economic devastation was compounded by the effects of the Great Depression, with food shortages deepening and infrastructure like railways and power lines failing under the heat, something that wasn’t as prevalent in 1901.

• Government response and failure to act:

In 1936, the government was slow to react. Despite the clear warning signs of extreme heat and the growing public panic, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration didn’t issue federal aid or immediate relief efforts to the hardest-hit areas. The Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) was focused on Depression-era unemployment programmes, leaving heat relief to local governments that lacked resources.
In 1901, there was no federal response at all—the concept of federal disaster relief was still in its infancy. Cities were left to handle the crisis with minimal assistance, relying on local charities, fire departments, and churches to distribute ice, water, and food to the most vulnerable. The lack of centralized disaster management in 1901 meant there was no coordinated response or plan to alleviate the suffering of urban workers and families.
Key difference: The 1936 government’s slow response may have been hindered by the economic strain of the Great Depression, but the total absence of federal aid in 1901 contributed to the scale of suffering. Both disasters, however, exposed the stark failure of government systems to protect citizens from natural crises.

• Media’s role in reporting and awareness:

In 1936, media coverage was widespread, with newspapers across the country documenting the horrors of the heatwave. Stories highlighted death tolls, melting railroads, and the devastation of crops, raising national awareness. The media played a significant role in shaping public perception of the event, but some media outlets sensationalised the crisis, turning it into a spectacle.
In contrast, the 1901 heatwave received very little media attention. Although temperatures soared above 100°F in major cities, there was no real public outcry or coverage beyond local newspapers, which often downplayed the situation. The absence of modern reporting technologies, like radio or wide-reaching newspapers, meant that the full scale of the disaster was never broadcast nationally.
Key difference: The 1936 media coverage helped spur some form of national awareness and dialogue on climate disasters, while the 1901 event remained largely ignored, resulting in delayed actions and fewer interventions. This lack of exposure in 1901 is a crucial factor in why it became a forgotten tragedy.

• Disproportionate effects on marginalised communities:

The 1936 heatwave disproportionately affected the poor, the elderly, and people in Black communities who lived in overcrowded urban areas with poor housing conditions. In cities like Chicago, where extreme heat coincided with a housing crisis, the heatwave hit Black neighbourhoods the hardest. Many of these areas lacked access to cooling methods and medical care.
Similarly, the 1901 heatwave hit working-class neighbourhoods particularly hard, especially in cities like New York and Philadelphia where poorly ventilated tenements made it impossible to escape the suffocating heat. In these communities, the sick, elderly, and infants were especially vulnerable. Like the 1936 heatwave, marginalised groups suffered the worst of the disaster, but the lack of media coverage meant their suffering was largely ignored.
Key difference: In 1936, while segregation and economic disparity were already well-established, there were more visible attempts at addressing the marginalised communities’ needs, though they were far from adequate. In 1901, the absence of any serious relief for these communities was a major failure.

The Political Controversy: Was the 1936 Heatwave Made Worse by FDR’s Policies?

The 1936 heatwave didn’t just expose America’s vulnerability to extreme weather—it also ignited fierce debates about President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration and whether its policies indirectly worsened the disaster. Critics argue that FDR’s handling of the Great Depression—particularly his agricultural policies—had a direct role in exacerbating the heatwave’s impact. The Dust Bowl, which plagued the Midwest and Great Plains during the same time, was not just a freak of nature; it was a crisis that had been heightened by decades of poor farming practices. FDR’s New Deal programmes, while revolutionary, had largely ignored the long-term sustainability of farming practices, leading to widespread soil erosion and the subsequent creation of vast dust storms that trapped heat and moisture. Did these policies contribute to the unbearable temperatures and conditions that ravaged the nation in 1936?

There’s no question that FDR’s initiatives were aimed at helping farmers—soil conservation programmes, land-reclamation efforts, and government-backed subsidies to restore agriculture. However, critics claim that the speed at which these measures were enacted was inadequate, and the government’s oversight in promoting “quick fixes” instead of addressing the deeper environmental issues left farmers exposed to the full force of nature. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of the 1930s, which was designed to reduce overproduction, may have contributed to the destruction of small farms as land consolidation took place, forcing many farmers into poverty and leaving them without the resources to cope with such extreme weather. These policies, they argue, created a situation where the heatwave’s deadly effects were magnified, and relief efforts became too little, too late.

Perhaps the most controversial argument surrounding FDR’s role in the heatwave lies in his government’s slow response. While Roosevelt was deeply involved in addressing the economic consequences of the Depression, critics argue that his focus on unemployment relief programmes and industrial recovery distracted from immediate needs like emergency heat relief and disaster preparedness. When the heatwave hit, local governments were left to fend for themselves—many of which were unable to provide the kind of rapid intervention needed to save lives. The federal government’s decision to focus on long-term economic recovery rather than short-term disaster relief might have allowed the heatwave to become a national catastrophe. Was this a case of political negligence, where FDR’s priorities left vulnerable Americans to suffer in a scorching summer with little to no help from the state? The answer is still up for debate, but it raises serious questions about how climate-related crises were viewed at the time—and whether a different course of action could have saved thousands of lives.

The Unseen Tragedy: Black Communities and Working-Class Deaths

Both the 1901 and 1936 heat waves exposed a glaring truth: climate disasters rarely affect everyone equally—poor and marginalised communities, especially Black communities, bore the brunt of the devastation. During the 1936 heat wave, the poorest urban neighbourhoods, often home to Black families, were hardest hit. Cities like Chicago saw Black neighbourhoods suffer disproportionately from the effects of the heat, with people living in overcrowded, poorly ventilated tenements that became unbearable death traps. Without the means to afford cooling systems or even basic air circulation, entire blocks were exposed to sweltering conditions, and the death toll among Black residents was notably higher. Public services, such as cooling centres, were often either non-existent or inaccessible to these communities, leaving many to suffer and die alone. The historical racism in the design of urban spaces meant that Black families were often relegated to the most vulnerable parts of cities, where the effects of extreme heat were most lethal.

In 1901, the situation was not much different. The working-class poor, including many Black and immigrant communities, lived in cramped, unsanitary conditions in cities like Philadelphia, New York, and Chicago. These neighbourhoods lacked access to resources, both in terms of relief efforts and cooling systems. Tenement housing, with its poor insulation, made it almost impossible for residents to escape the suffocating heat. While the wealthy had access to private cooling methods, like ice or fans, the poor were forced to endure the heat with little to no relief. And because no official heat-related death statistics were compiled, the true extent of suffering in these communities remains hidden. It’s clear that the working-class and Black populations faced a disproportionately high risk of heat-related illnesses and death, but the lack of acknowledgment during that time meant that their stories were largely erased from the historical record.

The 1901 and 1936 heat waves highlighted the stark disparities between the wealthy and the poor, and how the lack of infrastructure, public health policies, and access to resources in marginalised communities led to preventable deaths. The government’s failure to address these systemic inequities meant that Black and working-class people were often left to fend for themselves in the face of an unstoppable disaster. The heatwaves were not just climate events—they were reflections of deeper, racial and economic inequalities that determined who survived and who didn’t. The tragedies of 1901 and 1936 are not just stories of extreme weather—they are painful reminders of how the most vulnerable in society are often the first to suffer in the face of environmental catastrophe.

The Lasting Legacy: How the Heat Waves Shaped U.K. Climate Policy and Preparedness

Government Response and Disaster Relief Evolution

The heatwaves of 1901 and 1936 played a pivotal role in the evolution of U.K. climate disaster response. While both events highlighted the government’s initial inaction, the aftermath of these catastrophes set the stage for future policies around climate resilience and disaster preparedness. The 1936 heat wave was particularly influential in pushing for reforms in how the government would respond to natural disasters. Following the devastation, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration made strides toward developing a more coordinated approach to disaster relief. The creation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 1979, though much later, can trace its roots back to the failings and lessons learned from these early climate disasters. While Roosevelt’s New Deal programmes helped to mitigate the worst effects of the Great Depression, the lack of immediate relief during heatwaves showcased the need for a more organised, centralised disaster response system—something that would evolve significantly in later decades.

The Rise of Public Awareness and Advocacy

The media coverage of the 1936 heat wave sparked a shift in public awareness of extreme weather events. This increased public consciousness of climate-related disasters influenced the development of advocacy for climate justice and better government accountability in managing heat emergencies. As the news of the heat wave’s devastating effects spread, social advocacy groups began to pressure policymakers to consider vulnerable communities when designing public health policies. The glaring disparities between wealthier, better-prepared neighbourhoods and poorer, more vulnerable communities sparked calls for equitable disaster relief. While no immediate changes were made at the federal level during or after the 1936 crisis, the event became a rallying point for future environmental justice movements.

The Development of Urban Heat Island Effect Awareness

In the years following the heat waves, researchers and urban planners began to acknowledge the urban heat island effect, where cities tend to be hotter than surrounding rural areas due to human activities, lack of greenery, and poor urban planning. Both the 1901 and 1936 heat waves highlighted the severe consequences of poor urban design and the importance of implementing cooling solutions to protect citizens in the face of extreme temperatures. Over time, green spaces, trees, and better city planning became seen as critical components of adapting cities to climate change. As we now know, addressing the urban heat island effect is essential in mitigating the effects of heat waves, especially in underdeveloped urban areas where cooling resources are scarce.

The Policy Disconnect and Missed Opportunities

Despite the lessons that could have been learned from the heat waves of 1901 and 1936, the political environment and lack of long-term planning meant that major policy shifts were often slow to come. The Dust Bowl and the Great Depression left many lawmakers more focused on immediate economic relief than on climate or public health concerns. Even during and after the 1936 heat wave, the government largely failed to implement national strategies for heatwave preparedness. It wasn’t until decades later, after subsequent climate disasters and the growing recognition of global warming, that heatwaves were considered a central element in climate change policy. The ongoing failure to plan adequately for extreme heat suggests that, even in modern times, governments remain underprepared for future heat crises, despite clear signs from history that such events are bound to escalate.

Environmental Justice and Displacement in the Heat of the Storm

Another important legacy of the 1936 heat wave was the rise of the environmental justice movement in the 1960s and 1970s, which sought to address racial and economic inequalities in climate response and urban planning. The stark disparity in the impact of heat waves on Black communities and other marginalised groups became a key issue for environmental activists. The heatwave’s aftermath revealed that vulnerable populations were not only more exposed to the consequences of heat but also less likely to receive adequate government support in times of crisis. This became a rallying cry for environmental justice advocates, who worked to raise awareness about the disproportionate effects of climate events on low-income and minority communities, urging policymakers to act. This activism eventually helped shape policies and urban planning reforms designed to mitigate heat and address the inequities in disaster response.

Conclusion: The Crucial Lessons for Today’s Climate Crisis

The heat waves of 1901 and 1936 serve as critical milestones in understanding how climate events affect society and how society responds. They left behind an important legacy of increased awareness, governmental responsibility, and long-term preparedness strategies. However, their lessons were also ignored for too long, and the lack of immediate action in these early heat waves led to untold suffering. If we are to avoid repeating the same mistakes today, it is imperative that policymakers prioritise climate resilience, particularly for the most vulnerable communities, and that governments take proactive steps to prepare for the deadly heat waves of the future. As climate change accelerates, America’s response to heat crises must evolve, learning from past failures to protect lives and mitigate suffering in a warming world.

The Blame Game: Was Climate Change the Unseen Culprit in 1901 and 1936?

The 1901 and 1936 heatwaves were terrifying reminders of the destructive power of extreme heat, but here’s the kicker: were these events actually the early warning signs of climate change, and did our leaders, even back then, ignore the obvious? While we’re now facing the undeniable reality of global warming, it’s hard not to look back at these catastrophes and wonder—did the climate crisis already exist, and were we just too blind to see it? Critics argue that these deadly heatwaves, which devastated thousands of lives, were more than just freak events—they could have been climate-induced anomalies that foreshadowed what we are seeing today. But no one was willing to acknowledge the obvious consequences of human impact on the environment, nor did they want to disturb the economic machinery that was thriving on unsustainable practices.

Let’s get into it: in 1901, the world was already grappling with rapid industrialisation, urban sprawl, and environmental degradation. Cities were expanding, often without concern for how deforestation, over-industrialisation, and poor agricultural practices were already altering the atmosphere. The heatwave of 1901, which caused significant damage to crops, livestock, and human life, might have been the first glimpse of what we now know as the urban heat island effect—but no one connected the dots. Was it a freak event, or was it part of a growing climate disruption? The fact that climate science was not advanced enough to see the broader picture at that time should not absolve society from its failure to recognise the early signs of environmental collapse. The fact is, the heatwave in 1901 was not an isolated incident, and climate models today suggest that human impact on the environment likely contributed to the intensity of such events. Still, we brushed it aside as just another “bad year.”

Fast forward to 1936, and the situation becomes even more complicated: The Dust Bowl, already devastating the Midwest, was likely a result of poor farming practices combined with extreme weather, and yet no one was drawing the clear connection between these weather events and human behaviour. Was it coincidental that the country was dealing with both a heatwave and a drought, or was it a sign of a much larger climate catastrophe unfolding in real time? The fact that the U.S. government failed to acknowledge the role of climate and was more concerned with short-term economic relief during the Great Depression is nothing short of a scandal. Instead of preparing for what would become a deadly summer, the focus on economic recovery overshadowed the need for national climate adaptation strategies. It’s as though policymakers deliberately turned a blind eye to the worsening environmental conditions, choosing to focus on recovery rather than the long-term climate crisis that was already looming.

The truth is: climate change didn’t suddenly emerge in the 21st century—it was quietly brewing beneath the surface in the early 1900s, and these heatwaves are proof that our industrial activity and environmental neglect were already beginning to wreak havoc. So, were the governments of the time criminally negligent in their inability to recognise the role that human actions played in these deadly heatwaves? Absolutely. In fact, the failure to act back then was a clear precursor to the massive global climate crisis we’re now facing. The fact that we’re still debating climate change today—despite clear historical evidence—proves how we’ve been ignoring the inevitable consequences for over a century. It’s high time we stop treating climate events like 1901 and 1936 as isolated incidents and start accepting that they were the warning shots for a planet on the brink of collapse—a collapse that’s now accelerating at an alarming pace.

The Global Echo: How the U.S. Heatwaves Influenced International Climate Awareness

While the 1901 and 1936 heatwaves were significant disasters in the United States, their impact extended far beyond the country’s borders, sparking discussions about climate change and weather preparedness across the globe. These events became early global indicators that extreme weather was not just a localised problem, but a potentially global issue that could affect nations with diverse climates. International media outlets and environmental groups began to take note of how such extreme heat could lead to devastating consequences, from agricultural failure to widespread human suffering. In the aftermath, countries across the world, particularly those in Europe, began to re-evaluate their own disaster preparedness plans, although they still failed to make the systemic connections between climate patterns and human activity. The U.S. heatwaves highlighted that climate wasn’t just a national concern; it was becoming a universal issue, and nations could no longer ignore the warning signs of environmental instability.

By the time of the 1936 heatwave, global attention to weather-related catastrophes began to grow. Many nations in Europe and Asia had experienced extreme temperatures and droughts in the years leading up to it, and the events of 1936 forced these nations to confront their vulnerability to extreme heat. However, while the U.S. heatwave was well-documented, countries like Germany and the Soviet Union focused more on economic recovery from the Depression rather than acknowledging the impact of extreme weather on their societies. The global response to heatwaves during the early 20th century remained fragmented—without an integrated global framework for understanding and mitigating climate risks. Still, the 1936 event offered a moment of reflection that began to inspire new dialogues about international cooperation in the face of global weather extremes.

It wasn’t until the mid-to-late 20th century, long after these two devastating heatwaves, that countries started to integrate climate change into their public policies in a more serious and structured manner. The 1970s climate awareness movements, driven by both scientific advancements and the growing visibility of global weather patterns, began to recognise that extreme heat events were not isolated to specific regions but part of a larger global climate crisis. However, early heatwaves like those in 1901 and 1936 made it clear that while the U.S. might have been at the epicentre of early climate disasters, the consequences of such events could easily transcend national borders and have a profound impact on international stability.

The U.S. heatwaves, then, can be seen as a catalyst for global recognition of the rising intensity of climate events, signalling that countries worldwide could no longer afford to ignore climate change and extreme weather patterns. These tragedies demonstrated that the effects of weather were interconnected, and the lessons learned in the U.S. could serve as a warning to the world about what was to come. Although the global community has still struggled to fully address the climate crisis in recent decades, the legacy of these heatwaves remains a pivotal chapter in understanding how extreme weather events can shape international climate discussions, and how countries need to prepare for a warming world.

The Heat Waves of 1901 and 1936: A Reminder for Future Generations

A Nation’s Wake-Up Call: The Early Warning of Climate Crisis

The heat waves of 1901 and 1936 were stark wake-up calls to a nation unprepared for the devastating power of extreme weather. These events exposed the vulnerabilities of American infrastructure, particularly in urban areas, and highlighted the economic disparities that exacerbated the effects on the poorest communities. They forced the nation to grapple with the fact that climate events could no longer be seen as isolated, but rather as indicators of a larger, global climate crisis that was quietly taking shape. The lesson from these heatwaves is clear: the failure to prepare for such extremes resulted in unnecessary suffering, and this should serve as a warning to today’s policymakers that we can no longer ignore the impact of climate change and extreme weather events.

Political and Economic Failures: Ignoring the Role of Government in Climate Preparedness

Despite the devastating effects of both heatwaves, one of the most glaring issues was the lack of political will to address the growing role that climate change was playing in shaping extreme weather. In both 1901 and 1936, the U.S. government failed to respond effectively to the crisis, leaving many vulnerable communities without sufficient relief or support. The Great Depression undoubtedly shifted priorities, but the slow or nonexistent response to heat emergencies raises questions about how prepared and how willing the U.S. government was to acknowledge and address climate-related risks. Today, we are facing the consequences of not learning from the mistakes of the past—extreme weather is now occurring at a much more frequent and dangerous rate, and the political systems still often fail to address the underlying environmental issues causing these events.

Climate Inequities: The Disproportionate Impact on Vulnerable Communities

The 1901 and 1936 heatwaves exposed a painful truth: marginalised communities, especially Black and working-class populations, are disproportionately impacted by extreme weather events. These heatwaves decimated vulnerable populations living in overcrowded, poorly ventilated housing with limited access to cooling resources. The racial and economic disparities in terms of disaster preparedness were glaring, and this history of environmental injustice continues to persist today. As we look toward the future, we must ask: how do we ensure that our climate response plans focus not only on protecting the environment but also on equitable access for all communities, especially those who have historically borne the brunt of climate-related disasters?

The Overlooked Role of Climate Science: Early Signs Ignored

Looking back, it’s hard not to wonder how different things might have been if the scientific community had been more engaged in climate studies in the early 1900s. While climate science was not as advanced at the time, the extreme heatwaves of both 1901 and 1936 could have served as early signals of a changing climate that was influenced by human activity. Unfortunately, the political focus on economic recovery overshadowed the possibility that these events were harbingers of a larger, more devastating climate issue that was only beginning to emerge. Today, we are living with the consequences of having ignored these early warnings—and we must now take swift action to reverse the damage before it’s too late.

A Global Crisis in the Making: The International Impact and Lessons Learned

The U.S. heatwaves of 1901 and 1936 weren’t just national tragedies—they were international warnings. As extreme weather patterns became more prominent across the world, other nations started to recognise the need for global climate cooperation. While the lessons from these U.S. disasters didn’t immediately influence worldwide action, they eventually contributed to a growing global awareness of the interconnectedness of climate events and the need for a coordinated global response. If there’s one takeaway from these heatwaves, it’s that no nation is immune to the dangers of climate change. These events demonstrated the global nature of the climate crisis, and the need for countries to work together to develop effective adaptation strategies and reduce their carbon footprint to prevent further escalation of extreme weather events.

Learning from History: The Urgent Need for Climate Preparedness Today

As we continue to face more frequent and intense climate events, we must learn from the past to shape a more resilient future. The heatwaves of 1901 and 1936 should not be viewed as isolated incidents, but as part of a larger pattern of climate instability that’s only worsened over time. As we confront the climate crisis of today, we must ensure that the lessons from these past heatwaves influence modern climate policies, including better disaster preparedness, equitable solutions, and scientific advancements that aim to reduce the effects of extreme heat. If we don’t learn from history, we risk repeating its most tragic mistakes—and leaving future generations to deal with the deadly consequences of our inaction.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on the Heatwaves of 1901 and 1936

What caused the extreme heatwaves in 1901 and 1936?
The heatwaves were driven by high-pressure systems trapping hot air, preventing cooling. In 1936, the Great Depression, over-farming, and deforestation worsened the drought, creating a dust bowl. Though climate change was not recognised, industrialisation and urbanisation likely intensified the heat.
How many people died during the 1901 and 1936 heatwaves?
The 1901 heatwave claimed about 1,000 lives, though poor records make the exact toll uncertain. In 1936, around 5,000 people died, mainly in the Midwest and Northeast. Urban slums, Black communities, and immigrants suffered the most due to poor living conditions.
Why were poorer and Black communities more affected during these heatwaves?
These groups lived in overcrowded, poorly ventilated homes with no cooling or air circulation. They lacked access to heat-relief measures and public health responses due to marginalisation. Racism and economic inequality worsened their vulnerability, leading to higher mortality rates.
What were the long-term impacts of the 1901 and 1936 heatwaves on climate policy in the U.S.?
Despite the 1936 heatwave being a wake-up call, climate policy remained weak until later in the 20th century. Some reforms improved disaster response and urban planning, but no national climate preparedness existed. These disasters fuelled environmental justice movements, highlighting the impact on marginalised communities.
How can we prevent future heatwave-related deaths?
Modern climate policies must improve disaster preparedness, ensuring cooling centres reach at-risk communities. Urban planning should create green spaces, cool roofs, and tree canopies to combat the urban heat island effect. Governments must urgently tackle climate change, cutting emissions and preparing for extreme heat.