For those of us who aren’t cultists, we call it weather
Looking for a US ‘climate haven’ away from disaster risks? Good luck finding one
Southeast Michigan seemed like the perfect “climate haven.”
“My family has owned my home since the ‘60s. … Even when my dad was a kid and lived there, no floods, no floods, no floods, no floods. Until [2021],” one southeast Michigan resident told us. That June, a storm dumped more than 6 inches of rain on the region, overloading stormwater systems and flooding homes.
That sense of living through unexpected and unprecedented disasters resonates with more Americans each year, we have found in our research into the past, present and future of risk and resilience.
An analysis of federal disaster declarations for weather-related events puts more data behind the fears – the average number of disaster declarations has skyrocketed since 2000 to nearly twice that of the preceding 20-year period.
It couldn’t possibly be due to presidents and governors declaring emergencies for cool, sweet, federal money, right? Because it used to be a rare thing, states just dealt with it, and it was only the biggest of big that involved Los Federales. Now it’s for every semi-decent storm. Oh, and there are a heck of a lot more people and buildings. And Democrats who create conditions for disasters, like the Malibu wildfire.
As people question how livable the world will be in a warming future, a narrative around climate migration and “climate havens” has emerged.
These “climate havens” are areas touted by researchers, public officials and city planners as natural refuges from extreme climate conditions. Some climate havens are already welcoming people escaping the effects of climate change elsewhere. Many have affordable housing and legacy infrastructure from their larger populations before the mid-20th century, when people began to leave as industries disappeared.
But they aren’t disaster-proof – or necessarily ready for the changing climate.
Let’s just say that the cult article is saying that all those places that are supposedly havens are doomed
Some of the most cited “havens” in research by national organizations and in news media are older cities in the Great Lakes region, upper Midwest and Northeast. They include Ann Arbor, Michigan; Duluth, Minnesota; Minneapolis; Buffalo, New York; Burlington, Vermont; and Madison, Wisconsin.
Yet each of these cities will likely have to contend with some of the greatest temperature increases in the country in the coming years. Warmer air also has a higher capacity to hold water vapor, causing more frequent, intense and longer duration storms.
It’s always doom. It’s rather tedious. Fortunately, I just roll my eyes and laugh at the nuts, otherwise I’d have to start drinking after reading all this doom and gloom.
Ahhh, yet another list by the northern liberals.
Why didn’t they suggest Lexington, Kentucky? It’s far enough from the Kentucky River and the hills and hollows of Appalachia that it isn’t flood prone, and while the Bluegrass State isn’t immune from tornadoes, we get them far less frequently than the lineup of states north of Texas. Kentucky does get snow, not nearly as much as states further north, and it gets hot and humid here, though far less so than the states in the old Confederacy. Forest fires can occur here, but since we get twice the rainfall of states in the West, they are far less frequent, or as destructive when they do occur.
Parts of the Bluegrass State do have more frequent problems, both the far west and the southeast of the Commonwealth, but the list was of cities, not states.