Ask HN: Where would you move to escape climate change?
Title says it all. Which city or country would you move to protect yourself from the impact of climate change?
25 comments
I think this is a “choose your poison” scenario. Are you trying to evade fire, flooding, aridity, hurricane impact etc? There is no silver bullet IMO, you have to trade off the negatives. Somewhere with a natural aquifer, not too much surrounding forestry (maybe high deserts)
Why not too much surrounding forestry? If civilization collapses, you might want access to wood...
That's a good point, but you run the risk of being burned out of your home. I think the emphasis is on "not too much", IMO
I'm sorry, wasn't client change called GLOBAL WARMING before, so in theory, there is NO WHERE TO MOVE?
Like weather and climate are not the same thing, there will be places that are more/less affected (but no-one will escape, I agree). The question is, given my preferences and the impending changes, where should live to most increase my happiness?
Already have. Ditched the low coastal flats for that hillside living with permanent water access. Am in aus. We get bushfires now in wet rainforest that's previously never been known to burn. Floods every other year. Droughts still the biggest problem.
I think this is key. Staying away from burnable areas while still having access to fresh water (untouched by rising salination levels) is a strong play.
Nowhere in particular as its impact is going to be slow and progressive everywhere so not much noticeable. I find quite dumb to make a life choice for just that reason, to be honest.
In Germany for example there is no noticeable difference, although some people like to think that yearly differences in snow are due climate change.
In Spain I could observe some storms are now a bit stronger and sudden as they used to be as if the weather would turn slightly more tropical.
But these events, even if are an actual consequence of climate change and not just causality, are like not easy to spot as the climate stays mostly the same and there is no apparent change in any drastic way. Perhaps after hundred years if we compare it with today that would be more dramatic, but that’s all. And still there were short periods when the maximal recorder temperatures were even higher during the Middle Ages, so it might be feasible to imagine a future where everything is reversed like the Ozon depletion drama from the 90s. Heck even a single super volcano could change everything in a single month.
So I don’t think the question is more important than where would you like to live for its climate.
In Germany for example there is no noticeable difference, although some people like to think that yearly differences in snow are due climate change.
In Spain I could observe some storms are now a bit stronger and sudden as they used to be as if the weather would turn slightly more tropical.
But these events, even if are an actual consequence of climate change and not just causality, are like not easy to spot as the climate stays mostly the same and there is no apparent change in any drastic way. Perhaps after hundred years if we compare it with today that would be more dramatic, but that’s all. And still there were short periods when the maximal recorder temperatures were even higher during the Middle Ages, so it might be feasible to imagine a future where everything is reversed like the Ozon depletion drama from the 90s. Heck even a single super volcano could change everything in a single month.
So I don’t think the question is more important than where would you like to live for its climate.
As a counter to this, consider the fire-season that is now yearly in California with increasing intensity. Living in the inland regions that are now routinely smoke-filled for significant periods is challenging, and provides strong impetus to move. This is both noticeable, and not fast progressing.
But that’s what always happened. I would be more concerned of living next to a heavy industrial city or country like Shanghai or New Delhi, sometimes even a single concrete production factory can affect sensible people like asthmatic (as it happened to me for a short time of my life). Same story for landfills, or agriculture regions which have the tradition to burn rests from their activity causing serious air saturation.
As said I would be more concerned of other factors, including pollution, general climate, time to nature and sustainability of the city for a good work life balance. And king would be: time to commute work.
As said I would be more concerned of other factors, including pollution, general climate, time to nature and sustainability of the city for a good work life balance. And king would be: time to commute work.
Same with the extreme heat events in the northwest.
Most humans are already in places safe from climate change. Even in low lying Bangladesh, studies predict that climate change will only cause between 900k and 2.1m humans having to move over the next hundred years. More Bangladeshis than that move on an annual basis for other reasons anyway.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aac4d4/...
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aac4d4/...
Don't worry, you'll be on your deathbed due to cardiovascular disease, alzheimer, cancer or stroke before climate change even produces any minimal effects on your life.
You, me and 50 generations down the road.
Sorry to be this crude but the psychosis is getting crazy, well into the lunacy territory.
I get the religious-like impetous of being part of something bigger than themselves, but equally stimulating challanges in global health abound and they have the added benefit of being material to the lifespan and quality of life of basically everybody.
Finally to people who want to change global climate, talking about 1.5C , 2C like they are deciding how they want their beard to be trimmed. Well I must ask them : Have you tried changing your cholesterol first?
Besides being the thing that would get you in the end, it also proves to be one of the many steps on the way to super ambitious goals.
As the saying goes, you gotta walk before you can run.
If you can't change your cholesterol , you'll hardly be able to change the global climate
You, me and 50 generations down the road.
Sorry to be this crude but the psychosis is getting crazy, well into the lunacy territory.
I get the religious-like impetous of being part of something bigger than themselves, but equally stimulating challanges in global health abound and they have the added benefit of being material to the lifespan and quality of life of basically everybody.
Finally to people who want to change global climate, talking about 1.5C , 2C like they are deciding how they want their beard to be trimmed. Well I must ask them : Have you tried changing your cholesterol first?
Besides being the thing that would get you in the end, it also proves to be one of the many steps on the way to super ambitious goals.
As the saying goes, you gotta walk before you can run.
If you can't change your cholesterol , you'll hardly be able to change the global climate
Whilst I agree nobody is perfect when it comes to managing their own health.
But if the climate does warm past the expected number, having a clean bill of health won't do much to protect you.
But if the climate does warm past the expected number, having a clean bill of health won't do much to protect you.
> But if the climate does warm past the expected number, having a clean bill of health won't do much to protect you.
The highest authority on the matter is the IPCC, they produce climate reports every 4 years.
There made lots of them, and people wait anxiously their reports to see the state of the art.
Not in one of their reports did the words "human extinction" ever come up.
Again life is a matter of priorities and triage.
Before screaming and predicting the end of the world, people should worry about doing everything in their power to delay their own personal "end of the world"
And if you are worried about systemic risks, then nuclear and bioweapons are still way above climate change
There are 10000+ of them with potential ramp up and proliferation, and unlike generalized climate change they are directly aimed at targets were people live.
The highest authority on the matter is the IPCC, they produce climate reports every 4 years.
There made lots of them, and people wait anxiously their reports to see the state of the art.
Not in one of their reports did the words "human extinction" ever come up.
Again life is a matter of priorities and triage.
Before screaming and predicting the end of the world, people should worry about doing everything in their power to delay their own personal "end of the world"
And if you are worried about systemic risks, then nuclear and bioweapons are still way above climate change
There are 10000+ of them with potential ramp up and proliferation, and unlike generalized climate change they are directly aimed at targets were people live.
My point is that if we do nothing about climate change it will still inevitably cause the same if not more devastation than that of nuclear and bioweapons. One is absolute if we do nothing, the other is not so obvious.
At the end of the day there isn't ever one focus, there are multiple focuses when it comes to keeping ourselves and each other alive. The risks of climate change IMO are not a question of how but when, in amongst all other health risks.
At the end of the day there isn't ever one focus, there are multiple focuses when it comes to keeping ourselves and each other alive. The risks of climate change IMO are not a question of how but when, in amongst all other health risks.
> The risks of climate change IMO are not a question of how but when
So is the heat death of the Universe but it's a bit too early to start worrying about it.
So is the heat death of the Universe but it's a bit too early to start worrying about it.
I legitimately can't tell if this is a bit.
For me, this is is a similar argument to COVID + vaccines. For some people (not saying this is you at all) there is the argument of: why should I get the vaccine? I probably won't die, and they are correct. But the quality of life for a lot of people will degrade substantially, and this is the core issue.
No we won't die from climate change, but wouldn't you like to be somewhere where the effects are mitigated if you had the choice?
No we won't die from climate change, but wouldn't you like to be somewhere where the effects are mitigated if you had the choice?
Probably unpopular but I'd say look at what you think the political implications will be, and move somewhere that's liable to be less affected. For example moving away from somewhere you think is going to have much of its economy shut down by government, or to a jurisdiction that is less likely to impose restrictions or scarcity on you.
More people are potentially going to be affected in the short term by government responses - whether you agree with them or not, they probably affect your quality of life more.
More people are potentially going to be affected in the short term by government responses - whether you agree with them or not, they probably affect your quality of life more.
I'd move closer to the Equator probably in Indonesia. Climate would be less chaotic regardless of the temperature increase and the country's climate is classified as roughly the same [1].
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Present_...
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Present_...
