Where would you move? Climate, fascism

[frugaldrummer]

As an American living in sunny California, I've never seriously considered living in another country -until now. Dire climate forecasts and the rise of fascism in this country and others has me worried about the future, especially for my young adult children.

Some typical retirement countries are too close to the equator and likely to suffer more from climate change. Fascism is cropping up in Brazil, Western Europe (and Eastern) and sadly, here. I'm not moving soon but starting to put some thought into where to go.

If you could move to any country, which do you think is safest from fascism and likely to do better with climate change than most? Include your reasoning.

[ixtap]

The best thing you can do for your young adult children is to set them up to be able to choose anywhere, while continuing to oppose the rise of fascism here.

The thing with climate change is that it isn't entirely predictable. However, I am thinking the Great Lakes region is looking like it might be pleasant for more and more of the year, so maybe Canada?

[RichMoose]

Fascism is a cute political fear term, but thankfully most people don't have a clue what fascism really is. Or they are being deliberately deceptive to themselves and/or others.

America and Western Europe are an incredibly long ways away from fascism politically. Instead we see mild populist nationalism and populist socialism. (Of course it could get much worse either way.)

Encourage your kids to be compassionate, well read, and rational. Stay in America, vote for people who truly represent your values, and be nice to people who think different from you.

Climate change on the other hand is a long term issue that neither you or your children are likely to suffer from in a major way. We're a very creative species that have dealt with changing climates in the past and will in the future. If I could, I would place a bet that we deal with this changing climate cycle again, whether that's through environmentally friendly behavior or creative workarounds in the face of rising temperatures.

[bacchi]

Just don't beach front property in Miami. Or on Key West. Or in New Orleans.

[GuitarStv]

Climate change on the other hand is a long term issue that neither you or your children are likely to suffer from in a major way. We're a very creative species that have dealt with changing climates in the past and will in the future. If I could, I would place a bet that we deal with this changing climate cycle again, whether that's through environmentally friendly behavior or creative workarounds in the face of rising temperatures.

Can you describe some of the times that the global climate has warmed from two to four degrees in less than a century in the past and how you believe humans overcame that warming through "creative workarounds"?

[mozar]

From my barebones knowledge of history it seems that rich people leave and everyone else dies. You could try Scandinavia I guess. But unless you are personally threatened I hope you will stay and fight for a better tomorrow. The future is not predetermined.

[BicycleB]

Having money and some connections in another country could be helpful in a pinch, but I doubt that moving will make a big enough difference to be a worthwhile bet.

I suspect the Great Lakes region is a good target just because it has cheap real estate and a lot of water, but moving now purely due to these long term risks is an overreaction that undervalues the strengths of your current environment. Western Europe has strengths too, but again not enough to make emigrating worthwhile on only the basis of the long term factors you mention.

My overall reasoning is that fascism is a risk everywhere, but likely not to prevail in California; that, based on experience, moving to other cultures is harder than it looks, involving losses of good things from our current environment that we don't realize at first; and that climate change will be survivable for most people in most places, especially during your lifetime, but still poses some risk everywhere, so moving doesn't change your outcome much.

[Cranky]

I’m not going anywhere, and I think that I’m pretty well positioned in terms of climate change.

But I have urged my adult children to get passports. You never know.

[RichMoose]

Can you describe some of the times that the global climate has warmed from two to four degrees in less than a century in the past and how you believe humans overcame that warming through "creative workarounds"?

Your question is preposterous. Humans and "human-like species" have been around for maybe millions of years and we've been measuring temperatures on a global basis accurately for the past century.

Humans today successfully occupy climates ranging from the northern islands of Canada to the jungles of Brazil to the deserts of Namibia. We're a highly adaptive and creative species. It's a track record that no reasonable person would bet against.

[GuitarStv]

Can you describe some of the times that the global climate has warmed from two to four degrees in less than a century in the past and how you believe humans overcame that warming through "creative workarounds"?

Your question is preposterous. Humans and "human-like species" have been around for maybe millions of years and we've been measuring temperatures on a global basis accurately for the past century.

Humans today successfully occupy climates ranging from the northern islands of Canada to the jungles of Brazil to the deserts of Namibia. We're a highly adaptive and creative species. It's a track record that no reasonable person would bet against.

My question was based on the apparent certainty of your response.  So, just to confirm:
- you know of no other time that the climate has changed this quickly
- you are unaware of any creative workarounds that can handle the difficulties brought about by such changes

I assume that you also have no basis for the prediction that climate change will not impact my life or the life of my children?

[RichMoose]

My question was based on the apparent certainty of your response.  So, just to confirm:
- you know of no other time that the climate has changed this quickly
- you are unaware of any creative workarounds that can handle the difficulties brought about by such changes

I assume that you also have no basis for the prediction that climate change will not impact my life or the life of my children?

1) No person can point to any time in history with any significant degree of certainty that climates have or have not changed at the rate our global climate is currently warming. Again, your question is preposterous, unanswerable and probably designed to be that way to fit your presdisposition on this topic.
2) I have provided examples of human ingenuity and success across extreme climates we know of today, often without the modern technology we currently have access too. Hell, we're seriously looking at colonizing Mars!
But if you want examples, read about agriculture developments in Holland and Israel. The level of progress that is currently economically feasible at commercial scale farming is mind boggling: water efficiency, space/yield efficiency, fertilizer reduction, etc. They are hitting targets that are many multiples better than standard practice across the world today in other developed countries.
3) Read my initial response to the thread author. I stated "major way" which is different from your reading of "not impact". There are going to be some consequences to any climate change, I am simply stating that given current knowledge and abilities, combined with the success of humans adapting to change as a species for millennia, this should not be a reason to move. We never know what's going to happen, but I am willing to bet that California will still have plenty of citizens living very well in our lives and our children's lives. (Barring unnatural disaster like nuclear war, or some similar manmade catastrophic event that we should really be worried about.)

[ketchup]

1) No person can point to any time in history with any significant degree of certainty that climates have or have not changed at the rate our global climate is currently warming. Again, your question is preposterous, unanswerable and probably designed to be that way to fit your presdisposition on this topic.

We absolutely have the historical data.  What's happening today is unprecedented.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

[YttriumNitrate]

If you could move to any country, which do you think is safest from fascism and likely to do better with climate change than most? Include your reasoning.

My vote would be for the United States in terms of climate change. The country stretches from the tropic of cancer to the arctic circle, so at lease someplace in it is going to significantly benefit. Additionally, it is a country that allows for easy movement, and eligibility for employment, in any of those locations.

[affordablehousing]

I think New Zealand is pretty easy to buy citizenship in, and has a good climate.

[Dancin'Dog]

I'll take a nice cool clean mountain lake.  Waterfront is hard to beat. 

[harvestbook]

The trouble is, won't everyone else move to that perfect place, too?

[MDM]

Can you describe some of the times that the global climate has warmed from two to four degrees in less than a century in the past and how you believe humans overcame that warming through "creative workarounds"?

1) No person can point to any time in history with any significant degree of certainty that climates have or have not changed at the rate our global climate is currently warming. Again, your question is preposterous, unanswerable and probably designed to be that way to fit your presdisposition on this topic.

We absolutely have the historical data.  What's happening today is unprecedented.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Is that the ~1C/century shown by xkcd or the 2-4C/century in GS's inquiry?

[flipboard]

Places with strong stable democracies are often a good choice.

There aren't many. They're all small. Figuring out which ones suit your temperament can be difficult, but worth it in the end.

[frugaldrummer]

So which small countries with stable democracies are you thinking of? (I actually thought I lived in a stable democracy until recently - now it has been weakened in frightening ways).

[former player]

If the shit hits the fan, you want to be in a country of which you are a citizen or in which you have permanent residency rights.  Anything else puts you at risk of having to leave under duress or of being at the back of the queue if you stay.

Also, when the shit hits the fan having family and community around you is the most valuable survival commodity of all.

In the USA you have a lot of climate options for you and your successors to choose from, and oceans and deserts between you and invasion.  You won't do better anywhere else - although I can see that California is becoming less of a safe paradise than it used to be.

[flipboard]

So which small countries with stable democracies are you thinking of? (I actually thought I lived in a stable democracy until recently - now it has been weakened in frightening ways).

If you're referring to the US: I don't think it ever counted as a strong democracy. Voter disenfranchisement and slavery have been around since almost the beginning. Gerrymandering has been happening for decades. Actual citizen power over legislative decisions was never really strong (it's stronger in some states to be fair, but not on a national level). Things worked out OK for a while, but it's clear it's not a stable system.

To be fair: my original home country is similar, people like to think it's a strong democracy when there's not even a constitution.

But back to your original question: I get the impression that Nordic countries are OK, albeit a bit close to Russia. Some people may find them a bit too socialist or paternalistic, but they've got decent principles. New Zealand seems to have a strong footing, and they're quite libertarian, although they're a bit too friendly with the 5 eyes for some people's comfort. Switzerland apparently copied the good parts of the US's constitution and then improved on it quite a bit, they seem to be doing well (although things could have gotten hairy for them had WW2 ended differently). At a pinch Iceland, I'm really not familiar with that country though.

[former player]

To be fair: my original home country is similar, people like to think it's a strong democracy when there's not even a constitution.

Er, if that's a reference to the UK it's a common misconception.  There is a constitution (no person or organisation in the UK has unlimited powers).  It's just a constitution that's grown up over the last millennium to fit the necessary purposes rather than being codified in a single, fallible, inflexible document.

[GuitarStv]

New Zealand seems to have a strong footing, and they're quite libertarian

In what way?

[Sibley]

The best thing you can do for your young adult children is to set them up to be able to choose anywhere, while continuing to oppose the rise of fascism here.

The thing with climate change is that it isn't entirely predictable. However, I am thinking the Great Lakes region is looking like it might be pleasant for more and more of the year, so maybe Canada?

Considering at least part of the Great Lakes region is currently suffering from Jan/Feb like weather and it's still NOVEMBER....

[ReadySetMillionaire]

You're watching way too much cable news if you're legitimately worried about fascism.

[FLBiker]

We're US citizens, planning to move to Canada in the next year or so.  We just submitted our application for a Nova Scotia Provincial Nominee.  If we get it (which we should) we'll get an invitation to apply for Express Entry Permanent Residency.  Climate is part of our reason, as is political environment.  We also like the idea of giving our daughter (currently 3.5 yo) the options inherent in having multiple passports.

[Jon Bon]

Yeah less cable news, less crazy websites.

Cato Institute Freedom Index 2017:

The top 10 jurisdictions in order were Switzerland, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Ireland, Australia, Finland, Norway, Denmark, and, tied at 9th place, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Selected countries rank as follows: Canada (11), Sweden (13), Germany (16), the United States (17), Japan (27), South Korea (29), France (33), Italy (35), Chile (37), South Africa (68), Mexico (73), Indonesia (78), Turkey (84), Kenya (89), Malaysia (97), India (102), United Arab Emirates (116), Russia (126), China (130), Nigeria (133), Pakistan (141), Zimbabwe (146), Saudi Arabia (149), Iran (154), Egypt (155), Venezuela (158), and Syria (159).

The US actually improved from 23 in 2016 to 17 in 2017. So sorry Trump is not going to come and take all your freedoms away.

*Note NOT a trump supporter.

So as long as you stay away from Egypt, Venezuela, and Syria you should be ok!

[flipboard]

New Zealand seems to have a strong footing, and they're quite libertarian

In what way?

If you're asking about the libertarian aspect: New Zealand generally rank highly on various libertarian, or human or economic freedom indices (plus you can just visit the country to see for yourself). For the strong footing: they're pretty much as far away from any politiical issues as possible, and their democracy isn't terrible.

I find it hard to consider America a good place to live, not only for the democratic issues (access to voting, gerrymandering), but because of things like civil forfeiture being rampant. And of course the risk of being shot by the police (not that I'm at risk, but the risk is/should be close to zero in any civilised country).

[GuitarStv]

New Zealand seems to have a strong footing, and they're quite libertarian

In what way?

If you're asking about the libertarian aspect: New Zealand generally rank highly on various libertarian, or human or economic freedom indices (plus you can just visit the country to see for yourself). For the strong footing: they're pretty much as far away from any politiical issues as possible, and their democracy isn't terrible.

I find it hard to consider America a good place to live, not only for the democratic issues (access to voting, gerrymandering), but because of things like civil forfeiture being rampant. And of course the risk of being shot by the police (not that I'm at risk, but the risk is/should be close to zero in any civilised country).

I'm just wondering because New Zealand has an awful lot of things that libertarians hate.  Free health care, welfare state, free education, firearms restrictions, strong environmental policies, high minimum wage, government funded pension, government housing for the poor, etc.  It's a lovely place, but doesn't have much in common with the bare minimum government borderline anarchy that Libertarians advocate.

[Dee18]

How did Hong Kong make the top 10 in the freedom index?

[Dave1442397]

Here's an interesting article about conditions in 536, brought about by volcanic eruptions.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/why-536-was-worst-year-be-alive

[aspiringnomad]

New Zealand seems to have a strong footing, and they're quite libertarian

In what way?

If you're asking about the libertarian aspect: New Zealand generally rank highly on various libertarian, or human or economic freedom indices (plus you can just visit the country to see for yourself). For the strong footing: they're pretty much as far away from any politiical issues as possible, and their democracy isn't terrible.

I find it hard to consider America a good place to live, not only for the democratic issues (access to voting, gerrymandering), but because of things like civil forfeiture being rampant. And of course the risk of being shot by the police (not that I'm at risk, but the risk is/should be close to zero in any civilised country).

I'm just wondering because New Zealand has an awful lot of things that libertarians hate.  Free health care, welfare state, free education, firearms restrictions, strong environmental policies, high minimum wage, government funded pension, government housing for the poor, etc.  It's a lovely place, but doesn't have much in common with the bare minimum government borderline anarchy that Libertarians advocate.

Maybe flipboard is referring to its open trading posture specifically? Unlike almost every other country, New Zealand does not subsidize the domestic production of anything it produces (nada) and levies very, very minimal tariffs on just a small handful of imports. So pretty much orthodox libertarian when it comes to open markets and trade. But calling New Zealand libertarian without that qualifier is waaaaaay too broad a brush, because as you point out, it's quasi-socialist when you consider its generous welfare state that includes universal basic healthcare; it's also as green as any country gets when it comes to environmental/biological restrictions. Quite the sensible place IMO -- almost the anti-Trump of countries, at least with its current policy.

[MDM]

I find it hard to consider America a good place to live, not only for the democratic issues (access to voting, gerrymandering), but because of things like civil forfeiture being rampant. And of course the risk of being shot by the police (not that I'm at risk, but the risk is/should be close to zero in any civilised country).

~1,000 victims of police violence/yr out of 300 million people is 0.0003%.  One can decide if that is "close to zero".

~4800 cash seizures/yr out of 300 million people is 0.0016%.  One can decide if that is "close to zero".

Gerrymandering exists, to the benefit of both major political parties.

Don't have voting access statistics offhand, but would suspect >99.9% of the voting age population has no problem getting such access.  No doubt there are "some" examples to the contrary.

FWIW, I agree that zero is the correct goal for all the problems described above, and from that perspective there is certainly room for improvement.  But the likelihood that any one person would be directly affected is extremely low.

[flipboard]

New Zealand seems to have a strong footing, and they're quite libertarian

In what way?

If you're asking about the libertarian aspect: New Zealand generally rank highly on various libertarian, or human or economic freedom indices (plus you can just visit the country to see for yourself). For the strong footing: they're pretty much as far away from any politiical issues as possible, and their democracy isn't terrible.

I find it hard to consider America a good place to live, not only for the democratic issues (access to voting, gerrymandering), but because of things like civil forfeiture being rampant. And of course the risk of being shot by the police (not that I'm at risk, but the risk is/should be close to zero in any civilised country).

I'm just wondering because New Zealand has an awful lot of things that libertarians hate.  Free health care, welfare state, free education, firearms restrictions, strong environmental policies, high minimum wage, government funded pension, government housing for the poor, etc.  It's a lovely place, but doesn't have much in common with the bare minimum government borderline anarchy that Libertarians advocate.

I was talking about a global libertarian view, not the US-centric view of libertarianism. You are entirely free to ignore all of those things, and you can go live in the middle of nowhere and the government will not bother you. You apparently need to keep your gun locked in a safe when you're not around (it's insane not to - just look at the number of accidental shooting going on in some places), and there is some social support, but you're still more free than in many countries. Especially compared to the US where the police will e.g. turn up if you let your kids run around...

Things like healthcare and government housing actually arguably increase freedom: if you don't need to worry about not being able to afford healthcare / living on the street / living in poverty, that actually hugely increases the freedoms and chances you have.

I find it hard to consider America a good place to live, not only for the democratic issues (access to voting, gerrymandering), but because of things like civil forfeiture being rampant. And of course the risk of being shot by the police (not that I'm at risk, but the risk is/should be close to zero in any civilised country).

~1,000 victims of police violence/yr out of 300 million people is 0.0003%.  One can decide if that is "close to zero".

~4800 cash seizures/yr out of 300 million people is 0.0016%.  One can decide if that is "close to zero".

Gerrymandering exists, to the benefit of both major political parties.

Don't have voting access statistics offhand, but would suspect >99.9% of the voting age population has no problem getting such access.  No doubt there are "some" examples to the contrary.

FWIW, I agree that zero is the correct goal for all the problems described above, and from that perspective there is certainly room for improvement.  But the likelihood that any one person would be directly affected is extremely low.

Sure, the percentages are tiny. But they key problem is: what is my recourse? Pretty much none. Just look at how slowly court cases on gerrymandeirng move. Look at how hard it is to get your money back if it got stolen from you in "civil forfeiture" (not taking into account lawyer fees). If you get shot to death then your recourse is non-existent. If you can't get the ID you need to vote because you couldn't get the right document because you didn't have the ID needed to get the document to get ID, good luck.

Occasional problems happen anywhere, society is measured by how the unluckiest are treated, and whether it tries to uphold the law for most, or actually everyone.

[MDM]

Sure, the percentages are tiny. But they key problem is: what is my recourse? Pretty much none. Just look at how slowly court cases on gerrymandeirng move. Look at how hard it is to get your money back if it got stolen from you in "civil forfeiture" (not taking into account lawyer fees). If you get shot to death then your recourse is non-existent. If you can't get the ID you need to vote because you couldn't get the right document because you didn't have the ID needed to get the document to get ID, good luck.

It appears (may not be so, but it appears) you have formed impressions of life within the US by extrapolating sensationalized "news" stories to represent everyday life.

Fortunately, such extrapolation is wildly incorrect. :)

[flipboard]

Sure, the percentages are tiny. But they key problem is: what is my recourse? Pretty much none. Just look at how slowly court cases on gerrymandeirng move. Look at how hard it is to get your money back if it got stolen from you in "civil forfeiture" (not taking into account lawyer fees). If you get shot to death then your recourse is non-existent. If you can't get the ID you need to vote because you couldn't get the right document because you didn't have the ID needed to get the document to get ID, good luck.

It appears (may not be so, but it appears) you have formed impressions of life within the US by extrapolating sensationalized "news" stories to represent everyday life.

Fortunately, such extrapolation is wildly incorrect. :)

BTW I have lived in the US, so I've got direct experience of how things work there and how they compare to other countries. A very noticeable thing is how both Police and CBP are much less respectful in the US, with CBP being abusive towards even US citizens. And I've spoken to plenty of people with "interesting" stories about police treatment and border treatment. There's a pattern, although it's often not noticed by those who have only ever lived in the US because they have little to compare it to.

I think you're missing my main point though: a lot of these things shouldn't happen _ever_. Things like gerrymandering should have been stopped by government institutions before becoming a thing, civil forfeiture should never have been implemented the way it is. But both of these things happen, are very publicly known, and no one is bothering to change the reality.

Yes there are a lot of worse countries, but if you're looking for optimal places there are quite a few who try a bit harder to treat people well, consistently.

(Realistically though, countries change. In 100 years the list of freest countries could look very different, and I suspect many NA and European countries will be off that list.)

[Linea_Norway]

Difficult to know which part of the world will be best to live in when it comes to climate changes. The Nordic countries for example could generally benefit for a higher temperature. We would be able to grow food on more places and the growing season would be longer. But this summer we had a taste of severe draught from May to September. This resulted in farmers being in deep trouble and lots of forest fires. Also our fishing waters along the coast are changing. We are getting more invading species from warmer seas, like sharks.

I think a obvious choice would be a country with some elevation and access to fresh drinking water. And a temperature that is not already today very high. And then live in a region with not too much forest close by.

[Linea_Norway]

Here's an interesting article about conditions in 536, brought about by volcanic eruptions.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/why-536-was-worst-year-be-alive

That is interesting. It also means that if one of the world's super-volcanoes would erupt today, we would also be severely challenged with making food. I presume we are a bit better off today, because we have greenhouses. But a lot of food in the world is grown outside a greenhouse. Also, all solar panels that will be more and more significant for our energy use, would be a lot less effective. And I am more worried for the bees who are already having a hard enough time as it is.

[Villanelle]

Looking at lists is all fine and dandy, but you need to keep in mind that if the country doesn't have a reasonable way for you to move there permanently (or at least semi-permanently), it's pretty much a moot point.  Interesting theoretical question, but immigrating requires a country willing to take you (cue "tear gas at the border" humor). So researching that needs to be a very early part of this research. 

[marble_faun]

No way I'd be leaving the U.S., for a few reasons:

* My community is here. Very valuable in times of crisis.

* Large country with lots of climate options.

* I love this country and will never abandon it.  If the jackboots start stomping, sign me up for the Resistance.

[LaineyAZ]

I, too, think about the Great Lakes area as an option.  Currently living in the desert southwest of U.S. 
It's not so much about me because I'm already in my 60s, but about my newly-born granddaughter.  It's likely she'll still be alive in 2100, and it's also likely that quality of life here in desert SW will be severely impacted during her lifetime by drought and water availability. 

[Jon Bon]

I think we will be ok if the jackboots show up.....

[ReadySetMillionaire]

Sure, the percentages are tiny. But they key problem is: what is my recourse? Pretty much none. Just look at how slowly court cases on gerrymandeirng move. Look at how hard it is to get your money back if it got stolen from you in "civil forfeiture" (not taking into account lawyer fees). If you get shot to death then your recourse is non-existent. If you can't get the ID you need to vote because you couldn't get the right document because you didn't have the ID needed to get the document to get ID, good luck.

It appears (may not be so, but it appears) you have formed impressions of life within the US by extrapolating sensationalized "news" stories to represent everyday life.

Fortunately, such extrapolation is wildly incorrect. :)

BTW I have lived in the US, so I've got direct experience of how things work there and how they compare to other countries. A very noticeable thing is how both Police and CBP are much less respectful in the US, with CBP being abusive towards even US citizens. And I've spoken to plenty of people with "interesting" stories about police treatment and border treatment. There's a pattern, although it's often not noticed by those who have only ever lived in the US because they have little to compare it to.

I think you're missing my main point though: a lot of these things shouldn't happen _ever_. Things like gerrymandering should have been stopped by government institutions before becoming a thing, civil forfeiture should never have been implemented the way it is. But both of these things happen, are very publicly known, and no one is bothering to change the reality.

Yes there are a lot of worse countries, but if you're looking for optimal places there are quite a few who try a bit harder to treat people well, consistently.

(Realistically though, countries change. In 100 years the list of freest countries could look very different, and I suspect many NA and European countries will be off that list.)

I think a book you may enjoy is The Image: A Guide to Pseudo Events in America: https://www.amazon.com/Image-Guide-Pseudo-Events-America/dp/0679741801/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543421937&sr=8-1&keywords=the+image+a+guide+to+pseudo-events+in+america

Basically, we live in a country that manufactures its own crises and drama and events.  So many things you see on the news are the extreme examples and extreme outliers of normal behavior, but here we are debating them ad nauseam -- even though we know they have no affect on our lives.

Twitter has only accelerated this dynamic -- wedge issues that come from nothing, nowhere, that have no affect on your life.  I guess some Chipotle worker told a customer to fuck off because he never pays, and it turned into some national crisis about racism in America? God help us.

I'm sorry, but if you just have your minimum shit together (graduate high school, get a job, spend and have children within your means), America is one of the greatest places to live on earth. Ignore all the noise and bullshit, because it doesn't matter. Life's good here.

And in terms of governance -- concentrate on your local politics.  Way more that affects your actual life happens there than you could possibly imagine.