“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.
Some thoughts in response:
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.
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.
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.