I am not going to take the time to discuss scenarios where agricultural output goes up by 25 percent or where living in Indianapolis is suddenly like (weather-wise) living in San Diego or Miami. In my opinion, those are fantasies that aren’t worth serious contemplation. But it is at least plausible that climate disasters in some areas could create beneficial ripple effects in other places as a result of climate migration. In particular, the northern tier of midwestern states, as well as several areas in the northeastern U.S. have been mentioned as possible “climate havens” to which people will flock when they get fed up with hurricanes, high-tide floods, wildfires, and unbearably hot weather. Just as the combination of COVID and remote work fueled a flow of young professionals to scenic rural areas and quaint small towns a few years back, perhaps rising sea levels will create a stream of migrants from Boston or Charleston to Madison, Wisconsin or Buffalo, New York in the relatively near future.
 |
| Buffalo, New York -- Photo 1 Source: Getty Images |
Thus, the third climate change conundrum is whether city officials in potential climate haven cities should actively market themselves to residents in climate challenged cities. For example, tens of millions of people live in coastal areas that are likely to be affected by sea level rise in the next 25 years. And millions more live in close enough proximity to the coast to be threatened by hurricanes that move inland. If only 10 or 20 percent of those people moved to the midwest it would represent a significant population shift for cities that have either grown slowly or not at all.
In recent decades, Phoenix has grown rapidly from the in-migration of people largely from cold-weather states. In addition to the normal problems that come with rapid growth, Phoenix is now starting to feel the effects of global warming. In 2024, Phoenix experienced the warmest year on record. There were 113 consecutive days with temperatures over 100 degrees, breaking the previous record of 76 days. There were 70 days with high temperatures of 110 degrees or more, breaking the previous record of 55 days. There were 39 nights when the low temperature never dropped below 90 degrees, more than 5 times the typical average. [1] Similar records could be found across much of southern California, Arizona, New Mexico and most of Texas. What if those residents simply got fed up with the unrelenting heat (and soaring energy costs) and sought out the cool summers and the now milder winters (thanks to climate change) of the northern midwest?
The potential appeal of branding your city as a climate haven might be irresistible to some, but is it a smart move to make? Let’s dig a little deeper to see if this conundrum has an answer.
The Push/Pull of Migration
Meaningful migration (not simply a move within a metro area) usually has both a “push” component (a reason for leaving) and a “pull” component (a reason for moving to a particular place). In order to really understand the potential dynamics, it will be helpful to look at both elements in more detail. Although climate change is the generic reason that we will focus on, there are multiple types of “push” events that have differing results.
Catastrophic disaster. Each year, there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people displaced in the United States by tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, wildfires, and other types of natural disasters. If your home were heavily damaged or destroyed, it is certainly conceivable that you might want to relocate to a different region of the country. As it turns out, however, most households displaced by a catastrophic event don’t actually move very far and often rebuild in exactly the same spot. These households typically have jobs, family and friends in the area that are too powerful of an attraction to justify moving very far away.
Circling the drain. Some places, such as New York City, Miami or Los Angeles, contain so many people and represent so much economic value that billions of dollars are being spent (and will continue to be spent) to protect them from whatever climate related disaster is most threatening. But what about Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; Biloxi, Mississippi; Slidell, Louisiana; or Port Arthur, Texas; or dozens or similar communities that are much smaller and much less affluent? Some protective efforts will certainly be made, but in many cases it will be too expensive to really salvage those communities in their current form. This means that they will eventually come to accept the idea of “managed retreat” which means abandoning the most at-risk areas and moving to someplace safer. That place might be a “climate haven” city, but more likely it is a place less than 50 miles away. The wealthiest households are likely to move first, leaving the poorest to deal with the inevitable disaster. These cities are likely to enter a slow, downward spiral of disaster, half-hearted rebuild, followed eventually by another disaster.
The final straw. In my opinion, the most prolific source of climate migrants is likely to be people who have simply become fed up with the daily hassles or elevated cost-of-living caused by climate change. Residents of Florida, for example, may have lived through multiple hurricanes and may be struggling with the high cost (and limited coverage) of homeowner’s insurance. Residents of Arizona might be tired of the stifling heat, skin cancer risk, and water shortages that are increasingly commonplace. Others might be stressed out over the potential for wildfires and the possibility of their home going up in flames. This group has the highest potential to become climate migrants because moving a few miles isn’t likely to solve their problem. If they are truly fed up, they might be willing to move across the country to someplace that is completely different.
Thus, there are a variety of scenarios that might push households to become climate migrants. There is no reliable way to estimate how many people that might be, but I suspect it is currently just a trickle. Under the right circumstances, however, that trickle might someday become a steady stream or even a flood. Jesse Keenan, an associate professor of sustainable real estate at Tulane University, has estimated that as many as 50 million people could eventually relocate due to climate change over the coming decades. [2] For that to happen, things would need to get really bad because – aside from people in their 20s – most of us just don’t like moving and we especially don’t like moving great distances.
Where Is the Pull?
Cities that want to become climate havens need to be able to attract those households that are considering a move. After all, households fleeing east coast hurricanes, southern heat, or west coast wildfires have a lot of possible destinations. What are the minimum qualifications for a city wanting to be considered a safe haven from climate change?
First, climate havens are going to need to be well away from the ocean. Cities affected by sea level rise or potentially impacted by hurricanes need not apply. Unfortunately, being away from the coast doesn’t narrow things down much.
Second, climate havens are going to need to be cool enough that people will consider them to be reasonably resistant to the heatwaves and extended droughts that are being forecast for the deep south. The central plains might be acceptably cool in the near term, but most of the serious candidates are in the northern tier of states (e.g. Minnesota, Michigan, New York, Vermont, etc.) or at higher elevations in mountain states.
Third, climate havens are going to need to be moist enough to minimize wildfire potential, but not so rainy as to invite flooding or simply be too gloomy. Unfortunately, it is difficult to guarantee the right level of rainfall. Cities can point to past weather patterns, but with climate change that might not be indicative of the future.
Fourth, climate havens need to have a reliable and plentiful source of drinking water. Past societies may have treasured salt, gold, or oil, but the key resource for the next century might well be potable water. It is not only essential for human life, it is a key component for many forms of economic activity. There are a variety of water sources, but cities near the Great Lakes can point to one of the world’s largest supplies of fresh water as a crucial asset.
Finally, most climate migrants are not looking to become hermits hiding from civilization. That means that successful climate havens will need a reasonable quality of life component. In particular, a strong job market and affordable housing market would be major advantages. In addition, a robust transportation infrastructure and diversified recreational opportunities are important as well. Those characteristics are likely to rule out most small towns with populations below roughly 50,000 people, and even that threshold might be much too small for households coming from major metro areas.
Climate Haven Candidates
I do not have the time, expertise or inclination to do a ranking of potential climate friendly cities, but there are several places that have started to market themselves as such. Places like Buffalo, New York; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Duluth, Minnesota; Madison, Wisconsin; and Burlington, Vermont, have jumped on the climate haven bandwagon in recent years. [3] This trend may have all started in 2019 when Buffalo mayor Byron Brown suggested that Buffalo might become a “climate refuge city”, a place where people could move to escape climate-induced disasters.
 |
| Buffalo, New York -- Photo 2 Source: Getty Images |
The movement picked up steam when research by Stephen Vermette, a geography professor at Buffalo State University, found no increase in extreme weather events in the Buffalo region. Of course, the weather in Buffalo is not perfect nor is it immune to the effects of climate change. Professor Vermette went on to say:
I’m not saying climate change is going to be good for Buffalo, or Buffalo is going to be an oasis. We’re not an oasis, we suck less. [3]
That sums up one of the key problems with proclaiming your city to be a climate haven: past weather patterns do not guarantee a future free from disasters. Asheville, North Carolina, was sometimes mentioned as a climate haven until Helene dumped 15 inches of rain and washed away much of the city.
Another issue is that what constitutes a climate haven in one person’s mind might be completely unacceptable to someone else. Duluth, Minnesota, picked up the nickname “Climate Proof Duluth” because of its cool weather and abundant water supply from adjacent Lake Superior. However, a tongue-in-cheek review by Michael Kosta of the Daily Show pointed out some of the flaws in Duluth’s strategy (Click Here to view).
The Bottom Line
In the end, marketing a city as a climate haven strikes me as civic boosterism run amok. Our ability to predict the long-term impacts of climate change is in its infancy, so claiming to be a haven is mostly speculation. A better strategy, in my opinion, is for cities to focus on being as strong and resilient a community as possible. Good schools, an affordable housing supply, a diversified economy, an efficiently run local government, and well-maintained infrastructure are going to be more attractive to potential residents and businesses than claims of being climate proof. Cities should focus on those things they can control rather than something as fickle as climate change.
Notes:
1. “2024 Climate Year in Review for Phoenix, Yuma and El Centro;” US Department of Commerce, National Weather Service; https://www.weather.gov/psr/yearinreview2024
2. Sheri McWhirter and Lindsay Moore; “Michigan Is a Climate Haven in a Warming World. Will Everyone Move Here?”; January 2023; Council of the Great Lakes Region; https://councilgreatlakesregion.org/michigan-is-a-climate-haven-in-a-warming-world-will-everyone-move-here/
3. Mike De Socio; “US cities are advertising themselves as ‘climate havens’. But can they actually protect residents from extreme weather?”; July 2024; BBC; https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240628-us-climate-havens-cities-claim-extreme-weather-protection
No comments:
Post a Comment