…Escape the Harshest Effects of Climate Change, Live Domestically as the World Warms, to Live in 2100, Move If You Are Worried About Climate Change, Move to Save Yourself from Climate Change, Avoid Future Natural Disasters, etc.

Behold! For my very first post I’ve amalgamated lists from eight web articles discussing places that, in their authors’ views, represent good climate change bets. Mapping them all out seemed like a fine place to start.

Like all things internet, the articles seem to have morsels of well-reasoned wisdom, a bit of self-serving hometown marketing, and some apparent oddities. The apparent U.S. bias is unsurprising given that many of the sources used are U.S.-based climatologists cited by American authors writing English-language content (if I did the same article search in Russian, my map would look different). If you get rid of borders and cultures, the landmass controlled by the U.S. seems unlikely contain the bulk of the most ideal spots. Be that as it may, this is what we have to work with, so let’s dive in..

Strong clustering around the Northeast, and the upper Midwest specifically, reflect nearly complete consensus among authors. The authors note the Great Lakes region’s fresh water availability, stable sources of energy, relatively cooler climates, low vulnerability to forest fires (unlike much of the U.S. northwest), and good infrastructure. This area includes Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and portions of Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York.

New York City, much of which sits at mere feet above sea level and suffered major flooding during Hurricane Sandy, was listed repeatedly. Rationale includes NYC’s multi-billion dollar plan to build a perimeter of levees and embankments to protect it, a tax-base that can fund the project, and constituents that are educated enough to understand why they should support it. I have a hunch that Long Island doesn’t fare so well, which may make NYC less attractive in practice. That’s another theme for another post.

Vermont, specifically Burlington, gets several mentions, showing up in a cluster along with with northern New Hampshire. The authors cite Burlington’s location next to Lake Champlain for moderating its temperatures and its “Vermont-worthy” climate action plan.

Maine gets several mentions, though for totally different reasons depending on the specific area. It probably makes sense to distinguish here for fear that the state’s hinterlands, what I like to affectionately call “Moose Maine” get clustered with its coast, or “Lobster Maine” (I’ve been fortunate enough to travel in both regions, I stand by my categories. Both lobster and moose, by the way, are severely climate-threatened, so these are designations with expiration dates). In the Lobster world, Bangor, being ~30 miles inland just north of Penobscot Bay, gets get mentioned over Portland, which sits right on the coast. While both are fortunate to be somewhat elevated above sea level, unlike Portland, Bangor is slightly higher, farther inland, and wasn’t built on eroding fill. One article also mentions the Bangor area’s (Penobscot Bay, to be specific) prospective usefulness to the U.S. Navy if they ever find themselves looking for a major new base. Farther north, in Moose country, are areas of Maine that, like the Great Lakes region, should be well-insulated from sea level rise, lacking in extreme heat, and are likely to maintain good access to water with minimal fire risk.

Indiana and Ohio (Cincinnati specifically) get mentioned as relatively good options, though supporting reasons weren’t provided.

Looking westward, Denver, and Colorado generally, gets numerous mentions. The mile-high city is mentioned not because of its obvious escape of sea-level concerns, but because it is purported to have a world leading climate action plan (maybe even “Vermont-worthy?”). Several articles then make a point, however, of noting Colorado’s expected increasing susceptibility to drought, wildfires, and strain on its electricity grid.

Seattle is heralded as as being one of the ‘most well-positioned’ cities in the Pacific Northwest (a region already generally thought to be highly resilient). “Temperatures will rise more slowly than most of the nation due to the Pacific Ocean, we’ll have plenty of precipitation, the Pacific Ocean will keep heat waves in check and we don’t get hurricanes,” as Cliff Mass, a climate researcher at the University of Washington, explained in one of the articles. A large portion of Seattle is perched more than a hundred feet above sea level, so the next several generations of Seattleites shouldn’t experience too much trouble from sea level rise.

Portland, Oregon by comparison to Seattle, is slightly less lush, not as well elevated, but gets listed due to its progressive climate action plan and close-knit communities. The entire Willamette valley, stretching from Portland to 150 miles south, is expected to fare well.

San Francisco gets a number of mentions on account of its high infrastructure quality, elevation, and a climate action plan that includes a managed retreat away the city’s low lying areas.

San Diego, Phoenix, and Salt Lake City all get mentioned because of their progressive climate action plans.

Boise, Idaho, was mentioned as being relatively better than Denver in terms of heat and droughts, but it’s still subject to wildfire risk.

Alaska gets several mentions. It’s claimed by a number of authors to be either the best, or one of the best, places to live as the world warms.

While I haven’t covered every city mentioned in the lists, there appears to be consensus among at least a handful of authors and climate scientists that the Great Lakes region and the Pacific Northwest are relatively well-positioned to deal with the expected effects of climate change. Alaska, Vermont, and parts of Maine and New Hampshire also receive numerous mentions.

This is all merely the beginnings of a hypothesis. Cobbling together a few internet lists and observing trends, without more, doesn’t provide a solid basis for a conclusion. Some credence might be given because several of the lists’ authors interviewed esteemed climate scientists, but even assuming the scientists are right about regional climatic change, it hasn’t been established whether, or how fully, they considered ecological, political, economic, and social factors in each of their recommendations.

There’s a lot more climing to do.