See ya. Wouldn’t wanna be ya.
The country’s vast population shift has left more people exposed to the risk of natural hazards and dangerous heat at a time when climate change is amplifying many weather extremes. A New York Times analysis shows the dynamic in new detail:
• Florida, which regularly gets raked by Atlantic hurricanes, gained millions of new residents between 2000 and 2023.
• Phoenix has been one of the country’s fastest-growing large cities for years. It’s also one of the hottest, registering 100 straight days with temperatures above 100 degrees Fahrenheit this year.
• The fire-prone foothills of California’s Sierra Nevada have seen an influx of people even as wildfires in the region become more frequent and severe.
• East Texas metro areas, like Houston, Austin and Dallas-Fort Worth, have ballooned in recent decades despite each being at high risk for multiple hazards, a fact brought into stark relief this year when Hurricane Beryl knocked out power in Houston during a heat wave.
“The more that people are moving into areas exposed to hazards,” said Jeffrey Schlegelmilch, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia’s Climate School, “the more that these hazards can turn into disasters of larger and larger scale.”
In some places, population growth and development have already made disasters worse and more costly, leading to widespread damage and destruction, major stress on infrastructure and soaring losses for insurers and individuals alike. Yet studies show people continue to flock to many “hazard hotspots.”
Americans’ decisions about where to move are largely motivated by economic concerns and lifestyle preferences, experts said, rather than potential for catastrophe. Some move seeking better job prospects and a cheaper cost of living; others are lured by sunnier climates and scenic views.
“There are 20 different factors in weighing where people want to move,” said Mahalia Clark, a graduate fellow at the University of Vermont who has studied the links between natural hazards and migration in the United States. “Higher up on the list is where friends and family live, where I can afford to move. Much lower down is what is the risk of hurricane or wildfire.”
A few months ago, a massive storm hit DFW. In my neighborhood, an older one, trees were blown all over the place (a house a block away was crushed by one) and we lost power for a full week. The depressing part is realizing this is just the beginning. I don’t have any plans to move, but I’m noticing a neighbor’s tree that could do major damage to my home if it fell over, when such a thing wouldn’t have crossed my mind 5 years ago.
‘Hazard hotspots’ also happen to be where the jobs are and where housing isn’t completely unaffordable.
The only ‘climate haven’ in reality is to be rich (I’m not). If one home is destroyed, no prob, just go to one of the others. Food shortages? Eh, money talks there.
Everyone else? Good luck – we’re in the same boat.
Saying people “flock to” sounds, too me, a bit misleading. Why not the more appropriate wording of “flocked to” when citing a 23-year span?
I’d be more interested in, say, the last five years or so. The trends could still be the same (likely), but also more relevant.
I mean, why not look back fifty years, or one hundred years? Plus, if, as a recent post said, if there are no safe heavens, does it matter where people flock?
There’s one other thing . . . six years ago, when I was looking to move, I did as much research as I could on a number of climate-related dangers, using the best projections available at the time. Based on a number of risk factors, I zeroed in on the current disaster areas (Tennessee, North Carolina, etc.) as possible areas where the impact seemed not as severe over the next 30 years or so (I’m old and won’t be around in 30 years).
Sure, now we know there are no safe heavens, but that’s not what experts were saying back then. You can probably still find the NPR reports on climate (some even linked here), pointing to the Northeast, and places in Michigan as not likely to be affected by a warming climate.
I ended up not moving to the then-‘safer’ areas, something I’m glad about today given what I see in the news . . . at least so far. Could be my area will be in the news next . . . and I will then be a tad annoyed to be told I shouldn’t have “flocked” to where I live, as if anyone could predict where the next catastrophe will strike next.
Caveat: I do agree, however, that costal zones, places near rivers, and mountainous areas present additional risks. Even there, though, one can use a bit of common sense when buying property, eyeing it with a critical eye toward potential issues.
Some people have known for years there would be no refuges.
Just saying that not that long ago, the implication was that there were such places.
… maybe people in the know were keeping mum about it.
I think renters risk less than ensconced homeowners whose house is their greatest financial asset. It also helps if all of your relatives aren’t in one basket. When we were kids we evacuated to our grandmother’s house. When Katrina hit I was able to lend stable communication, temporary refuge and material support from Austin.