| ▲ | kulahan 5 hours ago |
| Both figuratively and literally, this experience was the tip of the iceberg. Terrifying. People might think I'm crazy, but I'm choosing my retirement location 100% based on resistance to climate change. Local water, too much humidity for massive fires, too cold for insane heatwaves... you get it. |
|
| ▲ | hodgesrm 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Pro tip for people moving north; don't buy land in the valleys around Mt. Rainier. This type of flood (also known as a lahar) has occurred there many times. The mudflows reached the harbor of Tacoma in the past. [0] I expect we'll see at least one new one in our lifetime, as the glaciers have been greatly affected by rising temperatures. [0] https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/mt-rainier-lahar-hazard-ma... |
|
| ▲ | ferguess_k 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Which places have you found? I'm in Canada and figured most of the places are going to suffer more rain falling in the next decades. |
| |
| ▲ | stackskipton an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Great Lakes area is probably well positioned. | |
| ▲ | kulahan 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Personally, I'm aiming for Pittsburgh. | |
| ▲ | debo_ an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I have spoken to quite a few real estate agents in Sudbury who mentioned folks are buying property there as a hedge against climate change. | |
| ▲ | 1attice 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not unexpectedly, follow real estate prices. The average value of homes in safe parts of Canada has risen significantly. E.g. Vancouver is devastatingly expensive, while nearby Abbotsford and Richmond are floodplains and reclaimed marsh, respectively, and are cheap. Sometimes uninsurable, but cheap. The market will price us all out of the safest places and indeed arguably already has. Expect housing values to continue to diverge. A dry hovel is superior to the mightiest of flooded manses, but a home in a dry, safe metropolis, with enough water for all? Literally invaluable. It will be priced accordingly. |
|
|
| ▲ | UncleOxidant 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I've seen recommendations for locations near the Great Lakes. Upper peninsula of MI, for example. Plenty of water. A warming climate should actually make the winters there somewhat less harsh. |
| |
| ▲ | abrowne 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Wildfire smoke will be the big question there. It's started to be bad for a week or two a year in Minneapolis, and is only worse the closer you are to the boreal forest. | | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Wildfires only a problem until the overgrowth is burned off. When there's not enough to sustain a large spreading fire, they will stop happening. | | |
| ▲ | __MatrixMan__ 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Then come the floods because the roots were holding all the soil in place and the soil was managing water movement. What used to be an all year trickle becomes an occasional deatructive deluge. | |
| ▲ | electricEmu an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Climate change is defined by both wet and dry extremes. Excess rainfall creates an explosion of brush that during the now annual drought turns to tinder. | |
| ▲ | 8note an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | canada's forest is growing, not shrinking. the overgrowth will keep growing year over year | |
| ▲ | 1attice 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | True, but disingenuous, as "over" growth implies a normative cap, but climate change just is moving the cap lower. The ceiling is falling: more and more growth, in every biome, counts as overgrowth. Eventually only desert remains viable, and everything above it, including arability, is locked away forever. |
| |
| ▲ | testing22321 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And the failure of basic services like water and power. Given it took FEMA ten days to get power restored to the super dome, how long will responses be when there are many simultaneous disasters of that size or bigger? With the current admin the answer could be “indefinite” |
|
|
|
| ▲ | blondie9x 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Honestly there is no safe haven while humans over-consume continue to waste in the chase of excess. We have seen in the last few years all the supposed climate safe areas get hit hard. https://www.npr.org/2024/10/09/nx-s1-5137024/climate-haven-h... |
| |
| ▲ | IG_Semmelweiss 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | birth rates are falling off the cliff in all developed nations, most are below replacement rate already | | |
|
