5 ms·

I've come across many news articles and videos reminding viewers that unless action is taken, the whole world will be affected, however, none touch on the place

I've come across many news articles and videos reminding viewers that unless action is taken, the whole world will be affected, however, none touch on the places that will weather the crisis best. Personally, I don't want to plant roots in a location that is at risk of becoming unhabitable within the next ~30-50 years.

Johnny555 5y ago
I don't really want to relocate globally, so my criteria is: stay away from known flood zones and coastal areas (both due to sea level rise and more frequent/destructive tropical storms). Be prepared with to live off grid in weather more severe than expected in the area for a week or more when weather knocks out the power. Oh, and stay away from urban areas for the same reason - a week long power outage in a city is not going to go well no matter how prepared you are yourself.
radicaldreamer 5y ago
Everyone is likely to be screwed in unpredictable ways, but New Zealand keeps coming up as a place where things won't be so bad. Siberia as well...
- jgamman 5y ago
  ssshhhh https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/05/all-the-maps-that-are-missing-new-zealand.html https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/05/all-the-m...
- nroets 5y ago
  Mass migration to New Zealand or Siberia would entail would mean more construction work causing more carbon to be released. Rather adapt existing buildings to the changing climate.
  - mikepurvis 5y ago
    Right, but that's a global cost for a localized benefit... which is kind of the whole deal here. In any case, basically every mitigation is still going to involve massive amounts of concrete- and diesel-related emissions, whether it's new housing, flood control measures, new energy sources, carbon capture, etc etc.
  - jfk13 5y ago
    Mass migration to New Zealand would pretty quickly overflow the islands.
- valec 5y ago
  Siberia recently suffered some of the worst wildfires on the entire planet haha. I think probably the safest would be East Canada as they're cold enough but not as tree-like.
  - jagger27 5y ago
    Eastern Canada already gets pretty strong storms during hurricane season. Those will surely keep getting worse.
    - valec 5y ago
      Sure on the coast but the Great Lakes-adjacent region should fare pretty well, or at least better than everywhere else.
      - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
        Great lakes region is considered "central", not eastern, Canada. When we refer to the east in Canada, we are referring to the Atlantic provinces.
- masklinn 5y ago
  > Siberia as well... Siberia may get warmer weather, but the grounds will be awful. Melting permafrost and methane explosions don’t make for a very stable situation.
  - wongarsu 5y ago
    Southern Siberia might become farmable and quite nice. Northern Siberia not so much, no matter how much we heat things up
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  Siberia will be continuous forest fires. Much like Canada's north. I'm partial to the northern half of the great lakes.
- myth_drannon 5y ago
  Well, I doubt Siberia will be ok. Northern passage will become commercially viable but the Taiga forest itself will most likely be burning for the next couple decades until it's all gone. So unless people walk 24h in oxygen masks it will not be a nice place to live.
pwinnski 5y ago
Every location on earth is at risk of becoming uninhabitable within the next 50 years. Predicting which will be most at risk is relatively easy. Predicting which will be least at risk is much harder, as some of the effects are complex. e.g. Things getting warmer seems like it should be good for cold places, but it turns out to have negative consequences as well.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > Every location on earth is at risk of becoming uninhabitable within the next 50 years. This is way, way beyond what any kind of scientific data suggests, even under the most extreme assumptions for projecting things into the future (and models based on those extreme assumptions are already falsified by actual data anyway).
  - pwinnski 5y ago
    Please, suggest specific locations which are at zero risk of becoming uninhabitable based on scientific data. No runaway fires, no tornados, hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, no fear of rising sea levels or runaway rivers, no risk of resource depletion. Free from any sort of natural disaster, this place must be pretty special! Or maybe you misunderstood the words I used.
    - pdonis 5y ago
      Oh, please. Most of the currently inhabited land surface of Earth does not experience any of the things you mention. But the media don't want us to be bored, so they don't run stories about how nicely habitable most of the Earth is. They only run stories about the small portion of Earth's land surface that experiences disasters. To extrapolate that to the entire planet, as you are doing, is ridiculous.

Johnny555 5y ago

I don't really want to relocate globally, so my criteria is: stay away from known flood zones and coastal areas (both due to sea level rise and more frequent/destructive tropical storms). Be prepared with to live off grid in weather more severe than expected in the area for a week or more when weather knocks out the power. Oh, and stay away from urban areas for the same reason - a week long power outage in a city is not going to go well no matter how prepared you are yourself.

radicaldreamer 5y ago

Everyone is likely to be screwed in unpredictable ways, but New Zealand keeps coming up as a place where things won't be so bad. Siberia as well...

jgamman 5y ago
ssshhhh https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/05/all-the-maps-that-are-missing-new-zealand.html https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/05/all-the-m...
nroets 5y ago
Mass migration to New Zealand or Siberia would entail would mean more construction work causing more carbon to be released. Rather adapt existing buildings to the changing climate.
- mikepurvis 5y ago
  Right, but that's a global cost for a localized benefit... which is kind of the whole deal here. In any case, basically every mitigation is still going to involve massive amounts of concrete- and diesel-related emissions, whether it's new housing, flood control measures, new energy sources, carbon capture, etc etc.
- jfk13 5y ago
  Mass migration to New Zealand would pretty quickly overflow the islands.
valec 5y ago
Siberia recently suffered some of the worst wildfires on the entire planet haha. I think probably the safest would be East Canada as they're cold enough but not as tree-like.
- jagger27 5y ago
  Eastern Canada already gets pretty strong storms during hurricane season. Those will surely keep getting worse.
  - valec 5y ago
    Sure on the coast but the Great Lakes-adjacent region should fare pretty well, or at least better than everywhere else.
    - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
      Great lakes region is considered "central", not eastern, Canada. When we refer to the east in Canada, we are referring to the Atlantic provinces.
masklinn 5y ago
> Siberia as well... Siberia may get warmer weather, but the grounds will be awful. Melting permafrost and methane explosions don’t make for a very stable situation.
- wongarsu 5y ago
  Southern Siberia might become farmable and quite nice. Northern Siberia not so much, no matter how much we heat things up
cmrdporcupine 5y ago
Siberia will be continuous forest fires. Much like Canada's north. I'm partial to the northern half of the great lakes.
myth_drannon 5y ago
Well, I doubt Siberia will be ok. Northern passage will become commercially viable but the Taiga forest itself will most likely be burning for the next couple decades until it's all gone. So unless people walk 24h in oxygen masks it will not be a nice place to live.

pwinnski 5y ago

Every location on earth is at risk of becoming uninhabitable within the next 50 years. Predicting which will be most at risk is relatively easy. Predicting which will be least at risk is much harder, as some of the effects are complex. e.g. Things getting warmer seems like it should be good for cold places, but it turns out to have negative consequences as well.

pdonis 5y ago
> Every location on earth is at risk of becoming uninhabitable within the next 50 years. This is way, way beyond what any kind of scientific data suggests, even under the most extreme assumptions for projecting things into the future (and models based on those extreme assumptions are already falsified by actual data anyway).
- pwinnski 5y ago
  Please, suggest specific locations which are at zero risk of becoming uninhabitable based on scientific data. No runaway fires, no tornados, hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, no fear of rising sea levels or runaway rivers, no risk of resource depletion. Free from any sort of natural disaster, this place must be pretty special! Or maybe you misunderstood the words I used.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    Oh, please. Most of the currently inhabited land surface of Earth does not experience any of the things you mention. But the media don't want us to be bored, so they don't run stories about how nicely habitable most of the Earth is. They only run stories about the small portion of Earth's land surface that experiences disasters. To extrapolate that to the entire planet, as you are doing, is ridiculous.