“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.
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.