My two cents: there’s no such thing as a perfect place to ride out the coming climate changes, but there will be places that are better equipped—not necessarily by weather, but by social cohesion and smart infrastructure investment.
Case in point: California faces multiple climate risks (heat, fire, smoke, sea level rise, flooding, wind). However, we’re spending a ton of money on mitigation and adaptation, and leaders at nearly every level of government are taking the issue seriously.
In contrast, I’d say Florida is toast not just of its flooding / sea level rise / hurricane risks, but because its leadership outrightly dismisses climate change.
As a Duluthian, I can tell you a large factor in deciding to make this place my home is its climate resilience. We’re not immune to climate change, smoke from Canadian wild fires still gets to us, and the changing ecology of lake Superior is presenting issues. But we’re not staring down the barrel of super hurricanes, droughts, earthquakes, and disease like many other places.
Anecdotally, it feels like more and more people are either moving here, or staying here, because of these factors. Our housing market is tight and there’s a growing movement of locals starting to work towards housing co-ops and the like. For low to moderate income residents, home ownership has gone from being feasible, to a pipe dream, in the span of about 5 years. “Climate refugees” are certainly not the sole factor in that, but they are definitely a piece of the puzzle, and many of us fully expect them to have a greater impact as the effects of climate change intensify.
Tl;Dr The idea of a “climate haven™️” is a fantasy, but climate migration is already real enough to inflict tangible consequences.
Pretty stupid article. No, nowhere is perfect, but certainly some places have lower climate risks than others.
Also, the article ends on a defeatist note – talking only about making cities more resilient and making no mention of the importance of reducing emissions and combatting climate change.
3 comments
My two cents: there’s no such thing as a perfect place to ride out the coming climate changes, but there will be places that are better equipped—not necessarily by weather, but by social cohesion and smart infrastructure investment.
Case in point: California faces multiple climate risks (heat, fire, smoke, sea level rise, flooding, wind). However, we’re spending a ton of money on mitigation and adaptation, and leaders at nearly every level of government are taking the issue seriously.
In contrast, I’d say Florida is toast not just of its flooding / sea level rise / hurricane risks, but because its leadership outrightly dismisses climate change.
It’s interesting that this article fails to mention that Keenan first identified Duluth as a “future hotspot for climate migration” before the term was coined. I believe that’s why he was here in the first place. Anyways, MPR has a better article talking about this issue: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/10/04/climateproof-duluth-why-the-city-is-attracting-climate-migrants
As a Duluthian, I can tell you a large factor in deciding to make this place my home is its climate resilience. We’re not immune to climate change, smoke from Canadian wild fires still gets to us, and the changing ecology of lake Superior is presenting issues. But we’re not staring down the barrel of super hurricanes, droughts, earthquakes, and disease like many other places.
Anecdotally, it feels like more and more people are either moving here, or staying here, because of these factors. Our housing market is tight and there’s a growing movement of locals starting to work towards housing co-ops and the like. For low to moderate income residents, home ownership has gone from being feasible, to a pipe dream, in the span of about 5 years. “Climate refugees” are certainly not the sole factor in that, but they are definitely a piece of the puzzle, and many of us fully expect them to have a greater impact as the effects of climate change intensify.
Tl;Dr The idea of a “climate haven™️” is a fantasy, but climate migration is already real enough to inflict tangible consequences.
Pretty stupid article. No, nowhere is perfect, but certainly some places have lower climate risks than others.
Also, the article ends on a defeatist note – talking only about making cities more resilient and making no mention of the importance of reducing emissions and combatting climate change.