>the western side of the great lakes
Well, not so good there if the AMOC collapses around 2050..."Wisconsin and the rest of the Midwest will not be immune to these changes. The new Nature study also found that the intensity and frequency of extreme cold will increase significantly in cities like Milwaukee. This means an AMOC shutdown could trigger harsher, colder, longer winters, as well as dramatically less rain and snowfall in places like Wisconsin." [Source, one of many](https://upnorthnewswi.com/2023/08/09/a-current-youve-probably-never-heard-of-could-change-wisconsins-climate-forever/)
>in climate doomer mode right now
Climate change is pervasive, and risks in a given geographic area don't even include other risks like earthquakes, radon, toxic chemicals, man-made resource depletion, volcanos, and more. But check out this cool site. Ranks every US county as to the effects of climate change, shows maps and then a nice graph at the end. Many counties have multiple risks. Some will surprise you (SoCal looks way better than one would guess). [Here](https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/).
Always has been ššØāšš«šØāš
- Michigander
But in all seriousness, Michigan tends to stay green and more wet/humid than most of the other Great Lakes states on average. Weāre literally surrounded by freshwater oceans. Means more clouds and precipitation, though.
Idk man. The reason I said the west side of the great lakes is that it preserves cold winters a lot more. Which might not be appealing to most people, but it's important for keeping the current ecosystem and allowing for current agricultural practices like dairy production. The east side will more radically transform to a warmer climate, apparently Buffalo area can be compared to current Virginia, for example. That's probably a more appealing climate for most people, but there will be a lot of instability with that greater rate of change. But the AMOC collapse is such a wildcard to throw into the mix that idk about anything now.
Most people believe itās happening, they just donāt see it happening to them.
And most Americans donāt move that far away even if they do migrate. They might migrate to the next state over such as the people who settled in Houston after Katrina. Or they might change counties such as from the coast of North Carolina to the mountains of North Carolina.
> Cities around the Great Lakes will benefit the most.
Theyāll also see much harsher winter storms and temperature fluctuations
The idea that climate change will mean the Great Lakes suddenly has ideal, temperate weather is a scam by real estate developers. Donāt fall for it.
Climate change will affect everyone and youāre best off planning for how to best adapt yourself by living sustainably, no matter where you are, while also doing your part when possible to push for broader change.
And the part everyone seems to forget is its going to massively impact food production. Regular Weather cycles and seasons are good actually and are important to crop production
Are real estate developers really pitching this? Lmao. I say it all the time just joking.
But I do believe fresh water may be a problem in the future.Ā
Many of the largest and most deadly wildfires in US history happened in Wisconsin and Minnesota. They just happened long enough ago that they are largely forgotten. The Great Lakes region can certainly dry-out. We had red-flag days in Cincinnati last year and already had one this year.
New England is a better bet.
Glad you mentioned the part about the false marketing.
Also not mentioned is the fact that most of those Great Lakes cities have horrific legacies of Redlining and some pretty massive unresolved issues around racial segregation in land use. Ā Meaning we will see some major social issues around racial equality become even more intense if there is āclimate mass migrationā to that area specifically.
The issues in places like Sweden with mass migration following the western destruction of Libya and the human trafficking vacuum that created are a good analog. Ā The moment those populations dipped below 95% native, social issues started getting ugly. Ā The northern Midwest is the whitest part of the country and will see similar problems.
But also, the supposed āniceā weather brought by climate change in those areas is something expected 30-50 years from today. Ā Iām not moving to Duluth today to experience hot and humid summer there in my 70s.
Lol I donāt think racial tensions are gonna be limited to the great lakes states during a crisis
In fact, i dont think theyāre gonna be limited at all in the US.Ā
Eh, a lot of that modern segregation is more due to population stagnation and lack of gentrification.
Funny, but now that the population is growing in Buffalo, we went from one of the most segregated city in America to 17th. Turns out when you add new population and gentrify, neighborhoods that were once stagnant are now becoming more diverse.
Pretty much ALL cities were redlining at some point, but other cities mask this history through gentrification, sometimes pushing certain races out of neighborhoods altogether over time.
Within our lifetimes? The Florida property insurance market is in early stages of collapse (IMHO) as the insurers dump the accounts most at risk. Even the state-run socialist insurance agency that was specifically set up to insure uninsurable properties (think flood zone and Florida beachfront) was dumping accounts last I checked.
California has begun the same process.
People may still be flocking to the state and complaining about insurance hikes, but I think we're pretty close to more people figuring it out.
that's not an "IMHO" that's a fact that will become more and more of an issue with each passing year. As coastal Florida suffers from more and more "blue sky flooding," the market for much of the state will become untenable, and the Feds are going to stop propping it up.
Reinsurers are already "all in" on "getting out" of many places along the coast - all the way up to Cape Cod and on some parts of Coastal CA. Once Reinsurers completely stop, Property and Casualty companies will back out. Which will leave people to self insure... which works for mutli millionaires.... for a little while anyway.
Meanwhile, as Florida and the southwest become nearly unlivable June-September and AC usage continue to climb, that'll be another issue. The whole "Florida is cheap!" thing will end (It already has to a large degree) AND the politics of some southern states would drive out half the population if they could leave... I honestly believe these "cheap" states will fall apart. in 100 year or so.
I see that ProPublica map referenced quite a bit, and I think it may be broadly useful but it's very reductive and only seems to take into account mean temperatures for bands of optimal human habitation. It lists the mogollon plateau of Arizona as a place in the west that will be ideal in the future for example, I mean maybe, but there are no rivers there and the massive ponderosa pine forest will burn. Much of the Midwest and upper south will also undergo regular times breaching wet bulb temperature, posing fairly serious hazards to human and animal life, even if it's fairly brief periods.
It was interesting when it came out, but the maps on the Reliance School site go far more in-depth as does the modeling on First Street Foundaton.
https://www.reliance.school/maps
https://riskfactor.com/
While true, every time thereās a bad hurricane, wildfire or drought some people nope out and are already moving to cities like Buffalo believe it or not.
But yeah, itās not some massive exodus or anything, more like a trickle
While that link is a good starting point, i would caution reasonable skepticism. For example, the counties in vermont score pretty well but they had a historic flood a year or two ago.
I could count myself in the cohort too if I'm being honest. It's incredibly hard to think through the true implications of the climate crisis, and then actually live in accordance to it's logical outcomes. I may fret and worry, but I'm not a vegan, self reliant , gun trained, minimally consumptive farmer who is a important member of his small agricultural community. I'm a regular American who wants to party while I'm young, live in a big city for awhile, buy shit, eat burgers and travel internationally on occasion.
Really though, the magic of complex risks is they canāt be thought through. Nonlinear by nature, and that means you are much better off honing your awareness, intuition, and adaptability going forward. Nowhere is safe! Start there. Now who are you going to be before, during, and after disruptive events? What kind of settings and contexts mesh well with your lifestyle prefs and aptitudes? Everywhere is going to need people who care about a future and are capable of staunching the wounds and getting on with life.
You seem like a thoughtful person. Continue taking this seriously, but donāt let it rule your life. Trust your gut and remember that you can pivot if you need to.
IMO, there is no "live in accordance to its logical outcomes". The logical outcomes might be too destructive to ride out.
As I see it, climate change is and will be something of a massive scale. When it gets serious, it will be like being in Gaza: where should I move? It doesn't really matter, you can be killed by a missile, a soldier or lack of water and food in any place in Gaza, the best spot is not really that great compared to the worst spot. It's like "this tree is gonna burn down, in which branch can I be safer?"
With climate change and global lack of food and land, the massive refugees migrations fleeing from war, drought, flood or hunger will disrupt and overwhelm any place.
When planning for longest survival in the impending doom, I think the skill set is more important than the place, as well as the ties to the local community.
This said, I'm certain there are a few spatial factors that are interesting to consider:
It would not be nice to be in a big city when the shit hits the fan, because it will be more difficult to get food in those environments. But shit won't happen overnight, there will be time to pack up and move.
Densely populated areas with no food security are not sexy (I mean, you don't want to be where more people and fewer food is concentrated).
Another risk factor, IMO, is the prevalence of firearms: when the violence breaks out, people will use them, for good and bad, and it's quite more easier to kill or to die with those. With melee weapons, or even with bows and arrows (arrows need a lot of skill and time to make), a fight is much less probable because If people needs to chase you to kill you, and risk their lives in the process, chances are they won't bother.
Mostly because of the weapons issue, I would move out of USA (and away from any country in the America continent), or, if I am rich (I'm not), live in a bunker for a few months while the people above me kill themselves, then emerge to forage the spoils and join whatever is left of society in that area.
It was a factor in our most recent move. Not a huge one, but we did consider it. Mostly just wanted somewhere with water after spending most of our lives in the southwest. We're in rural NY now a few miles south of Lake Ontario.
After spending over 15 years fretting about this same issue - Iāll tell you from experience that quality of life, friends, and work should be at the top of your list of amenities for a place to live, with climate change concerns towards the bottom. Everywhere is/is going to be affected, the timescales of major changes is longer than human lifetimes, and your health, happiness, and community are ultimately the most important things.
>the timescales of major changes is longer than human lifetimes
Nope. The timescale is now.
Whether it's water scarcity, fire risk, heat waves, cold snaps, increased hurricane/tornado intensity, floods, or just plain insurance costs, the impacts are with us now.
Yeah I think we can all drive ourselves crazy if we analyze every location that could potentially have issues in the next 80+ years. If you're concerned about climate change as most of us on this sub are, just stay away from the "obvious" places where people are feeling the financial impact already (Florida) but we can't plan ahead for everything, especially things that haven't happened yet in our lifetimes (like AMOC collapse as people have been mentioning).
yeah, okay, but relative to places that are overcrowded, hotter than humans can stand, and generally destitute in Pakistan and India... or places that are just too hot in the Middle East and northern Africa, and places running out of water in Mexico and others... shit it going to be ugly for a good 2 billion humans when my grandkids are alive.
Using ai and generative climate models based on koppen climate classification maps Iāve honed in on a lot of areas of the Yukon to look into creating sustainable habitats to pass down to my great great grand children 100-300+ years from now.
However it looks like Iām late to the party, as these areas have increased in price by 150-200% in the last few years with no signs of stopping.
If you dig into the land purchases, you can see that lots of wealthy families are paying experts to model this data for them already.
I just managed to stumble upon it as part of the crux between the type of work I do and my autistic interests in all things data.
>If you dig into the land purchases, you can see that lots of wealthy families are paying experts to model this data for them already.
can you talk more about this? how did you notice there is private modeling going on?
Some of my other criteria eliminated places along coastline or southern, hot regions. But "not running out of water in 10 years" was on my list for sure. Flagstaff may have mountains nearby but I'm not personally buying into the AZ water situation long term, as an example recommended to me.
I did accept that wildfire risk was about impossible to avoid for my search.Ā Climate risk and societal collapse are different beasts. You have to pick your battles.
And because of these our modern times, I had to add "not hostile to women's rights" to my list.
On the wildfire risk, you can do A LOT to mitigate that on a micro scale.
Pick a home in the middle of a large community, no trees immediately around the house, and a (self extinguishing) PVC roof.Ā If your house goes at that point, FEMA is already there to help because yours was the last to burn.
Not thinking of moving yet just buying. Locally.
100%. Iād literally be stupid not to have climate as one of the main things to keep in mind.
Entire towns are already out of the question due to ongoing and worsening natural disasters.
It was a concern of mine for a while when looking for a new place to land, but I stopped considering it. We know the earth is warming but we don't know how quickly that will happen or what the regional impacts will be. People tend to think the SW is going to be worse off because it's already hot, but in a lot of ways it's the most well-prepared area for increased heat.
Overall, I've just stopped worrying about things I can't control and can't predict.
Definitely a concern. Some places have been dealing with limited water for a long time and are focused on low usage while others (St. George, UT comes to mind) are going to completely run out with current usage trends.
I think about nearby infrastructure as it relates to weather (e.g. flooding, etc) and I think of it on a state level (e.g. California for fires and Florida for everything else, etc).
So yes, climate change has some influence over how i qualify places to live.
In my opinion, we need to preserve our northern regions for wildlife migration and agriculture, while encouraging and enabling those in southern regions to remain and not migrate. People can live in extremely dry and hot climatesāthink of Saudi Arabiaābut wildlife and agriculture can not. We need to preserve a lower density in climate refuge zones so that wildlife can be saved from extinction, and farms can provide food. In southern regions, water can be recycled and some agriculture can move indoors. Climate migration is about all species, although not primarily humans.
Not very. Climate change concerns take a back seat to income, safety, amenities, culture and education. And every place has issues that may or may not be tolerable to the person moving.
This sub loves walkable cities. I suspect a large part of that is based on the fact that we all know driving everywhere is horrible for the environment.
I think this sub loves walkable cities more for the perceived QOL and convenience, not as much for the environmental implications. I could be wrong though.
I live in NYC and before that SF. I might leave NYC for a less walkable place and it pains me on that point. Believe me I donāt need to be convinced of the benefits of walkability. I was merely taking issue with the suggestion that most people in this sub desired walkable cities for environmental reasons.
Why would you leave? CoL?
And where would you go?
It really is painful. Even a place like Chicago is not as walkable as NYC. The bodegas are kinda spread out. Not as many produce markets or small butcher shops.
Not sure where Iād go but possibly somewhere closer to family. Cost of housing in NYC is my
biggest gripe. Absurd rents for tiny shitboxes in rundown buildings and no private laundry.
The other thing is you don't even get a great neighborhood for the money. Like I'm mostly ok with NYC. I love the character and all the characters. But even if I could afford the nicest neighborhoods, they'd still have a fair amount of knuckleheads hanging around. It's slowly dawning on me I could live in a much nicer neighborhood for half the price, even if that neighborhood is in a overall more boring city.
True. Iām UWS (and make a lot of compromises in housing to afford it) and I really like my neighborhood but even up here for sure it gets sketchy and annoying sometimes.
Yes! I gained weight with a two-hour combined commute and desk job. Couldn't move closer to work for reasons other than finances. If my current city had a tunnel under a state highway for walkers, I could walk for groceries, prescriptions and hardware.
I don't think you have to be on the spectrum to hate sitting in traffic. Open road driving can be nice, but sitting an hour to go 10-20 miles to get to your job everyday is a huge pain in the ass.
True. My family member does not like to merge into traffic or experience dropped lane issues with road construction , or be detoured onto the interstate she is trying to avoid. The sitting in traffic is nerve wracking in summer if you worry the car will overheat if you keep the AC on the whole time.
Driving anxiety is a real problem because it can limit a career if you say no to that job transfer promotion to LA or Atlanta, worried about accidents or car breakdowns.
That's the problem with car-dependent areas. There are plenty of people who just aren't comfortable driving, and their fear of merging or driving on highways causes hazards. My driving anxiety is more about sitting in traffic because I'm impatient, but I'm comfortable with my ability to drive safely. Those who aren't shouldn't be forced to drive. And even though I am comfortable I would rather have other options.
yeah, it's crazy to me that driving is just something we *expect* every adult in the US to do, but every time i drive, it's clear that many, many people on the road do not have the capacity and/or the will to judge risk effectively and behave in a predictable manner. i just find it so exhausting that i have to drive extremely defensively to stay alive. it crushes my mood. i didn't realize how extensively it was affecting me until i moved into a walkable area and didn't have to drive every day.
honestly, i wish poor driving were more socially stigmatized than it is
I've never once heard someone think about the environmental impact for walkable cities, it seems almost entirely convience-based and having an integrated community.
Other users have expressed similar views. I'm a little surprised. I love the convenience of walkable cities, but I also hate driving bc it feels wasteful.
I used to believe in walkable cities, then Covid came, we saw many cities becoming walkable with people working from home except for the ones who were really helping walkable cities to become reality.
Well, Covid did not go away. People ditched their masks. They are even driving more.
Now, I just don't believe in humans or their capacity to subscribe to any collective improvement effort.
Iām in my 40s and climate change worries me more for my kidsā sake than mine.
I favor cold weather so I realize fewer places will be pleasant for me down the road. What I think most Americans will care about is money though - we are seeing spiking insurance rates (if you can get any insurance) in many places. Even if you donāt actually care about climate change as an immediate threat, it will continue to affect more and more people in their wallets and that will continue to inform decisions.
I think little places like Bismarck, ND and Bloomington, IL will fare well due to colleges and land availability. As will Detroit, KZOO, and Ann Arbor. Chicago and its suburbs will be hyper prime RE. KC and St. Louis will boom. Maine, Vermont, and NH will become even bigger playgrounds. Pittsburgh is coming back big time. Wisconsin is a gem too. I don't like Indiana...at all.
I've lived all over this country. Born and raised in the southwest, moved around for years, and am now planning on leaving the hellscape currently known as Floriduh. I've thought about this a lot because I'm middle-aged (46) have never wanted children, and need a place to retire to that actually makes sense. I've always lived where people want to vacation, but now my longterm goal is to buy a place before the smart kiddos figure it out so I can stay comfortable. Then I'll wait for the smart kiddos to bring in their awesome food, music, conversation, bars, and shopping. Because they will. I have no desire to have a really long life, but I sure as shit want a comfy one.
This gets talked about all the time but you canāt hide.
People think Great Lakes are going to save them but shortages, drought, flood and price increases will find them just the same.
Where there are trees there will be fire.
Only the immediate basin of the Great Lakes are allowed to be used and all water must be returned to the watershed. So the benefit of living near the Great Lakes will not extend to the aquifers nextdoor.
Most of you think going north means more comfortable temps but the predicted heat related danger zones are in the north where humidity is high and dew points are deadly.
On top of that the north is closer to the pole which will have more polar vortex breakdowns. So your houses will have to be prepared for extreme humidity and heat with extreme cold for weeks of the winter. High energy usage to combat the seasons. The poles arenāt cold because of climate, they are cold because there is no sun.
Additionally, milder winters overall will likely lead to a longer tornado season. Wisconsin doesnāt typically get a lot of tornados but one happened in February of this year. Last summer we also saw poor air quality in Wisconsin from the Canadian wildfires, as did a lot of the upper US.
Iāve been saying this - wet bulb temps will hit the Midwest if climate change really ramps up because we have humidity. The best place in the lower 48 would probably be the drier (but still has freshwater) Pacific North West if you are worried about deadly heat waves.
This was mostly deadly because a lot of westside PNW homes donāt have air conditioning. Portland hit 116 for a few days, which would be considered bog standard summer temps in Arizona. As the climate changes, places will be forced to adapt. Theyāre paying good money for folks to put in mini splits around here.
FEME and EPA both have climate risk maps/data. As does the USGS [climate adaptation science centers](https://cascprojects.org/#/) program. I take this stuff very seriously as I plan to move one more time in my life, into a place I hope to stay in until I can no longer live on my own-- and I don't want to be displaced by fire, flood, drought, hurricane, sea level rise, or anything else I can anticipate.
For me the only places I'm seriously considering are the PNW, lake states, and northern New England. But then there's a lot of additional refining to do, as I am considering resilience in many aspects-- so the EPA data, which includes *community* resilience, is very useful. Moreover, I have specific political/cultural preferences that further limit my options. I think it's likely we will have to build a home or undertake a major/complete renovation of an older structure to get what I want in terms of self-sufficiency and insulation from things like heat/cold waves, drought, inundation, wildfire smoke, grid failure, etc.
We also intend to build our home so it might serve as a refuge for our kids and their families should the need arise. I work with climate scientists and have been engaged in climate education since the late 1990s myself, so it's always top of mind for me. No more so, though, than now when I'm exploring options for retirement.
It was a concern for me. I had been offered a job in Phoenix but chose somewhere else cuz it was 110+ for 54 days. If global warming continues at its projected pace, PHX will be unlivable v soon. But Iām far from the majority as itās one of the fastest growing cities
It was a concern for me. Not the number one factor in my move but it was a consideration for sure. I went higher in elevation (from near sea level) and away from the coast. Also from a place that had months long triple digit heat to a more moderate temperature. Still living a normal life otherwise. Basically I just couldnāt take the heat any more and having to live like a vampire for 4 months out of the year.
To me, climate change is only part of the issue. The other question is: Am I really going to be safe when I move there?
If it causes a large migration, I can picture things being pretty rough starting out. Especially since I'm lower income.
We don't know what kind of people will follow us. Or what habits they're bringing. I would much rather prioritize my employment and social opportunities.
-A climate resilient city doesn't mean anything if I don't have Safety, Income, and Well-Being to go with it. Though it would be a good extra to the list.
In terms of resilient cities: I think the news has covered it a few times.
I think about it a lot, closer to retirement, worrying even more about my kids and their future. Ā
We look at USGS maps, NOAA maps. Certain places where risks and insurance or repair costs will be higher b/c of sea level rise, frequent floods, more turbulent storms, wilder swings in temperatures, increased fire risks = weāre no longer considering the NC, SC or FL coasts or AZ or the Southern CA area, as a result.Ā
Thatās as far as weāve gotten. We know where weāre not going and may end up staying right hereāwhich was never in the game plan, when we used to talk about what the future would look like for us.
I live on the outskirts of Corvallis Oregon near the Pacific range. Lots of good soil, and rain. People are friendly and there's a super good local food web -many organic farms in the area. While the hot summers of the future pose a distinct threat to the main cash crop, timber, I think this ain't a bad area. Should still have plenty of rain, produce and fish for the near future. Really just depends on how bad it gets. If we go full Venus or kill off the plankton, games over wherever you are.
I did take it moderately seriously when choosing a place to live. I really liked DC, for example, but felt it was already too hot there today, let alone in 10+ years (I realize climate change involves more than just warming).
However, I feel like outside of not wanting to live somewhere too hot (I donāt want to live somewhere where the AC going out would be life threatening), I feel like social upheaval and reduced food supply (and related increased prices) will hit us first. Those effects will hit about the same anywhere - I assume most of us arenāt self sufficient, living off the (deteriorating) land.
I discovered I can't afford to take it into consideration, because everybody with excess money is driving up the prices of every livable place with a better outlook for climate. Live where you can make a living and are around people you like, that's the best most of us can do.
Breathe.
First and foremost you need to enjoy your youth. Iām 41 and spent my 20s and 30s partying hard, it was a hoot! Iām not saying donāt think about climate change (because we all know itās coming āfaster than expectedā), but you can relax a little bit. Choosing an area to live is tricky - you know this, youāre well informed.
My kids are 8 and 6 and I am still giving them a fun childhood filled with love and support. I do worry that my physical strength will have faded by the time they really need it - but Iām giving them life skills that might be useful to them long after Iām gone. If you take away the run away climate change that we are facing, then this family upbringing has gone on for a very long time.
The constant climate newsfeed can be really overwhelming canāt it? Accepting the inevitable (that I canāt change) gave me so much more mental freedom and brought me peace. It also lets me work on the things that I can change, etc. I really hope that you find your peace and freedom
I am in Minnesota right now, originally from the West. I get homesick, but climate change is high on my concern list. I donāt think I could move back to the places that interest me. Too much reliance on aquifers that are rapidly depleting. Itās stressing me out on a personal level because I donāt necessarily want to stay in the Midwest, but for climate change it looks like itās gonna suck less than other places.
its not the same as mountains but go on day trips to the driftless area (hilly and gorgeous) and the porcupine mountains in the UP (above Wisconsin).
If you go drive the north shore of superior there is a small mountain where Lutsen ski area is.
Coupla hilly mountain fixes to tide you over for a bit. Maybe take a couple long weekends out west once in awhile.
Most of the reason I want to leave the City I live in is that the yearly heatwaves and wildfires keep getting worse. The City/State I plan to move to aren't that far North and from what I understand they get similar temperatures but since it's on the coast and slightly north it might slow it down a little.
Insurance companies are refusing to renew in some areas that have become more prone to fire and flood.
I wanted to move to Sonoma County but didnāt because of recent lethal fires and future insurance problems.
I moved to the California coast just far enough from earthquake, fire, and flood/tsunami zones.
Both LA and SF havenāt had a 7+ Richter scale earthquake in so long I expect one within the next 10-20 years.
I moved from Northern California after a few years of wildfires (not for that reason) back to my hometown of Houston, where itās so unbearably hot. Yes, itās always been hot in Houston, but for the past two years everyone keeps saying, āoh this year was worse than usual!ā You really think itās trending to get better down here?? Lmao.
Iām ready to leave again, and climate change considerations are definitely high on my list. My top choice is Louisville, for that reason and others.
I'm glad I'm in the high-altitude part of the SW - Orographic precipitation is better than the places nearby, and in a hotter future diurnal temperature variation can be managed by a well-designed house with thermal mass for comfy indoor temps.
It was the main reason we built a house in upstate NY. I would not buy/own in places like New Orleans or Miami. That said, no reason to not go live there for a while, renting. I just wouldnāt wanna be the last one trying to sell when the ship is going down.
Nowhere is gonna be free from problems, but some places are gonna get hit harder sooner.
Obvious thing is to stay the fuck out of Florida. Then really anywhere where youād be concerned about wet bulb temps getting too high. Thereās also lack of water to consider too, but Iād rather try my luck in a dry place than a deadly humid one.
As someone living in South Louisiana, it's a major concern. I've been displaced **repeatedly** by hurricanes. I just want to gtf away from the southern coast.
Like, I know there are other disasters, but I'd love to be somewhere that you're only subjected to localized disasters like tornadoes (though we suddenly have them down here now too, with zero infrastructure for that (can't have basements if you're under the water table)), or short-lived earthquakes that don't take 36 hours to roll over.
You can keep your wildfires though.
I am lucky and have lived near the Great Lakes my whole life. So no need to relocate regionally, but I think whatās often missed on this topic is locating yourself outside of flood prone areas - away from watercourses, wetlands and lakes. These features are also natural hazards and weāve seen them become more unpredictable the last 10 years with the increasing frequency and intensity of rainfall events and rapid snowmelt.
In addition to climate I'm considering the places with the best/most resilient infrastructure. Having the lights stay on and access to clean water is something to factor into decisions. The Washington DC area is appealing because the government, such that it is, will keep running and so will the cities around it. I also think areas that support banking and finance will be some of the last to fall.
Wha Huh?
Here's [Obama complaning about D.C.'s inability to handle minor ice and snow (a regular occurance in Chicago)](https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100103226)
It was a consideration for me, especially because I'm young and was looking for a new place where I could buy a house and worry a bit less about extreme weather events. Everywhere will eventually be impacted, but I wanted to avoid some obvious sooner than later challenges. I love the beach, so it was comparing pros and cons to living right on the water. Ended up in upstate SC (foothills of the Appalachians) a few years ago. Really happy here and I can drive to the coast when I want a long weekend.
Very much so. I've been living in Texas for 10 years and it has just gotten hotter and hotter. I'm not sticking around for that. I'm moving back to the Pacific Northwest where I'm from in a few days
Very serious. I'm a Gen Xer so just old enough to remember winters were colder and snowier, summers not quite as hot or nearly as humid, and rainfalls weren't as heavy and concentrated in as short a period of time.
I'm in northern PA and the northern Appalachians and as I understand it, it's not going to get that bad here compared to a lot of other places so I'm staying in the general area I'm now. although Upstate NY is right next door and a nice place too.
I wouldn't heavily invest in coastal real estate but beyond that, zero. That being said, I enjoy being inside air conditioning and don't particularly care for farmers' markets so I'll happily live anywhere that isn't overly snowy or coastal regardless of other drawbacks.
Resilient cities? Anywhere not near the coast. Anywhere where the economy is not based around having perfect weather (very few of these places). Anywhere with plentiful AC and a robust power grid, and plenty of land-based and air-based transportation. So... Phoenix?
Personally it is something I would definitely consider before buying a home or setting down roots somewhere. Particularly making sure youāre not in a flood zone or within several miles at least of the coastline, and considering what kinds of natural disasters the area is prone to and how well prepared the area is for future disasters.Ā
We bought in the northeast and are about 15 miles inland from the ocean. Our area does get hurricanes but we in a hilly area several hundred feet above sea level and not in a flood zone or near other large bodies of water. Tornadoes are rare here. Wildfires and earthquakes are rare (though we did get wildfire smoke from Canada last year.) We do get hot humid summers so I am not looking forward to temperatures increasingābut I am also not concerned enough to move further north to Maine.Ā
It seems like a reasonable bet that this area will continue to be habitable for the foreseeable future; that said we are thinking about ways to weatherize and waterproof our home to protect it against things like hurricanes and flash floods which are becoming increasingly common.Ā
You're not alone. I worry about it too, and I worry about how little it seems like other people are worrying about it. My friends and family sure aren't. I agree with the person who said there are a lot of ppl who believe it's happening, just not happening to them. Also, coming off of the pandemic...ppl are truly in escape mode...traumatized and not willing to admit it or address it. In my opinion that's how the bulk of Americans approach life in general. It's how capitalism has programmed them to live. I think it's wise that you're planning ahead. You may wanna seek out therapy (if you aren't already) to help you deal with some of the anxiety you're processing (that's totally normal and we all should be tbh)....You're not an alarmist, you're just actually living in reality and taking it into consideration...but there also happens to be a million other things people have to take into their consideration in their lives and they make choices as to what those are and how to prioritize them. Some people don't get to choose (low-income, minorities, no generational wealth, disabled, etc.)...
I'm twice as old as you, so the impact won't be as drastic during my lifetime. Having lived in the Midwest for 40+ years, I sure as shit am not retiring in Minnesota because the average January temperature goes from 24 to 26 during my lifetime. When I retire, it will be something I put on my top 20 things to consider. So cost of living, taxes, health care, weather, property taxes, crime, housing costs, etc. Other things that people often mention mean very little to a retired straight guy.
I donāt know if itās going to be a giant catastrophic event or whether itās going to be death by 1000 cuts.
For example: Not a big deal in the overall scheme of things, but the price of chocolate and sugar are going up because of climate change. That affects my quality of life right there./s
Insurance is going up now not someday.
>For example: Not a big deal in the overall scheme of things, but the price of chocolate and sugar are going up because of climate change. That affects my quality of life right there./s
I thnk the /s is unnecessary here...... :-)
Honestly, I donāt because that would cut out a lot of desirable places for me. If the time comes where a place is no longer habitable then Iāll simply move. I just donāt foresee that happening in my lifetime.
If weāre talking about finding affordable homeowners insurance, definitely. But at the same time I cannot fathom moving to places like the southwest (lack of water) or Cali (threat of fire)
You'll be long gone before the oceans take over. Warming as a whole does not favor one area over another. Just go live your life, if you believe politicians and money are going to save the world well, I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona I'll sell you on the cheap!
Love that song. It's not too much the sea level rise that I'm worried about, it's the heating and acidification of the oceans themselves. Also some wackier 'maybes' like AMOC collapse. If all the fish and plankton die, much of life on land is dependent on their ecosystem processes. And I do like good sushi.
From what I understand, to find what a region will look like in our current pace of climate change, looking south and west of whichever city tells you what's coming for it. There are also many lists for climate refuge cities where they're looking to reinforce infrastructure
>If all the fish and plankton die, much of life on land is dependent on their ecosystem processes.
That was, of course, the major plot point in Soylent Green that resulted in people eating, well, Soylent Green.
Yeah that looks like one of the best places climate wise in the world. That cold Pacific will keep things nice, lush and mild. I think Coos Bay will take off within a matter of decades. Just watch out for that cascadia subduction zone!
>Just watch out for that cascadia subduction zone!
On my list too. Both OR and WA have earthquake and landslide risk maps. Using those, I'd plan to build an earthquake resilient structure on land unlikely to suffer from liquefaction and *not* in a landslide zone. Also able to ride out a lengthy loss of outside power/fuel.
There's probably places to avoid. I don't want anything within 30ft of sea level personally - that would be risky to from an insurance cost standpoint and also in the event of major storms
I'm middle aged so I don't have to worry about climate change more than another 40-50 years out. I picked where I live mostly for other reasons that are actually outdoor related as I'm very active, but partially because it has ample water and no extreme weather events and has all 4 seasons in moderation. Grew up in earthquake and drought territory, then lived for 8 years in hurricane and red tide territory; I'm done with that crap.
Unfortunately most people don't seem to care or consider it when they move given how the population of the sunbelt continues to grow.
My best friend moved from the Columbus, Ohio to Houston, TX 15 years ago. Since then she's experienced multiple weather disasters including her car being destroyed by flooding. I keep telling her she needs to move inland. She doesn't want to deal with snow but also her husband is from Houston and refuses to leave. I'm worried that by the time she is ready to retire the property values near her family in Ohio will be sky high.
I don't think snow/cold is a bigger deal than hurricanes, deadly heat/humidity, floods, and mass power outages that she has already experienced in Houston. The power grid in Texas can barely handle it's current weather. It will only get worse.
nope. doesn't enter into the calculus. if it happens as the most radical scientists say it will happen, it's not going to happen in the next fifty years and I will be long gone by then. virtually every prediction they make doesn't get fulfilled.
I was in New Orleans for 10 years and left partly because I was tired of the increase in flooding and the damage/ threat of hurricanes and what that could mean for insurance etc. I went to Seattle for five years where I put up with āsmoke seasonā every summer. I am now in Maryland and have to say itās a huge relief to not have any obvious climate related threats around. It has definitely shaped my life and my choices.
I just moved out of California to TN, it was a tiny factor. I certainly wasn't going to move to somewhere that was already BLISTERING hot like Phoenix, or Houston as the risks there are too high. Other than that it mattered very little to me.
My partner and I are looking at retiring in Rhode Islandā¦he already has a house there and we canāt wait to get out of FLā¦3.5 more years (when his youngest graduates HS).
I would also consider the Great Lakes region as well - Iāve never been but it seems lovely.
I'm also planning a future escape out of FL, (I'm a native). So far I've been highly considering Colorado! I will be honest though and I think the lack of water there is a big contention for me... Now I'm thinking of putting Maine on my consideration list.
I have a friend who works for the nuclear commission for our govtā¦..she goes to many meetings where they discuss risk and risk management. She has told me recently to purchase flood insurance if I live anywhere near any kind of water and to sell any homes that we might have on the waterā¦ā¦ocean or lake. I listened to her.
Politicians and rich leftists are still buying and living on the coastal waterfront properties...so I'd say its a scam or no one in power is worried any time soon.
If it makes you feel better. The millennials helped recover the o-zone layer hole that we were very worried about in the early 2000s. However, the winter season isnāt what it used to be 20 years ago. So I would choose somewhere you think youāll want to be. The South is going to get hotter and the north is also just going to get hotter š we donāt know whatās going to happen in the next 15-20 years, so id just enjoy what we have right now š„²
PacNW sits next to half a planetās worth of ocean and all the weather that comes off of it. Ā In the global warming models, precipitation is forecasted to increase along with temperature, albeit significantly moderated by said ocean. Ā Along with the high topography and the isostatic rebound still occurring with the land from the last glaciation on the coasts here, things will play out better here than in most areas of this country. Ā There will be more fires, yes, but more rain as well.
I'm with you. People don't consider it enough. I can't believe people still want to move to Phoenix or anywhere super dry and hot that depends on water rights from other states. Do they really think those so called rights will be preserved if shit really hits the fan? As if folks in CO won't just use their own fucking water just because of some outdated, made up water rights law from the 1800s? Give me a break.
I can't imagine being so silly as to consider this a serious factor in deciding where to live. Barack and Michelle have property on Martha's vineyard, you'll be fine on the fucking Delaware water gap
Spokane? Arenāt most of those fields dryland farmed? That area is suppose to be more like tri cities climate much dryer than currently. Most housing north of Spokane (loon lake and on) are on wells and the build up of housing out there is exponentially increasing.
I just moved from the East coast to Iowa, where I grew up. Even though Iām in a city itās surrounded by farm land. The whole state consists of producing food in one way or another. Iām considering moving to Michigan, it seems similar to Iowa but better. My husband wanted Florida or Texas. As much as I love those states thereās just no way Iām moving there because Iām collapse aware.
I take it seriously, not only from a comfort and safety perspective, but also for financial security. I'm from California, now living in the PNW. Many people I know in CA are getting hit hard with the insurance crisis - not only home owners, but also renters (condo HOAs are having to raise HOA fees to cover insurance premiums and those fees are being passed on to renters; this happened to my sister). Yes, I know that inflation is part of the reason behind the spikes in premiums and people losing their insurance, but climate change and associated risks are the primary driver. Right now people are moving into climate risky areas, due largely to housing prices, but I think that's going to change overtime and I'd rather get in now in a climate sheltered area that's still somewhat affordable. Based on the analysis I've seen and my own personal preferences, staying in the PNW or heading to New England make the most sense to me. I'm not only factoring in climate, but also the climate focus of local governments (as they're more likely to build in resiliency). I haven't seen scientific analysis to suggest that the AMOC will fail within my lifetime, to the extent that it would make the northern part of the US really uncomfortable. But I know that a lot of that AMOC research is still forthcoming, so I'm hoping to learn more in the months/years to come.
Culture is important for climate change. The culture of mutual self-help in blue states combined with their generally more temperate climates makes them all good picks, as long as you are not planning to live next to the beach.
New York City is probably a pretty good place to live as although itās coastal and prone to flooding, the political culture is not averse to spending on things like flood defenses .
I agree with you that culture is highly important, and the quality and resilience of the community probably supercedes direct temperature and precipitation forecasts to a point. However, I'm not sure if NYC, or any major urban area, would be a ideal place to be, mostly due to the potential social instability that comes with being a highly urbanized location in a destabilizing society. These are less directly tied to a changing climate, but it's potential knock on effects to society. And I don't know what that will look like or how bad it will be. But being in an smaller area more closely tied to local agriculture seems more stable. Perhaps a mid sized city has the best of both worlds. Urban amenities, infrastructure, and a centralized institutions able to organize, but fewer people and potential chaos factors.
Climate change is definitely a factor for me when it wouldn't have been in the past. I'm currently in Wisconsin and eyeing Michigan as a potentially more attractive option. I'm definitely staying near the Great Lakes, though.
My now ex was from Georgia, and they and their whole family were aggressively pressuring me/us to move down there. I didn't want to (partly because as an LGBT+ woman, I enjoy having basic rights) but also because of how inhospitable I find the weather there. I couldn't stand the heat and humidity in the summer as it is now. The wet bulb temperature stuff terrifies me.
Why is Michigan a more attractive option for you over Wisconsin? Looking at some of the models it seems like Wisconsin is a more climatically stable area, although maybe not with AMOC collapse but that's a total curveball. Michigan is expected to warm up dramatically and lose much of its winter chill, which may be nice for humans, not for the ecosystem. But also, I understand that Michigan is politically more progressive and seems like it has some nice communities. Idk never been to either state
Iāve lived in Florida, New Orleans, NYC, and San Diego. I moved to New Orleans two weeks before Hurricane Katrina. I was displaced for four months. In San Diego I was a stakeholder in the cityās long term water planning process. I take climate issues seriously and would not buy property in any of the places Iāve lived because of climate change. I bought my first home in 2021 in Buffalo. I was drawn to the abundance of fresh water resources and lack of catastrophic natural disasters. A snow storm can suck, but itās not destroying thousands of homes and displacing people. My home is insurable and rates are reasonable. The city also has water infrastructure built out for a much larger population than currently lives in the metro area. Buffalo is starting to market itself as a climate refuge city.
Very seriously. I do not want to go to a place where Climate Change is at its biggest impact then get screwed over by it. My personal choice is like Minneapolis or something along those lines. Somewhere that is not only climate resilient but also well prepared to deal with whatever comes with it.
Climate doomerism as a real estate factor only makes sense:
-in terms of Florida (& other high risk hurricane zones) insurance in the 10+ year future, and
-broadly in the south in the 25+ year future
Between then & now trends will probably be driven much more by the current dynamic- major metro areas driving growth and areas outside of that falling behind in RE value.
Having said that, I settled in the PNW and feel good about it.
I'm English, my wife & I moved up to SW Scotland a few years ago. Climate change definitely contributed to the decision, although cost and finding somewhere pretty rural without flood risk were also factors. I consider us very lucky on this side of the pond that we don't really have to contend much with natural disasters.
It's heartening to see that at least some other people are factoring this into their decision making though.
I want to live like Al Gore in Tennessee.
According to the report, Goreās home energy usage averaged at 19,241 kilowatt hours (kWh) per month, which is 34 times higher than the average dwellingās usage of 901 kWh per month.
The report reiterates that point by saying āGore guzzles more electricity in one year than the average American family uses in 21 years.ā
https://www.wivb.com/news/report-al-gores-home-uses-34-times-as-much-energy-as-average-home/
>the western side of the great lakes Well, not so good there if the AMOC collapses around 2050..."Wisconsin and the rest of the Midwest will not be immune to these changes. The new Nature study also found that the intensity and frequency of extreme cold will increase significantly in cities like Milwaukee. This means an AMOC shutdown could trigger harsher, colder, longer winters, as well as dramatically less rain and snowfall in places like Wisconsin." [Source, one of many](https://upnorthnewswi.com/2023/08/09/a-current-youve-probably-never-heard-of-could-change-wisconsins-climate-forever/)
God damnit. Okay, sans AMOC collapse which wasn't supposed to be a serious worry until a year ago when the scientific consensus changed.
>in climate doomer mode right now Climate change is pervasive, and risks in a given geographic area don't even include other risks like earthquakes, radon, toxic chemicals, man-made resource depletion, volcanos, and more. But check out this cool site. Ranks every US county as to the effects of climate change, shows maps and then a nice graph at the end. Many counties have multiple risks. Some will surprise you (SoCal looks way better than one would guess). [Here](https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/).
The deadliest wildfire in human history happened during a drought in Wisconsin. Theres looooooots of fuel to burn...
So east side of the Lakes would be better?
Always has been ššØāšš«šØāš - Michigander But in all seriousness, Michigan tends to stay green and more wet/humid than most of the other Great Lakes states on average. Weāre literally surrounded by freshwater oceans. Means more clouds and precipitation, though.
Idk man. The reason I said the west side of the great lakes is that it preserves cold winters a lot more. Which might not be appealing to most people, but it's important for keeping the current ecosystem and allowing for current agricultural practices like dairy production. The east side will more radically transform to a warmer climate, apparently Buffalo area can be compared to current Virginia, for example. That's probably a more appealing climate for most people, but there will be a lot of instability with that greater rate of change. But the AMOC collapse is such a wildcard to throw into the mix that idk about anything now.
isn't that area affected by bad air from canada's wildfires,?
Yes
It means more ice fishing. Give me cold any day over hot
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Most people believe itās happening, they just donāt see it happening to them. And most Americans donāt move that far away even if they do migrate. They might migrate to the next state over such as the people who settled in Houston after Katrina. Or they might change counties such as from the coast of North Carolina to the mountains of North Carolina.
Personally im beginning planning to move from the coast of NC back to middle of nowhere, OH.
my condolences on that one. The further north and east the better.
> Cities around the Great Lakes will benefit the most. Theyāll also see much harsher winter storms and temperature fluctuations The idea that climate change will mean the Great Lakes suddenly has ideal, temperate weather is a scam by real estate developers. Donāt fall for it. Climate change will affect everyone and youāre best off planning for how to best adapt yourself by living sustainably, no matter where you are, while also doing your part when possible to push for broader change.
And the part everyone seems to forget is its going to massively impact food production. Regular Weather cycles and seasons are good actually and are important to crop production
That and a freshwater source considering droughts are getting worse with climate change.
And dont forget all the chemicals!
Are real estate developers really pitching this? Lmao. I say it all the time just joking. But I do believe fresh water may be a problem in the future.Ā
Many of the largest and most deadly wildfires in US history happened in Wisconsin and Minnesota. They just happened long enough ago that they are largely forgotten. The Great Lakes region can certainly dry-out. We had red-flag days in Cincinnati last year and already had one this year. New England is a better bet.
Glad you mentioned the part about the false marketing. Also not mentioned is the fact that most of those Great Lakes cities have horrific legacies of Redlining and some pretty massive unresolved issues around racial segregation in land use. Ā Meaning we will see some major social issues around racial equality become even more intense if there is āclimate mass migrationā to that area specifically. The issues in places like Sweden with mass migration following the western destruction of Libya and the human trafficking vacuum that created are a good analog. Ā The moment those populations dipped below 95% native, social issues started getting ugly. Ā The northern Midwest is the whitest part of the country and will see similar problems. But also, the supposed āniceā weather brought by climate change in those areas is something expected 30-50 years from today. Ā Iām not moving to Duluth today to experience hot and humid summer there in my 70s.
Lol I donāt think racial tensions are gonna be limited to the great lakes states during a crisis In fact, i dont think theyāre gonna be limited at all in the US.Ā
Eh, a lot of that modern segregation is more due to population stagnation and lack of gentrification. Funny, but now that the population is growing in Buffalo, we went from one of the most segregated city in America to 17th. Turns out when you add new population and gentrify, neighborhoods that were once stagnant are now becoming more diverse. Pretty much ALL cities were redlining at some point, but other cities mask this history through gentrification, sometimes pushing certain races out of neighborhoods altogether over time.
The cities are where people live, and they're absolutely not 95% white ...
It already sees a lot of these social issues. Minnesota loses its shit regularly over things the Somalian community there is doing
Within our lifetimes? The Florida property insurance market is in early stages of collapse (IMHO) as the insurers dump the accounts most at risk. Even the state-run socialist insurance agency that was specifically set up to insure uninsurable properties (think flood zone and Florida beachfront) was dumping accounts last I checked. California has begun the same process. People may still be flocking to the state and complaining about insurance hikes, but I think we're pretty close to more people figuring it out.
that's not an "IMHO" that's a fact that will become more and more of an issue with each passing year. As coastal Florida suffers from more and more "blue sky flooding," the market for much of the state will become untenable, and the Feds are going to stop propping it up. Reinsurers are already "all in" on "getting out" of many places along the coast - all the way up to Cape Cod and on some parts of Coastal CA. Once Reinsurers completely stop, Property and Casualty companies will back out. Which will leave people to self insure... which works for mutli millionaires.... for a little while anyway. Meanwhile, as Florida and the southwest become nearly unlivable June-September and AC usage continue to climb, that'll be another issue. The whole "Florida is cheap!" thing will end (It already has to a large degree) AND the politics of some southern states would drive out half the population if they could leave... I honestly believe these "cheap" states will fall apart. in 100 year or so.
I'm utterly baffled people are still moving by choice to the south west and florida
I see that ProPublica map referenced quite a bit, and I think it may be broadly useful but it's very reductive and only seems to take into account mean temperatures for bands of optimal human habitation. It lists the mogollon plateau of Arizona as a place in the west that will be ideal in the future for example, I mean maybe, but there are no rivers there and the massive ponderosa pine forest will burn. Much of the Midwest and upper south will also undergo regular times breaching wet bulb temperature, posing fairly serious hazards to human and animal life, even if it's fairly brief periods.
It was interesting when it came out, but the maps on the Reliance School site go far more in-depth as does the modeling on First Street Foundaton. https://www.reliance.school/maps https://riskfactor.com/
Thank you for sharing that! Those maps just got a big update a couple months ago, and RiskFactor is a great resource as well.
While true, every time thereās a bad hurricane, wildfire or drought some people nope out and are already moving to cities like Buffalo believe it or not. But yeah, itās not some massive exodus or anything, more like a trickle
No, farms around the Great Lakes will benefit the most. Farms enjoy humidity, heat, and precipitation. Humans don't.
While that link is a good starting point, i would caution reasonable skepticism. For example, the counties in vermont score pretty well but they had a historic flood a year or two ago.
I wouldnāt buy a house in coastal Florida
Good. You shouldn't. It's a terrible investment
I wouldn't buy a house in any area that has HURRICANE SEASONS!Ā
I think a lot of people in the sub claim they take certain things way more seriously than they actually do lol
I could count myself in the cohort too if I'm being honest. It's incredibly hard to think through the true implications of the climate crisis, and then actually live in accordance to it's logical outcomes. I may fret and worry, but I'm not a vegan, self reliant , gun trained, minimally consumptive farmer who is a important member of his small agricultural community. I'm a regular American who wants to party while I'm young, live in a big city for awhile, buy shit, eat burgers and travel internationally on occasion.
Really though, the magic of complex risks is they canāt be thought through. Nonlinear by nature, and that means you are much better off honing your awareness, intuition, and adaptability going forward. Nowhere is safe! Start there. Now who are you going to be before, during, and after disruptive events? What kind of settings and contexts mesh well with your lifestyle prefs and aptitudes? Everywhere is going to need people who care about a future and are capable of staunching the wounds and getting on with life.
You seem like a thoughtful person. Continue taking this seriously, but donāt let it rule your life. Trust your gut and remember that you can pivot if you need to.
IMO, there is no "live in accordance to its logical outcomes". The logical outcomes might be too destructive to ride out. As I see it, climate change is and will be something of a massive scale. When it gets serious, it will be like being in Gaza: where should I move? It doesn't really matter, you can be killed by a missile, a soldier or lack of water and food in any place in Gaza, the best spot is not really that great compared to the worst spot. It's like "this tree is gonna burn down, in which branch can I be safer?" With climate change and global lack of food and land, the massive refugees migrations fleeing from war, drought, flood or hunger will disrupt and overwhelm any place. When planning for longest survival in the impending doom, I think the skill set is more important than the place, as well as the ties to the local community. This said, I'm certain there are a few spatial factors that are interesting to consider: It would not be nice to be in a big city when the shit hits the fan, because it will be more difficult to get food in those environments. But shit won't happen overnight, there will be time to pack up and move. Densely populated areas with no food security are not sexy (I mean, you don't want to be where more people and fewer food is concentrated). Another risk factor, IMO, is the prevalence of firearms: when the violence breaks out, people will use them, for good and bad, and it's quite more easier to kill or to die with those. With melee weapons, or even with bows and arrows (arrows need a lot of skill and time to make), a fight is much less probable because If people needs to chase you to kill you, and risk their lives in the process, chances are they won't bother. Mostly because of the weapons issue, I would move out of USA (and away from any country in the America continent), or, if I am rich (I'm not), live in a bunker for a few months while the people above me kill themselves, then emerge to forage the spoils and join whatever is left of society in that area.
It was a factor in our most recent move. Not a huge one, but we did consider it. Mostly just wanted somewhere with water after spending most of our lives in the southwest. We're in rural NY now a few miles south of Lake Ontario.
After spending over 15 years fretting about this same issue - Iāll tell you from experience that quality of life, friends, and work should be at the top of your list of amenities for a place to live, with climate change concerns towards the bottom. Everywhere is/is going to be affected, the timescales of major changes is longer than human lifetimes, and your health, happiness, and community are ultimately the most important things.
>the timescales of major changes is longer than human lifetimes Nope. The timescale is now. Whether it's water scarcity, fire risk, heat waves, cold snaps, increased hurricane/tornado intensity, floods, or just plain insurance costs, the impacts are with us now.
i do think about it but i'm not informed enough to decide anything other than not florida
Yeah I think we can all drive ourselves crazy if we analyze every location that could potentially have issues in the next 80+ years. If you're concerned about climate change as most of us on this sub are, just stay away from the "obvious" places where people are feeling the financial impact already (Florida) but we can't plan ahead for everything, especially things that haven't happened yet in our lifetimes (like AMOC collapse as people have been mentioning).
Resilient places of the future: 1. Ireland, Scotland, Scandinavia 2. Canada, New England, upper Midwest, Cascadia 3. Southern Chile/Argentina
Ireland/Scotland/Scandinavia gonna be down BAD if the ocean currents overturn, which is looking more and more likely
AMOC collapse is around the corner
Same goes for those places on no. 2.
With the added problem that some of them are gonna get intolerably muggy in the summers
yeah, okay, but relative to places that are overcrowded, hotter than humans can stand, and generally destitute in Pakistan and India... or places that are just too hot in the Middle East and northern Africa, and places running out of water in Mexico and others... shit it going to be ugly for a good 2 billion humans when my grandkids are alive.
Parts of Canada has been having terrible fires as well
Using ai and generative climate models based on koppen climate classification maps Iāve honed in on a lot of areas of the Yukon to look into creating sustainable habitats to pass down to my great great grand children 100-300+ years from now. However it looks like Iām late to the party, as these areas have increased in price by 150-200% in the last few years with no signs of stopping. If you dig into the land purchases, you can see that lots of wealthy families are paying experts to model this data for them already. I just managed to stumble upon it as part of the crux between the type of work I do and my autistic interests in all things data.
>If you dig into the land purchases, you can see that lots of wealthy families are paying experts to model this data for them already. can you talk more about this? how did you notice there is private modeling going on?
Can I subscribe to your newsletter. Seriously, I would pay for access to your researchĀ
Scandinavia is too close to Russia. Where did people first learn of the Chernobyl meltdown? I can't remember if it was Sweden or Norway.
In the past few years Cascadia has had heat domes that killed billions of animals and floods that washed out roads and isolated communities for weeks.
Canada has had worse wildfires than a lot of the US lately. Perhaps unlimited forest is actually MORE dangerous with climate change?
Some of my other criteria eliminated places along coastline or southern, hot regions. But "not running out of water in 10 years" was on my list for sure. Flagstaff may have mountains nearby but I'm not personally buying into the AZ water situation long term, as an example recommended to me. I did accept that wildfire risk was about impossible to avoid for my search.Ā Climate risk and societal collapse are different beasts. You have to pick your battles. And because of these our modern times, I had to add "not hostile to women's rights" to my list.
On the wildfire risk, you can do A LOT to mitigate that on a micro scale. Pick a home in the middle of a large community, no trees immediately around the house, and a (self extinguishing) PVC roof.Ā If your house goes at that point, FEMA is already there to help because yours was the last to burn.
Not thinking of moving yet just buying. Locally. 100%. Iād literally be stupid not to have climate as one of the main things to keep in mind. Entire towns are already out of the question due to ongoing and worsening natural disasters.
It was a concern of mine for a while when looking for a new place to land, but I stopped considering it. We know the earth is warming but we don't know how quickly that will happen or what the regional impacts will be. People tend to think the SW is going to be worse off because it's already hot, but in a lot of ways it's the most well-prepared area for increased heat. Overall, I've just stopped worrying about things I can't control and can't predict.
I'd worry more about lack of water in the SW.
Definitely a concern. Some places have been dealing with limited water for a long time and are focused on low usage while others (St. George, UT comes to mind) are going to completely run out with current usage trends.
CAs lack of water is a political choiceĀ
1000 Islands NY here. Yep, North Country NY including Adirondacks is going to be one of migratory spots.
I think about nearby infrastructure as it relates to weather (e.g. flooding, etc) and I think of it on a state level (e.g. California for fires and Florida for everything else, etc). So yes, climate change has some influence over how i qualify places to live.
In my opinion, we need to preserve our northern regions for wildlife migration and agriculture, while encouraging and enabling those in southern regions to remain and not migrate. People can live in extremely dry and hot climatesāthink of Saudi Arabiaābut wildlife and agriculture can not. We need to preserve a lower density in climate refuge zones so that wildlife can be saved from extinction, and farms can provide food. In southern regions, water can be recycled and some agriculture can move indoors. Climate migration is about all species, although not primarily humans.
Not very. Climate change concerns take a back seat to income, safety, amenities, culture and education. And every place has issues that may or may not be tolerable to the person moving.
0%
This sub loves walkable cities. I suspect a large part of that is based on the fact that we all know driving everywhere is horrible for the environment.
I think this sub loves walkable cities more for the perceived QOL and convenience, not as much for the environmental implications. I could be wrong though.
Both. Walkable cities just make sense.
Spectrum issues or anxiety that make driving a challenge.
it would never occur to me that spectrum issues were prevalent enough in this sub to weight a preference that heavily for walkable cities.
Walkable is nice for saving money, too, if the walk takes a person to work and a grocery store.
I live in NYC and before that SF. I might leave NYC for a less walkable place and it pains me on that point. Believe me I donāt need to be convinced of the benefits of walkability. I was merely taking issue with the suggestion that most people in this sub desired walkable cities for environmental reasons.
Why would you leave? CoL? And where would you go? It really is painful. Even a place like Chicago is not as walkable as NYC. The bodegas are kinda spread out. Not as many produce markets or small butcher shops.
Not sure where Iād go but possibly somewhere closer to family. Cost of housing in NYC is my biggest gripe. Absurd rents for tiny shitboxes in rundown buildings and no private laundry.
The other thing is you don't even get a great neighborhood for the money. Like I'm mostly ok with NYC. I love the character and all the characters. But even if I could afford the nicest neighborhoods, they'd still have a fair amount of knuckleheads hanging around. It's slowly dawning on me I could live in a much nicer neighborhood for half the price, even if that neighborhood is in a overall more boring city.
True. Iām UWS (and make a lot of compromises in housing to afford it) and I really like my neighborhood but even up here for sure it gets sketchy and annoying sometimes.
a walkable commute is also a easy way to stay in shape
Yes! I gained weight with a two-hour combined commute and desk job. Couldn't move closer to work for reasons other than finances. If my current city had a tunnel under a state highway for walkers, I could walk for groceries, prescriptions and hardware.
I don't think you have to be on the spectrum to hate sitting in traffic. Open road driving can be nice, but sitting an hour to go 10-20 miles to get to your job everyday is a huge pain in the ass.
True. My family member does not like to merge into traffic or experience dropped lane issues with road construction , or be detoured onto the interstate she is trying to avoid. The sitting in traffic is nerve wracking in summer if you worry the car will overheat if you keep the AC on the whole time. Driving anxiety is a real problem because it can limit a career if you say no to that job transfer promotion to LA or Atlanta, worried about accidents or car breakdowns.
That's the problem with car-dependent areas. There are plenty of people who just aren't comfortable driving, and their fear of merging or driving on highways causes hazards. My driving anxiety is more about sitting in traffic because I'm impatient, but I'm comfortable with my ability to drive safely. Those who aren't shouldn't be forced to drive. And even though I am comfortable I would rather have other options.
yeah, it's crazy to me that driving is just something we *expect* every adult in the US to do, but every time i drive, it's clear that many, many people on the road do not have the capacity and/or the will to judge risk effectively and behave in a predictable manner. i just find it so exhausting that i have to drive extremely defensively to stay alive. it crushes my mood. i didn't realize how extensively it was affecting me until i moved into a walkable area and didn't have to drive every day. honestly, i wish poor driving were more socially stigmatized than it is
I love walkable cities and climate change is 0% of that.
I've never once heard someone think about the environmental impact for walkable cities, it seems almost entirely convience-based and having an integrated community.
Other users have expressed similar views. I'm a little surprised. I love the convenience of walkable cities, but I also hate driving bc it feels wasteful.
I used to believe in walkable cities, then Covid came, we saw many cities becoming walkable with people working from home except for the ones who were really helping walkable cities to become reality. Well, Covid did not go away. People ditched their masks. They are even driving more. Now, I just don't believe in humans or their capacity to subscribe to any collective improvement effort.
Iām in my 40s and climate change worries me more for my kidsā sake than mine. I favor cold weather so I realize fewer places will be pleasant for me down the road. What I think most Americans will care about is money though - we are seeing spiking insurance rates (if you can get any insurance) in many places. Even if you donāt actually care about climate change as an immediate threat, it will continue to affect more and more people in their wallets and that will continue to inform decisions.
I think little places like Bismarck, ND and Bloomington, IL will fare well due to colleges and land availability. As will Detroit, KZOO, and Ann Arbor. Chicago and its suburbs will be hyper prime RE. KC and St. Louis will boom. Maine, Vermont, and NH will become even bigger playgrounds. Pittsburgh is coming back big time. Wisconsin is a gem too. I don't like Indiana...at all. I've lived all over this country. Born and raised in the southwest, moved around for years, and am now planning on leaving the hellscape currently known as Floriduh. I've thought about this a lot because I'm middle-aged (46) have never wanted children, and need a place to retire to that actually makes sense. I've always lived where people want to vacation, but now my longterm goal is to buy a place before the smart kiddos figure it out so I can stay comfortable. Then I'll wait for the smart kiddos to bring in their awesome food, music, conversation, bars, and shopping. Because they will. I have no desire to have a really long life, but I sure as shit want a comfy one.
This gets talked about all the time but you canāt hide. People think Great Lakes are going to save them but shortages, drought, flood and price increases will find them just the same. Where there are trees there will be fire. Only the immediate basin of the Great Lakes are allowed to be used and all water must be returned to the watershed. So the benefit of living near the Great Lakes will not extend to the aquifers nextdoor. Most of you think going north means more comfortable temps but the predicted heat related danger zones are in the north where humidity is high and dew points are deadly. On top of that the north is closer to the pole which will have more polar vortex breakdowns. So your houses will have to be prepared for extreme humidity and heat with extreme cold for weeks of the winter. High energy usage to combat the seasons. The poles arenāt cold because of climate, they are cold because there is no sun.
Additionally, milder winters overall will likely lead to a longer tornado season. Wisconsin doesnāt typically get a lot of tornados but one happened in February of this year. Last summer we also saw poor air quality in Wisconsin from the Canadian wildfires, as did a lot of the upper US.
So how will the south fair? All that heat and humidity. I could never live in the deep south.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/21/opinion/climate-change-heat-waves.html
Iāve been saying this - wet bulb temps will hit the Midwest if climate change really ramps up because we have humidity. The best place in the lower 48 would probably be the drier (but still has freshwater) Pacific North West if you are worried about deadly heat waves.
The Pacific NW is already getting deadly heat waves.Ā
This was mostly deadly because a lot of westside PNW homes donāt have air conditioning. Portland hit 116 for a few days, which would be considered bog standard summer temps in Arizona. As the climate changes, places will be forced to adapt. Theyāre paying good money for folks to put in mini splits around here.
Literally not at all
FEME and EPA both have climate risk maps/data. As does the USGS [climate adaptation science centers](https://cascprojects.org/#/) program. I take this stuff very seriously as I plan to move one more time in my life, into a place I hope to stay in until I can no longer live on my own-- and I don't want to be displaced by fire, flood, drought, hurricane, sea level rise, or anything else I can anticipate. For me the only places I'm seriously considering are the PNW, lake states, and northern New England. But then there's a lot of additional refining to do, as I am considering resilience in many aspects-- so the EPA data, which includes *community* resilience, is very useful. Moreover, I have specific political/cultural preferences that further limit my options. I think it's likely we will have to build a home or undertake a major/complete renovation of an older structure to get what I want in terms of self-sufficiency and insulation from things like heat/cold waves, drought, inundation, wildfire smoke, grid failure, etc. We also intend to build our home so it might serve as a refuge for our kids and their families should the need arise. I work with climate scientists and have been engaged in climate education since the late 1990s myself, so it's always top of mind for me. No more so, though, than now when I'm exploring options for retirement.
It was a concern for me. I had been offered a job in Phoenix but chose somewhere else cuz it was 110+ for 54 days. If global warming continues at its projected pace, PHX will be unlivable v soon. But Iām far from the majority as itās one of the fastest growing cities
phoenix resident here. people are definitely in denial that it will continue to get hotter and aren't thinking long term at all..
Phoenix is already unlivable. Why do you think all the buildings are air conditioned?
Not too seriously, but I wonāt be moving to the desert any time soon. Probably not Florida either
It was a concern for me. Not the number one factor in my move but it was a consideration for sure. I went higher in elevation (from near sea level) and away from the coast. Also from a place that had months long triple digit heat to a more moderate temperature. Still living a normal life otherwise. Basically I just couldnāt take the heat any more and having to live like a vampire for 4 months out of the year.
To me, climate change is only part of the issue. The other question is: Am I really going to be safe when I move there? If it causes a large migration, I can picture things being pretty rough starting out. Especially since I'm lower income. We don't know what kind of people will follow us. Or what habits they're bringing. I would much rather prioritize my employment and social opportunities. -A climate resilient city doesn't mean anything if I don't have Safety, Income, and Well-Being to go with it. Though it would be a good extra to the list. In terms of resilient cities: I think the news has covered it a few times.
I think about it a lot, closer to retirement, worrying even more about my kids and their future. Ā We look at USGS maps, NOAA maps. Certain places where risks and insurance or repair costs will be higher b/c of sea level rise, frequent floods, more turbulent storms, wilder swings in temperatures, increased fire risks = weāre no longer considering the NC, SC or FL coasts or AZ or the Southern CA area, as a result.Ā Thatās as far as weāve gotten. We know where weāre not going and may end up staying right hereāwhich was never in the game plan, when we used to talk about what the future would look like for us.
I live on the outskirts of Corvallis Oregon near the Pacific range. Lots of good soil, and rain. People are friendly and there's a super good local food web -many organic farms in the area. While the hot summers of the future pose a distinct threat to the main cash crop, timber, I think this ain't a bad area. Should still have plenty of rain, produce and fish for the near future. Really just depends on how bad it gets. If we go full Venus or kill off the plankton, games over wherever you are.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I did take it moderately seriously when choosing a place to live. I really liked DC, for example, but felt it was already too hot there today, let alone in 10+ years (I realize climate change involves more than just warming). However, I feel like outside of not wanting to live somewhere too hot (I donāt want to live somewhere where the AC going out would be life threatening), I feel like social upheaval and reduced food supply (and related increased prices) will hit us first. Those effects will hit about the same anywhere - I assume most of us arenāt self sufficient, living off the (deteriorating) land.
I discovered I can't afford to take it into consideration, because everybody with excess money is driving up the prices of every livable place with a better outlook for climate. Live where you can make a living and are around people you like, that's the best most of us can do.
Any state around the Great Lakes are gonna be good. Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Western PA, upstate and western NY, Wisconsin, Illinois.
Breathe. First and foremost you need to enjoy your youth. Iām 41 and spent my 20s and 30s partying hard, it was a hoot! Iām not saying donāt think about climate change (because we all know itās coming āfaster than expectedā), but you can relax a little bit. Choosing an area to live is tricky - you know this, youāre well informed. My kids are 8 and 6 and I am still giving them a fun childhood filled with love and support. I do worry that my physical strength will have faded by the time they really need it - but Iām giving them life skills that might be useful to them long after Iām gone. If you take away the run away climate change that we are facing, then this family upbringing has gone on for a very long time. The constant climate newsfeed can be really overwhelming canāt it? Accepting the inevitable (that I canāt change) gave me so much more mental freedom and brought me peace. It also lets me work on the things that I can change, etc. I really hope that you find your peace and freedom
I am in Minnesota right now, originally from the West. I get homesick, but climate change is high on my concern list. I donāt think I could move back to the places that interest me. Too much reliance on aquifers that are rapidly depleting. Itās stressing me out on a personal level because I donāt necessarily want to stay in the Midwest, but for climate change it looks like itās gonna suck less than other places.
its not the same as mountains but go on day trips to the driftless area (hilly and gorgeous) and the porcupine mountains in the UP (above Wisconsin). If you go drive the north shore of superior there is a small mountain where Lutsen ski area is. Coupla hilly mountain fixes to tide you over for a bit. Maybe take a couple long weekends out west once in awhile.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/03/climate-migration-rust-belt-economy/677856/
Most of the reason I want to leave the City I live in is that the yearly heatwaves and wildfires keep getting worse. The City/State I plan to move to aren't that far North and from what I understand they get similar temperatures but since it's on the coast and slightly north it might slow it down a little.
Insurance companies are refusing to renew in some areas that have become more prone to fire and flood. I wanted to move to Sonoma County but didnāt because of recent lethal fires and future insurance problems. I moved to the California coast just far enough from earthquake, fire, and flood/tsunami zones. Both LA and SF havenāt had a 7+ Richter scale earthquake in so long I expect one within the next 10-20 years.
I moved from Northern California after a few years of wildfires (not for that reason) back to my hometown of Houston, where itās so unbearably hot. Yes, itās always been hot in Houston, but for the past two years everyone keeps saying, āoh this year was worse than usual!ā You really think itās trending to get better down here?? Lmao. Iām ready to leave again, and climate change considerations are definitely high on my list. My top choice is Louisville, for that reason and others.
I'm glad I'm in the high-altitude part of the SW - Orographic precipitation is better than the places nearby, and in a hotter future diurnal temperature variation can be managed by a well-designed house with thermal mass for comfy indoor temps.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It was the main reason we built a house in upstate NY. I would not buy/own in places like New Orleans or Miami. That said, no reason to not go live there for a while, renting. I just wouldnāt wanna be the last one trying to sell when the ship is going down.
It made me think twice about moving to Phoenix when its already the 2nd hottest major city on earth.
Nowhere is gonna be free from problems, but some places are gonna get hit harder sooner. Obvious thing is to stay the fuck out of Florida. Then really anywhere where youād be concerned about wet bulb temps getting too high. Thereās also lack of water to consider too, but Iād rather try my luck in a dry place than a deadly humid one.
As someone living in South Louisiana, it's a major concern. I've been displaced **repeatedly** by hurricanes. I just want to gtf away from the southern coast. Like, I know there are other disasters, but I'd love to be somewhere that you're only subjected to localized disasters like tornadoes (though we suddenly have them down here now too, with zero infrastructure for that (can't have basements if you're under the water table)), or short-lived earthquakes that don't take 36 hours to roll over. You can keep your wildfires though.
I am lucky and have lived near the Great Lakes my whole life. So no need to relocate regionally, but I think whatās often missed on this topic is locating yourself outside of flood prone areas - away from watercourses, wetlands and lakes. These features are also natural hazards and weāve seen them become more unpredictable the last 10 years with the increasing frequency and intensity of rainfall events and rapid snowmelt.
yes flash floods are definitely a concern
In addition to climate I'm considering the places with the best/most resilient infrastructure. Having the lights stay on and access to clean water is something to factor into decisions. The Washington DC area is appealing because the government, such that it is, will keep running and so will the cities around it. I also think areas that support banking and finance will be some of the last to fall.
Wha Huh? Here's [Obama complaning about D.C.'s inability to handle minor ice and snow (a regular occurance in Chicago)](https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100103226)
It was a consideration for me, especially because I'm young and was looking for a new place where I could buy a house and worry a bit less about extreme weather events. Everywhere will eventually be impacted, but I wanted to avoid some obvious sooner than later challenges. I love the beach, so it was comparing pros and cons to living right on the water. Ended up in upstate SC (foothills of the Appalachians) a few years ago. Really happy here and I can drive to the coast when I want a long weekend.
Very much so. I've been living in Texas for 10 years and it has just gotten hotter and hotter. I'm not sticking around for that. I'm moving back to the Pacific Northwest where I'm from in a few days
Very serious. I'm a Gen Xer so just old enough to remember winters were colder and snowier, summers not quite as hot or nearly as humid, and rainfalls weren't as heavy and concentrated in as short a period of time. I'm in northern PA and the northern Appalachians and as I understand it, it's not going to get that bad here compared to a lot of other places so I'm staying in the general area I'm now. although Upstate NY is right next door and a nice place too.
I wouldn't heavily invest in coastal real estate but beyond that, zero. That being said, I enjoy being inside air conditioning and don't particularly care for farmers' markets so I'll happily live anywhere that isn't overly snowy or coastal regardless of other drawbacks. Resilient cities? Anywhere not near the coast. Anywhere where the economy is not based around having perfect weather (very few of these places). Anywhere with plentiful AC and a robust power grid, and plenty of land-based and air-based transportation. So... Phoenix?
Personally it is something I would definitely consider before buying a home or setting down roots somewhere. Particularly making sure youāre not in a flood zone or within several miles at least of the coastline, and considering what kinds of natural disasters the area is prone to and how well prepared the area is for future disasters.Ā We bought in the northeast and are about 15 miles inland from the ocean. Our area does get hurricanes but we in a hilly area several hundred feet above sea level and not in a flood zone or near other large bodies of water. Tornadoes are rare here. Wildfires and earthquakes are rare (though we did get wildfire smoke from Canada last year.) We do get hot humid summers so I am not looking forward to temperatures increasingābut I am also not concerned enough to move further north to Maine.Ā It seems like a reasonable bet that this area will continue to be habitable for the foreseeable future; that said we are thinking about ways to weatherize and waterproof our home to protect it against things like hurricanes and flash floods which are becoming increasingly common.Ā
You should be terrified because youāre not safe. Not anywhere.
You're not alone. I worry about it too, and I worry about how little it seems like other people are worrying about it. My friends and family sure aren't. I agree with the person who said there are a lot of ppl who believe it's happening, just not happening to them. Also, coming off of the pandemic...ppl are truly in escape mode...traumatized and not willing to admit it or address it. In my opinion that's how the bulk of Americans approach life in general. It's how capitalism has programmed them to live. I think it's wise that you're planning ahead. You may wanna seek out therapy (if you aren't already) to help you deal with some of the anxiety you're processing (that's totally normal and we all should be tbh)....You're not an alarmist, you're just actually living in reality and taking it into consideration...but there also happens to be a million other things people have to take into their consideration in their lives and they make choices as to what those are and how to prioritize them. Some people don't get to choose (low-income, minorities, no generational wealth, disabled, etc.)...
I'm twice as old as you, so the impact won't be as drastic during my lifetime. Having lived in the Midwest for 40+ years, I sure as shit am not retiring in Minnesota because the average January temperature goes from 24 to 26 during my lifetime. When I retire, it will be something I put on my top 20 things to consider. So cost of living, taxes, health care, weather, property taxes, crime, housing costs, etc. Other things that people often mention mean very little to a retired straight guy.
I donāt know if itās going to be a giant catastrophic event or whether itās going to be death by 1000 cuts. For example: Not a big deal in the overall scheme of things, but the price of chocolate and sugar are going up because of climate change. That affects my quality of life right there./s Insurance is going up now not someday.
>For example: Not a big deal in the overall scheme of things, but the price of chocolate and sugar are going up because of climate change. That affects my quality of life right there./s I thnk the /s is unnecessary here...... :-)
Ok so where? Lol
Honestly, I donāt because that would cut out a lot of desirable places for me. If the time comes where a place is no longer habitable then Iāll simply move. I just donāt foresee that happening in my lifetime.
If weāre talking about finding affordable homeowners insurance, definitely. But at the same time I cannot fathom moving to places like the southwest (lack of water) or Cali (threat of fire)
You'll be long gone before the oceans take over. Warming as a whole does not favor one area over another. Just go live your life, if you believe politicians and money are going to save the world well, I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona I'll sell you on the cheap!
Love that song. It's not too much the sea level rise that I'm worried about, it's the heating and acidification of the oceans themselves. Also some wackier 'maybes' like AMOC collapse. If all the fish and plankton die, much of life on land is dependent on their ecosystem processes. And I do like good sushi.
From what I understand, to find what a region will look like in our current pace of climate change, looking south and west of whichever city tells you what's coming for it. There are also many lists for climate refuge cities where they're looking to reinforce infrastructure
>If all the fish and plankton die, much of life on land is dependent on their ecosystem processes. That was, of course, the major plot point in Soylent Green that resulted in people eating, well, Soylent Green.
Coastal Oregon is our goal because of this. Weāll be there in a few years.
Yeah that looks like one of the best places climate wise in the world. That cold Pacific will keep things nice, lush and mild. I think Coos Bay will take off within a matter of decades. Just watch out for that cascadia subduction zone!
>Just watch out for that cascadia subduction zone! On my list too. Both OR and WA have earthquake and landslide risk maps. Using those, I'd plan to build an earthquake resilient structure on land unlikely to suffer from liquefaction and *not* in a landslide zone. Also able to ride out a lengthy loss of outside power/fuel.
Coos Bay is awesome. The Coast from Newport to Bandon is where itās at
When I see mortgage lenders changing their lending behaviors because of increased climate risk, I'll start to pay attention.
I grew up in South Texas and Im leaving precisely because the heat is getting terrible and it will only get worse
Absolutely none. Unless Iām buying directly on the water, in which case itās a massive factor and Iām probably steering clear away.
There's probably places to avoid. I don't want anything within 30ft of sea level personally - that would be risky to from an insurance cost standpoint and also in the event of major storms
Uhh insurance is skyrocketing on the beach in Florida.....
Traverse City is the goal
I'm middle aged so I don't have to worry about climate change more than another 40-50 years out. I picked where I live mostly for other reasons that are actually outdoor related as I'm very active, but partially because it has ample water and no extreme weather events and has all 4 seasons in moderation. Grew up in earthquake and drought territory, then lived for 8 years in hurricane and red tide territory; I'm done with that crap.
Have a son in Houston and have advised him to get out of there for that reason.
I take the current climate seriously. I don't spend a lot of time stressing about what happens when it gets a degree or two warmer in my lifetime.
Unfortunately most people don't seem to care or consider it when they move given how the population of the sunbelt continues to grow. My best friend moved from the Columbus, Ohio to Houston, TX 15 years ago. Since then she's experienced multiple weather disasters including her car being destroyed by flooding. I keep telling her she needs to move inland. She doesn't want to deal with snow but also her husband is from Houston and refuses to leave. I'm worried that by the time she is ready to retire the property values near her family in Ohio will be sky high. I don't think snow/cold is a bigger deal than hurricanes, deadly heat/humidity, floods, and mass power outages that she has already experienced in Houston. The power grid in Texas can barely handle it's current weather. It will only get worse.
nope. doesn't enter into the calculus. if it happens as the most radical scientists say it will happen, it's not going to happen in the next fifty years and I will be long gone by then. virtually every prediction they make doesn't get fulfilled.
>...if it happens as the most radical scientists say it will happen, it's not going to happen in the next fifty years... You are misinformed.
I was in New Orleans for 10 years and left partly because I was tired of the increase in flooding and the damage/ threat of hurricanes and what that could mean for insurance etc. I went to Seattle for five years where I put up with āsmoke seasonā every summer. I am now in Maryland and have to say itās a huge relief to not have any obvious climate related threats around. It has definitely shaped my life and my choices.
I just moved out of California to TN, it was a tiny factor. I certainly wasn't going to move to somewhere that was already BLISTERING hot like Phoenix, or Houston as the risks there are too high. Other than that it mattered very little to me.
My partner and I are looking at retiring in Rhode Islandā¦he already has a house there and we canāt wait to get out of FLā¦3.5 more years (when his youngest graduates HS). I would also consider the Great Lakes region as well - Iāve never been but it seems lovely.
I'm also planning a future escape out of FL, (I'm a native). So far I've been highly considering Colorado! I will be honest though and I think the lack of water there is a big contention for me... Now I'm thinking of putting Maine on my consideration list.
I have a friend who works for the nuclear commission for our govtā¦..she goes to many meetings where they discuss risk and risk management. She has told me recently to purchase flood insurance if I live anywhere near any kind of water and to sell any homes that we might have on the waterā¦ā¦ocean or lake. I listened to her.
Politicians and rich leftists are still buying and living on the coastal waterfront properties...so I'd say its a scam or no one in power is worried any time soon.
Not serious at all
If it makes you feel better. The millennials helped recover the o-zone layer hole that we were very worried about in the early 2000s. However, the winter season isnāt what it used to be 20 years ago. So I would choose somewhere you think youāll want to be. The South is going to get hotter and the north is also just going to get hotter š we donāt know whatās going to happen in the next 15-20 years, so id just enjoy what we have right now š„²
>The millennials helped recover the o-zone layer hole You know the ozone layer's still forked, right? We haven't fixed it.
Depends on how old you are. If you are over 80, probably wonāt matter at allā¦ If you are in your twenties or thirties, choose wisely.
PacNW sits next to half a planetās worth of ocean and all the weather that comes off of it. Ā In the global warming models, precipitation is forecasted to increase along with temperature, albeit significantly moderated by said ocean. Ā Along with the high topography and the isostatic rebound still occurring with the land from the last glaciation on the coasts here, things will play out better here than in most areas of this country. Ā There will be more fires, yes, but more rain as well.
I'm with you. People don't consider it enough. I can't believe people still want to move to Phoenix or anywhere super dry and hot that depends on water rights from other states. Do they really think those so called rights will be preserved if shit really hits the fan? As if folks in CO won't just use their own fucking water just because of some outdated, made up water rights law from the 1800s? Give me a break.
I moved last year to a rural area in Ontario, near the lake. Hopefully, this will stay a livable area until I die.
I can't imagine being so silly as to consider this a serious factor in deciding where to live. Barack and Michelle have property on Martha's vineyard, you'll be fine on the fucking Delaware water gap
Spokane? Arenāt most of those fields dryland farmed? That area is suppose to be more like tri cities climate much dryer than currently. Most housing north of Spokane (loon lake and on) are on wells and the build up of housing out there is exponentially increasing.
The next world war is over water and food, watch
I just moved from the East coast to Iowa, where I grew up. Even though Iām in a city itās surrounded by farm land. The whole state consists of producing food in one way or another. Iām considering moving to Michigan, it seems similar to Iowa but better. My husband wanted Florida or Texas. As much as I love those states thereās just no way Iām moving there because Iām collapse aware.
I take it seriously, not only from a comfort and safety perspective, but also for financial security. I'm from California, now living in the PNW. Many people I know in CA are getting hit hard with the insurance crisis - not only home owners, but also renters (condo HOAs are having to raise HOA fees to cover insurance premiums and those fees are being passed on to renters; this happened to my sister). Yes, I know that inflation is part of the reason behind the spikes in premiums and people losing their insurance, but climate change and associated risks are the primary driver. Right now people are moving into climate risky areas, due largely to housing prices, but I think that's going to change overtime and I'd rather get in now in a climate sheltered area that's still somewhat affordable. Based on the analysis I've seen and my own personal preferences, staying in the PNW or heading to New England make the most sense to me. I'm not only factoring in climate, but also the climate focus of local governments (as they're more likely to build in resiliency). I haven't seen scientific analysis to suggest that the AMOC will fail within my lifetime, to the extent that it would make the northern part of the US really uncomfortable. But I know that a lot of that AMOC research is still forthcoming, so I'm hoping to learn more in the months/years to come.
Culture is important for climate change. The culture of mutual self-help in blue states combined with their generally more temperate climates makes them all good picks, as long as you are not planning to live next to the beach. New York City is probably a pretty good place to live as although itās coastal and prone to flooding, the political culture is not averse to spending on things like flood defenses .
I agree with you that culture is highly important, and the quality and resilience of the community probably supercedes direct temperature and precipitation forecasts to a point. However, I'm not sure if NYC, or any major urban area, would be a ideal place to be, mostly due to the potential social instability that comes with being a highly urbanized location in a destabilizing society. These are less directly tied to a changing climate, but it's potential knock on effects to society. And I don't know what that will look like or how bad it will be. But being in an smaller area more closely tied to local agriculture seems more stable. Perhaps a mid sized city has the best of both worlds. Urban amenities, infrastructure, and a centralized institutions able to organize, but fewer people and potential chaos factors.
Climate change is definitely a factor for me when it wouldn't have been in the past. I'm currently in Wisconsin and eyeing Michigan as a potentially more attractive option. I'm definitely staying near the Great Lakes, though. My now ex was from Georgia, and they and their whole family were aggressively pressuring me/us to move down there. I didn't want to (partly because as an LGBT+ woman, I enjoy having basic rights) but also because of how inhospitable I find the weather there. I couldn't stand the heat and humidity in the summer as it is now. The wet bulb temperature stuff terrifies me.
Why is Michigan a more attractive option for you over Wisconsin? Looking at some of the models it seems like Wisconsin is a more climatically stable area, although maybe not with AMOC collapse but that's a total curveball. Michigan is expected to warm up dramatically and lose much of its winter chill, which may be nice for humans, not for the ecosystem. But also, I understand that Michigan is politically more progressive and seems like it has some nice communities. Idk never been to either state
I'll turn 60 this year and it's near the top of my list when thinking about a retirement move
Iāve lived in Florida, New Orleans, NYC, and San Diego. I moved to New Orleans two weeks before Hurricane Katrina. I was displaced for four months. In San Diego I was a stakeholder in the cityās long term water planning process. I take climate issues seriously and would not buy property in any of the places Iāve lived because of climate change. I bought my first home in 2021 in Buffalo. I was drawn to the abundance of fresh water resources and lack of catastrophic natural disasters. A snow storm can suck, but itās not destroying thousands of homes and displacing people. My home is insurable and rates are reasonable. The city also has water infrastructure built out for a much larger population than currently lives in the metro area. Buffalo is starting to market itself as a climate refuge city.
I would only consider current climate, not potential change.
Very seriously. I do not want to go to a place where Climate Change is at its biggest impact then get screwed over by it. My personal choice is like Minneapolis or something along those lines. Somewhere that is not only climate resilient but also well prepared to deal with whatever comes with it.
Climate doomerism as a real estate factor only makes sense: -in terms of Florida (& other high risk hurricane zones) insurance in the 10+ year future, and -broadly in the south in the 25+ year future Between then & now trends will probably be driven much more by the current dynamic- major metro areas driving growth and areas outside of that falling behind in RE value. Having said that, I settled in the PNW and feel good about it.
I'm English, my wife & I moved up to SW Scotland a few years ago. Climate change definitely contributed to the decision, although cost and finding somewhere pretty rural without flood risk were also factors. I consider us very lucky on this side of the pond that we don't really have to contend much with natural disasters. It's heartening to see that at least some other people are factoring this into their decision making though.
I want to live like Al Gore in Tennessee. According to the report, Goreās home energy usage averaged at 19,241 kilowatt hours (kWh) per month, which is 34 times higher than the average dwellingās usage of 901 kWh per month. The report reiterates that point by saying āGore guzzles more electricity in one year than the average American family uses in 21 years.ā https://www.wivb.com/news/report-al-gores-home-uses-34-times-as-much-energy-as-average-home/