Phoenix seems like an odd choice of example here. It's hot here. We're used to it, we have a lot of systems in place to deal with it, and we're one of the best places in the country to weather temperature increases because of our extremely low humidity.

> Flights may be delayed at Sky Harbor International Airport because the planes can’t get enough lift in the thin, hot air.

This isn't actually the reason - the reason is liability. It makes a fun story, but nah (another local variant of the story is that the blacktop is so hot that the planes' tires melt. Also a myth.) The aircraft were certified to operate at temperatures of up to 117.86F. Beyond that, if there's an accident (even if completely unrelated to heat), the airline exposes themselves to liability for operating outside of certified ranges. The FAA recently recertified the CRJ700 and CRJ900 for operating temperatues of up to 123.8F - and they're flying just fine. Physics didn't change.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix-weather/2...

> Last year, there were 181 heat-related deaths in Arizona’s Maricopa County, nearly three times the number from four years earlier.

4 years earlier was a local minimum. 2 years before that, there were 110 heat deaths. Also not discussed: the correlated increase in drug-related heat-linked deaths, and the higher prevalence of heat death among the elderly coupled with an aging population. 2017/2018 were very clear statistical outliers. This is a textbook example of the univariate fallacy combined with cherry-picking to lie with statistics.

https://www.maricopa.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/3492

> According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, between 2004 and 2017, about a quarter of all weather-related deaths were caused by excessive heat, far more than other natural disasters such as hurricanes and tornadoes.

But less than flash floods and tropical storms. Why were hurricanes and tornadoes chosen for comparison?

https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics...

Or why wasn't it mentioned that the CDC reports a higher rate of cold-related deaths than heat related deaths?

> Based on information from death certificates, 10,649 deaths were attributed to weather-related causes in the United States during 2006–2010. Nearly one-third of the deaths were
attributed to excessive natural heat, and almost two-thirds were attributed to excessive natural cold.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr076.pdf

> A pedestrian uses an umbrella to get some relief from the sun as she walks past a sign displaying the temperature

Because the main source of discomfort out here is direct solar radiation (due to geography and lower humidity resulting in lower diffusion) - not ambient air temperature (ie, a primary effect of carbon-driven heat retention). Once you're out of direct sunlight, it's significantly less unpleasant. Also, because skin cancer is a concern due to the significantly higher solar intensity - our direct normal solar irradiance is around the highest in the nation. Keep out of direct sunlight and the environment is significantly less awful, even pleasant.

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/pdfs/solar_dni_2018_01.pdf

I could go on, but I think it's clear that based on just the opening paragraphs, I don't think the article is very honestly presented.

I don't mean to imply that there aren't challenges to be solved - there certainly are. But, Phoenix isn't "just like where you live, except hotter". It's a fundamentally different kind of climate, one that doesn't really do well with extrapolation from your upstate New York climate with the temperature dial ratcheted up 20 degrees, and it's an environment where humans have built the entire infrastructure around the reality of extreme heat. Using it as a scary bogeyman vision of the future where we're just one blackout away from mass deaths, to a readership who live in temperate, humid climates just makes me roll my eyes.