I'm curious to know what you consider the safest places in terms of environmental safety and sustainability.
I'm curious to know what you consider the safest places in terms of environmental safety and sustainability.
There are a few things I'm not fond of: tornadoes, wildfires, periods of extended drought, heavy traffic, extremely high crime, dislike for Californians (Oregon & Montana). A few things I don't mind: cold and snowy Winters (it's just mountaineering with more infrastructure and support), regular storm seasons, earthquakes and hurricanes. A few things I really appreciate: mountains within a couple hours' drive, lots of outdoor activities, younger and more active and better-educated populations. Maybe Utah? (But: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-utah-drought-20150530-st...)
Unfortunately, snowfall over the entire Rockies seems to be on a declining trend (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/news/2011-06-10-clima...), so any place that relies on the Rocky Mountain watershed is going to be dealing with drier conditions for the foreseeable future.
I'm open to suggestions.
Have you considered that the dislike for Californians is due to them turning any state in which a great number of them settle…into California?
It's a perfectly natural process: whenever we leave a place, even if we dislike some aspects of it, it's still our home. We're liable to find our new homes just fine, oh 'except for just a few things.' Add up enough ex-pats, and razor-fine margins on many issues, and suddenly a relatively small number of people can have a relatively high impact on a state, while the natives residents look about themselves and wonder what the hell happened to their own homes.
Those natives then move, and the process repeats itself…
http://www.washington.edu/uwired/outreach/cspn/Website/Class...
It's an interesting essay, but I would call your attention reason six.
For near term stability and economic resilience the Pacific Northwest won't be too bad until it's wrecked by a bunch of people fleeing the bay area ( some say this has already happened ).
Optimists can hope for a global government that would undertake climate mitigation in the name of long term species survival. Pessimists will suggest that we start learning to colonize Antartica ( which already has a permanent population of around 5000 humans ).
The two scenarios that bookend the spectrum of possibility for climate change are:
1. The interglacial world - risings seas, resource wars and ecological upheaval
2. The hot Venus scenario - literally turning the earth into something that resembles Venus in atmosphere and environment.
Our civilization may be more resilient than our engineers would credit it to be. But it is not infinitely so. This is a game humanity can lose. Our species may be part of the great die-off that is currently winnowing most multicellular life on this planet.
Not only is global warming real, it could kill you and yours sooner rather than later.