HN Explorer

Ask HN: Due to global warming, where would you move to or avoid?

44 points by spraak ↗ HN
I live on a Pacific island. I've been considering buying a house (instead of renting), but if I think about a timescale of more than 20 years, it seems like a poor investment, considering that it may be very uncomfortable to live here by then. Considering the climate changes, but also social and economic factors, where would you move, or where would you avoid (e.g. how I am considering avoiding living here long term)?

37 comments

[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 37.0 ms ] thread
username444
I think it's important to note that the proper term is climate change.

It's not just warming. It's rising sea levels. And where I live (in land, northern hemisphere), we're seeing increased flooding due to higher rain fall.

Winters aren't necessarily colder, but the growing season for crops is consistently out-of-whack and has ruined multiple crops over the year.

In-land, near lakes in the northern hemisphere may be hot less drastically, but everywhere is being affected.

ahje
Yeah, the winters are still cold, but the weather is seriously unpredictable and it feels like the seasons have gone out of sync lately. It's definitely going to affect crops in the long run, and I suspect the effects are going to become a bit more apparent (rising costs of food in developed countries) in the next 10-15 years.

So, to answer the original question: Go somewhere you will still be able to grow/breed food reliably in 20 years, and where the local community is strong enough to support such production in the long run. Make sure you are able to contribute and participate to that community if/when the shit hits the fan.

colek42
Grain yields in the US have on average increased every year since 1930. Global warming is a real issue, but to say that farming is currently being effected is not supported by much emperical evidence. https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/yieldtren...
username444
Grain yields have increased thanks for pesticides, herbicides, selective breeding and mass agriculture improvements. And the misuse of said herbicides as dessicants (eg. Roundup).

I don't know how hardy grain is specifically, but I was remembering the issue with apples in Ontario:

https://www.ontario.ca/page/why-we-need-address-climate-chan... March 2012 was so warm, apple trees bloomed early, but then lost 80% of their fruit because of a severe frost two months later

2012 wasn't the only year.

kaushikt
Definitely avoid Bangladesh :)

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-unfoldin...

Almost 30 million people will be displaced because of just 3 foot sea level rise in Bangladesh. This is expected to happen in the next 20years or so.

Most of these people might migrate to India. Maybe avoid India too for similar reason.

quickthrower2
India: That and possibly in future being jailed for holding crypto, a human rights violation IMO. People should be free to trade in general without government interference except when it causes harm to other people.
phakding
It's not like crypto hasn't been used for ransoms and such. This gubment is bad bullshit from libertarian idiots needs to go away.
eb0la
Avoid the mediterranean. Old IPCC models "predicted" tornados in the mediterranean - there are very brief tornados (google for cap de fiblo) every now and then near Minorca island (I saw 2 myself).
valarauko
I've wondered about this and based on my own personal criteria, I narrowed down to Canada or New Zealand.

My criteria: * Friendly to immigration * Access to currently untapped freshwater resources * Not too densely populated * Preferably English speaking

zuzzurro
Very similar to my thoughts. I'm also considering the possibility to defend myself. This may be provided by the "not too densely populated" one (but things are supposed to change in that respect in case of the big trouble). So potentially an elevated, or hidden place?
valarauko
I've wondered about the likelihood of needing to defend myself, but since I'm completely incompetent in that regard, I'll have to opt for security by obfuscation.

In my musings, the two things that most worry me is an acute shortage of fresh water, and that any hospitable place I choose is also going to attract hordes of other climate refugees that will outcompete me. There are places like the Pacific North West of the US that are likely to fare relatively well in the Climate Wars. Yet these regions will also attract climate refugees from elsewhere in the country. Canada has a lot more amenable landmass to work with, and relatively fewer people to compete with. Ironically, Canada's acceptance of refugees with open arms gives me pause, since it suggests a likely destination for global climate refugees (ghastly of me, I know). In that respect, NZ's geographical isolation and sparse population strike me as huge pluses.

AnimalMuppet
I'd add the ability to grow food, even if the climate is warmer and either wetter or dryer.
thisone
I'd move somewhere where the government and people actively care about climate change and don't just say "it's someone else's problem" or "nothing I can do as an individual will make a difference" or "you first!"
tuesday20
Where can I find a list of such places?
MH15
The list of states who went blue in the 2016 and 2018 elections.
8draco8
IMHO countries like Finland, Norway, Sweden. They are pretty hilly countries with a lot of natural resources and they are actively working for being as much environmentally friendly as it is possible for a country.

Unfortunately money rules this world so it's a good tactic to start paying taxes in place where government cares about environment. Hopefully at some point other countries will realize that investing in ecology is actually profitable.

richjdsmith
This is something I have been putting a lot of thought into lately. My wife and I have been fortunate to have lived in France, England and Spain over the past decade, as well as being regular visitors (+6x/year) to the United States.

The more places I see, the more I realize that the area of the world I grew up in, the interior of British Columbia, Canada or where my wife grew up in Alberta, Canada, are both better suited to handle the projected long-term adverse climate changes than anywhere else I've ever been.

With the use of greenhouses, their easy access to abundant fresh water and readily accessible energy I think they're both well-suited areas to long-term stability.

thrower123
In general, temperate regions of the world are boring, but safe, and really good places for humans to live. That's why I love New England; there's lots of fresh water, there's no significant tectonic activity, you might catch the remnants of a hurricane once a decade. There are nearly no poisonous animals.

It snows a little bit, that's about the worst you can say.

giardini
In summer they have the worst gnats/biting flies/bugs I have ever encountered in my life. Very slow-moving and easy to kill, they arrive by the millions intent upon crawling into your socks, underwear, collar and hair, injecting an anticoagulant and lapping up your blood. Each bite (and you will have thousands of them) leaves a red circle of material beneath your skin (~1/4 cm in diameter) that takes years to go away.

I was unlucky enough to be working one summer in northern Maine when these black devils began drifting into town. We swatted and laughed at first but after an hour we had to quit to get repellant to apply _everywhere_. Decades later the scars are still present on my ankles.

laxk
What is about Lyme disease?
freehunter
Lyme disease is a lot easier to avoid than a hurricane and easier to treat than a high-rise collapsing on you during an earthquake.
CondensedBrain
Climate refugees are going to be the big issue, not where to choose to move if you have that freedom. Any question of where to go has to somehow answer "What happens when everyone else who can tries to go there?"
tonyedgecombe
It seems inevitable that borders are going to harden over the coming decades, I can't see the politics unfolding in any other way.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
guidoism
I realize that this is the current trend in both Europe and the US, but I wonder if this is the best (realpolitik) strategy.

Not to mention the moral issues surrounding letting tens of millions suffer and die because we don't want to help people.

Can you really keep out tens of millions of people with a wall?

AnimalMuppet
Can you really keep out tens of millions of people with a wall? Absolutely, if you're willing to enforce it. You may have to kill some of those people to do so, though. Which puts us right back at your second paragraph.
bjourne
Europe and the US kept hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees out of their countries during the Holocaust. We certainly can do it again, with just as shameful results.
pryelluw
I had to move from Puerto Rico to Atlanta, Georgia after hurricane Maria. It has worked out ok.
marapuru
That's a very interesting question. Have you already been researching some solutions? And if so, which resources did you use?

I'd say the most important aspects could be: - Available fresh water

- Population density

- Job availability

- Pollution (water / air / ground)

- Political stability

- Common spoken languages

This could make a nice base for a webapp where you can figure out where to go for the next big migration :)

Some websites I found so far

- http://datasets.wri.org (datasets on many earthly aspects :))

- http://www.aneki.com/freshwater_countries.html (biggest bodies of fresh water)

- http://flood.firetree.net/ (water levels)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_ren...

- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/most-po...

mrfusion
Probably the only safe place would be pretty far underground.