By Aditya Valiathan Pillai, Visiting Fellow, Adaptation and Resilience, Sustainable Futures Collaborative (SFC), New Delhi, India

Extreme heat is not a static problem. It is a moving target, shaped by a warming climate that is pushing temperatures higher, for longer, and with greater humidity. This means that the solutions we design today will not hold tomorrow. India’s heat governance cannot afford to be reactive; it must anticipate a future that is predictably hotter and far more dangerous. That requires a framework that evolves as the hazard intensifies, one that moves beyond saving lives during the next heatwave to reducing structural risk over the long term.

Our recent assessment of the implementation of heat actions in nine of India’s most heat-vulnerable cities reveals that short-term measures—such as hydration points, work breaks, and hospital readiness—are more prevalent than long-term actions, which are inconsistent and rarely targeted at the most vulnerable populations. This imbalance will leave cities more vulnerable to higher mortality as temperatures rise. Fixing this requires progress on three fronts.

First, finance. The real gap is not in funding emergency measures but in securing predictable public finance for structural risk reduction. Frequent calls for heat-specific funding are beside the point. Extreme heat is not a major political priority, and many hazards have equally legitimate claims on the public purse. It is important to realise that there are several national and state schemes that can finance heat resilience, from urban tree-planting programmes to water works funds, which can be creatively tapped to finance India’s heat resilience. Heat finance is as much about creativity as it is about brute-force provisioning. Philanthropies and CSR funding are useful in the breach but are unlikely to sustain systemic change.

India has opened an important door by allowing states to draw on the National and State Disaster Mitigation Funds for heat mitigation projects. This window must be widened through a multi-state national long-term heat resilience programme by the central government to create cutting-edge demonstration projects that can be replicated.

Second, cooling. As the gap between peak day and nighttime temperatures and human tolerance widens, low-income households and outdoor workers will turn to cheap, inefficient air conditioners, locking in higher emissions and energy bills. A targeted public programme can avert this trajectory. Governments should subsidise or bulk-procure efficient ACs for the hottest, highest-risk zones identified by vulnerability assessments, while continuing to invest in passive cooling—shade, reflective roofs, ventilation retrofits—that reduce the need for active cooling. Decentralised renewable energy must be invested in to power these ACs for the at-risk where possible. Pragmatic, early action can reduce the risk of major maladaptation in the future.

Third, science. Policy today is flying half-blind. Only two of 42 city-level officials we asked had access to climate projections, and just three cities had installed local weather stations. A national programme to stimulate decentralised scientific capacity for climate change is essential. Maharashtra’s efforts to create a framework for heat action, which relied on scientific data on vulnerability, heat islands, and solutions, and partnerships with expert organisations, are a model other cities should adopt. This knowledge infrastructure should be funded by public budgets and supplemented by philanthropy and CSR, with civil society partners helping translate data into action and hold the system to account.

The pivot we need is clear: from reactive relief to durable, equity-centred cooling—financed publicly, delivered by trained institutions, and guided by local science. The sooner we start, the better our chances of staying ahead of a predictably hotter future.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are those of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of AIDMI.