Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by radicaldreamer 1691 days ago
Everyone is likely to be screwed in unpredictable ways, but New Zealand keeps coming up as a place where things won't be so bad. Siberia as well...
6 comments

Siberia recently suffered some of the worst wildfires on the entire planet haha. I think probably the safest would be East Canada as they're cold enough but not as tree-like.
Eastern Canada already gets pretty strong storms during hurricane season. Those will surely keep getting worse.
Sure on the coast but the Great Lakes-adjacent region should fare pretty well, or at least better than everywhere else.
Great lakes region is considered "central", not eastern, Canada. When we refer to the east in Canada, we are referring to the Atlantic provinces.
> Siberia as well...

Siberia may get warmer weather, but the grounds will be awful. Melting permafrost and methane explosions don’t make for a very stable situation.

Southern Siberia might become farmable and quite nice. Northern Siberia not so much, no matter how much we heat things up
Siberia will be continuous forest fires. Much like Canada's north.

I'm partial to the northern half of the great lakes.

Mass migration to New Zealand or Siberia would entail would mean more construction work causing more carbon to be released.

Rather adapt existing buildings to the changing climate.

Right, but that's a global cost for a localized benefit... which is kind of the whole deal here. In any case, basically every mitigation is still going to involve massive amounts of concrete- and diesel-related emissions, whether it's new housing, flood control measures, new energy sources, carbon capture, etc etc.
Mass migration to New Zealand would pretty quickly overflow the islands.
Well, I doubt Siberia will be ok. Northern passage will become commercially viable but the Taiga forest itself will most likely be burning for the next couple decades until it's all gone. So unless people walk 24h in oxygen masks it will not be a nice place to live.