When climate disaster becomes more frequent, it could be easy to jump to hopeful visions of the future. One of the most damaging presumptions, however, is the budding concept of a climate-change-resilient safe haven.
At first assumption, it would make sense to believe inland, less vulnerable cities could be immune to climate disaster. Shielded from the risk of hurricanes or extreme weather, places like Buffalo, New York, Duluth, Michigan and Asheville, North Carolina have become associated with the idea of “climate havens.”
Enter: climate haven campaigns.
In 2019, then-mayor of Buffalo Byron Brown suggested the city could be a “climate refuge city.” Local organizations and tourism efforts picked up on the slogan — boasting freshwater access to the nearby Great Lakes, moderate climate, and less likelihood for weather-related disasters.
For years, the media lauded Asheville as a potentially climate-resilient zone as the city welcomed so-called “climate migrants” from California and the coastal Carolinas. The city was even named third on the list of the top 12 cities most likely to receive an influx of residents as a result of climate relocation in June 2024.
These climate-resilient zones, however, proved to not be entirely resilient. In 2022, a massive, five-day blizzard killed nearly 50 people in Buffalo. After Hurricane Helene, Asheville’s highways and power infrastructure were demolished from storm surges and flooding. Looking to the future, these kinds of climate disasters are not simple anomalies—a report from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that “climate change caused over 50% more rainfall during Hurricane Helene in some parts of Georgia and the Carolinas.”
Regarding the Great Lakes region, often viewed as the future of “climate havens” when coastal residents potentially move inland, there is still potential for major climate disasters. Greater rainfall in the region is leaving residents with higher risks of flood damage.
Extreme weather changes and disasters, including heat and hurricanes, have undeniably increased damage in recent years. Between 2010 and 2020, the amount of climate disasters that cost more than $1 billion nearly doubled, underscoring the increasingly destructive nature of historically manageable weather. This leaves many to ask who is most at-risk for these disasters and where, if at all, should they relocate to?
The recent damage from hurricane season reveals the reality that no single place is immune to climate disaster.
The Census Bureau estimates climate-based relocation will impact nearly 100 million people in the United States. As 40% of Americans live in coastal areas, sea level rises alone could displace up to 13 million people by the end of the century.
“The idea of a climate refuge itself is kind of an escapist fantasy,” said Billy Fleming, director of the McHarg Center at the University of Pennsylvania, to Vox. “To the extent that a climate refuge even exists, it’s not a particularly physical or geophysical phenomenon. It’s social and economic.”
Climate migration sparks even more questions regarding where people could relocate to as many question the state of smaller, urban infrastructure to support potential influxes of populations. Additionally, even these more “climate resilient” localities face massive disparities between communities regarding flooding, climate protections, and disaster outcomes.
The potential for climate migration toward “havens” goes in tandem with the ongoing economic consequences of climate change itself. According to Bloomberg, GDP projections by 2099 predict 75% of counties, mostly concentrated in the American South and Midwest, will suffer economically while 25% around the country could benefit. Cities in the Midwest, thought to be more “climate resilient” and heavily dependent on agriculture, could see major losses from flooding and extreme heat damaging crops.
Experts predict, however, those who call these “disaster-prone” localities home may not be moving too far in the case of increased climate disaster. Those within less resilient cities are less likely to move across state lines and often find themselves locating to more resilient neighborhoods within the same city.
Whether the goal is to entirely remove populations from coastal areas or find ways to mitigate the increasing damage, major investment is necessary to ensure housing and infrastructure can withstand either climate change or an increase in climate migrants. According to experts, relying on rumored climate havens may not save anyone from the future of climate change.
