Other > Off Topic
Areas of the US most resilient to climate change?
newgirl:
Something I've been mulling over for a while...
Are there any particular areas of the US that strike you as being better positioned than others to cope with nearer-term (like next 50-100 years) effects of climate change?
Obviously climate change will impact different areas of the country differently - from droughts/wildfires to hurricanes. We live in MN, and one of the reasons I've been reluctant to explore other places to live (that are more low-cost and have milder winters) is that, in the near term, I feel like MN is fairly well positioned to absorb some of the negative effects of climate change - we have access to a lot of water here, we are not fire prone, there is a decent variety of agriculture and things that can be grown, lots of public land to hunt and fish, you could probably get some decent mileage out of both solar and wind power, etc. Hell if anything short term climate change might actually make the winters livable.
It's sort of a back of my mind type of thought but when I think about where and how we are going to raise our kids over the next 20 years or so, this stuff weighs heavily in the calculations. Maybe more heavily than it should. I suppose that the best preparation for climate change is to get yourself in a position to be extremely mobile in the future (geographically and financially), but I have to be honest, that doesn't hold a lot of appeal to me. Unlike a lot of people on the boards I'm just not a traveler, and certainly I would prefer to raise my kids in one place.
Anyone else think about this stuff?
nereo:
Two potential sources you might find interesting;
1) insurance actuaries routinely put out risk assessments, often down to the county level and sometimes to individual properties. There are all sorts of maps showing your risks against a variety of natural disasters.
2) climate models (a-la the IPCC's AR5 and the National CLimate Assessment) can give you a lot of information on what changes a particular area will experience over the coming decades. Some regions will change far more than others.
Neither is going to be terribly useful for 100 year predictions, as there are so many assumptions 'baked in' that the degree of change becomes highly uncertain. Few climate models even attempt to predict past 2100 (82 years) - 100 years is asking a lot.
What's even harder to predict is the social-economic shifts which may happen. Will MN see an influx or outflux of people? Climate predictions have the midwest experiencing more heat waves and drought conditions, though an increase in the number of frost-free days (which could help big-Ag in the short term). What will the world economic-stage look like - will the three largest economies still be US/China/Japan (most models suggest India, Indonesia and Brazil will crack into the top 5)? What will war, disease of famine do? We're likely to see the number of global refugees increase dramatically - which countries take them in may influence their demographics for decades to come.
Finally, you said "I suppose that the best preparation for climate change is to get yourself in a position to be extremely mobile in the future " - flexibility is probably the best approach to very long-term planning.
GuitarStv:
My inclination would be to look for:
- high ground (not flood prone)
- non-earthquake prone area
- not near a coast
- slightly cooler weather on average than you would like right now
I'd also be inclined to look for either:
- a remote area where people are more self-sufficient
- a highly populated area where there are too many people to ignore in the event of a crisis
If you have a lot of family, or very close friends in an area that would be a big benefit too . . . as you might depend upon support (or want to offer it) to others.
StarBright:
My husband and I had this discussion a couple of years ago because we were faced with job options in Southern CA, the UK, and Ohio. I think Wales would have been awesome but was too far from family and we have children.
So we ended up in Ohio. We bought a house on the bluff side of a river and made sure it wasn't in any floodplains (though at some point, that data will go out the window, I think). We like that we are in area with trees, and water, and land, and because it was an old town, it was designed for walking.
Compared to SoCal - it is an area in which life can be easily sustained. I know it sounds silly, but it was important to me to be somewhere where water was easily accessible. The thought of taking water from someone else's river, or desalinating ocean water was just wacky to me. I think it is an amazing feat that humans can tame an environment and make a previously unlivable place, livable - but I don't necessarily thing we should do that if we can avoid it.
Milizard:
--- Quote from: GuitarStv on January 16, 2018, 08:08:54 AM ---My inclination would be to look for:
- high ground (not flood prone)
- non-earthquake prone area
- not near a coast
- slightly cooler weather on average than you would like right now
I'd also be inclined to look for either:
- a remote area where people are more self-sufficient
- a highly populated area where there are too many people to ignore in the event of a crisis
If you have a lot of family, or very close friends in an area that would be a big benefit too . . . as you might depend upon support (or want to offer it) to others.
--- End quote ---
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/natural_disaster_map_shows_why.html
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version