“Climate haven” is a bit of a contentious term. When we say “climate haven,” we’re referring to a town, city, or region that’s projected to experience less risk from climate-fueled crises.
But if we take “climate haven” to mean “someplace where we can escape the effects of climate change,” then the term becomes more problematic. And it understandably gets some pushback; if people believed they could escape climate change, they might be less incentivized to lower their consumption and emissions, or vote and advocate for climate-forward policies.
Since we’ve used this term in our posts, we thought it would be helpful to address it: what it means, if it’s useful or appropriate, and which risks we can (and can’t) avoid through our choice of location.
“Climate havens” will quickly become contested grounds by an overwhelming number of refugees or even state militaries. They are correct that it is highly unlikely that you can dodge the horrific consequences of human-impacted environment just by changing your ZIP code.
“Climate havens” will quickly become contested grounds by an overwhelming number of refugees or even state militaries.
I disagree on using quickly, you underestimate human stupidity.
In the US for example people are overwhelmingly moving to areas that are the worst of climate choices.
Similarly in Australia as another example Q4 2025 saw a population “explosion” Tasmania of 1. Tasmanian is the only real state with a “safe haven status”. For every one person who moves here for that reason, one leaves for economic reasons.
Just last week 1000s were displaced because they live on a flood plain and they were swamped from climate exacerbated rainfall , inevitably they’ll mostly move back and it will happen again.
I don’t want to live on a flood plain
People are still moving for lifestyle and economic reasons and they vote for politicians who support that.
Some thoughts in response:
They are correct that it is highly unlikely
Even if it’s unlikely, wouldn’t we still want to try? (Especially for the sake of our families and loved ones?) I believe adaption and mitigation are both part of the solution at this point.
that you can dodge the horrific consequences of human-impacted environment
In the post, I make the point that some risks are possible to project, while others are more opaque. I think it makes sense to avoid what you can, prepare for what you can’t, and not worry much about what’s entirely outside your control.
just by changing your ZIP code.
I always reiterate in these posts that location isn’t a magic bullet, and that it’s just one tool in our kit for building overall resilience. “Climate havens” tend to generate the most conversation, but the real work is in building personal resilience and strong, local communities.
When we say “climate haven,” we’re referring to a town, city, or region that’s projected to experience less risk from climate-fueled crises.
Which is precisely how I use it but I always get the “no where will be safe”. Sure at 4-6C but until then some places are SAFER then others, just like how some places are safer then others last decade.
Not near sea level, not in a desert, not in the tropical band from Cancer to Capricorn, not on a flood plan and not in a forest is a good place to start looking.
