‘There is no refuge from a planetary crisis’: The concept of ‘climate safe havens’ is filled with promises and perils
As climate change increasingly wreaks havoc on our planet, the concept of climate refuges seems appealing – a refuge where people can camp comfortably as sea levels rise and extreme weather hits less favored areas. But the reality is not so simple. In this excerpt from “North: The Future of Post-Climate America” (Oxford University Press, 2025), Jesse M. Keenanassociate professor of real estate at the Tulane School of Architecture, examines how climate-driven migration presents multifaceted problems — both for “climigrants” and for those already living in “shelters.”
The article argued that reception areas would be defined by “northward areas” that could also have “sources of energy production.” [that] are stable, [with] cooler climates and… access to plenty of fresh water. » In a rhetorical speech, Milman referred to these reception areas as “safe havens.”
This article would continue to spark the imagination of journalists, researchers, policy makers and the general public around the world. Radical ideas of climate adequacy and infrastructural capacity would be reframed in the media as “climate havens”. While research on “pleasure migration” has long sought to understand the pull factors of migration, this body of research has supported “a long-standing debate about the relative influence of environmental and economic factors.” [that] was not conclusive.”
In the context of climate change, much research has focused on climate impacts as an amenity that drives people away, as opposed to lower levels of comparative risk as an amenity that draws people in. research has shown that “experiencing a catastrophic-level wildfire and extreme heat in the previous year was associated with reduced [in-]migration.”
A investigation of more than 1,110 California residents after the 2020 wildfire seasons found that “about a third of [the] sample intended to move within the next five years, with nearly a quarter reporting that wildfires and smoke had at least a moderate impact on their decision to migrate. Previous negative outcomes (e.g., evacuation, loss of possessions) were associated with intentions to migrate.
At best, one might infer that the inconveniences associated with climate risks push people toward places where risks are lower, but the interrelated complexity of various positive amenities in host areas associated with everything from labor force participation to lifestyle fitness remains largely unexplored in the United States. The climate specialist Alex de Sherbinbin and colleagues have suggested that “environmental amenities and risks may be among the factors that affect aspirations and capabilities – but in this framework they cannot be said to ‘stimulate’ migration.”
In this sense, climate change could simply push people already predisposed to undertake such actions to migrate or relocate. Other researchers argue that it could simply be a matter of money. They argue that the tipping point for emigration lies in the economic damage caused by extreme events: for every “$1,000[s of] damage per capita [there] East [an] partner . . . increase in emigration” of between 9 and 16%.
Climate impacts as a push factor may be starting to come to the fore, but the pull factors are not well understood. The lack of theoretical and empirical clarity on the role of amenities in attracting people to host areas has not stopped academics and journalists from leading a public debate about which places could be climate havens and what these climate havens should look like. For journalists, this motivation lies between the clickbait production of “Top Places to Move” and a legitimate reflection on a challenge that appears clear in light of the lived experiences of the people and places that define their rhythm.
Many people recognize that climate change is already influencing where and how people live. In recent years, a group of urban planners and designers known as the PLACE Initiative has come together to identify a range of potential reception areas based on a combination of factors ranging from climate risk to the quality of urban form. Although the PLACE Initiative’s data and methods are not validated and may be far from scientific, their work highlights a valuable starting point based on the professional judgment of those on the front lines.
As receiving areas grew, cities like Milwaukee and Buffalo actively marketed themselves as climate havens. Buffalo has the great tagline: “How Buffalo Weather Goes from Punchline to Lifeline.” Marketing might even work.
According to Zillow, Buffalo was the hottest real estate market in America between 2023 and 2025. These marketing efforts build on long-standing local policies to formalize efforts to welcome immigrants – and by extension migrants – in the Midwest as a way to spur economic development.
Commentators have raised challenges both substantial and baseless that highlight the promise and peril of the climate paradise concept. They argue that nowhere is safe and no place can escape climate impacts. It’s very true. Flooding in Asheville, North Carolina Hurricane Helene in 2024 highlighted that even widely recognized reception areas remain vulnerable to extreme events.
Unfortunately, the history of post-disaster redevelopment in America suggests that, in a place like Asheville, flooding will likely be a catalyst for a spatially concentrated post-development landscape, built to higher performance standards and less affordable. It is likely that Hurricane Helen redevelopment will have the effect of both forcing people to leave and attracting opportunists with higher incomes. Ultimately, any receiving area is vulnerable to extreme events. There is no refuge from a planetary crisis.
Other commentators have argued that the focus on climate havens ignores the plight of those who remain in sending zones. Some have even gone so far as to revive the long-dismissed adaptation/mitigation binary, asking whether cities should prepare for climate change or reduce their carbon footprint. They argue that calling certain places a refuge is misleading to potential climate migrants, and that it is certainly not a refuge for existing residents who are currently cost-burdened and underserved or who may be displaced by climate gentrification in the future.
Some members of tribal communities even see climigration as a kind of double colonization. Some of these criticisms are completely fair. Other critiques rely on baseless, zero-sum rhetoric. First, cities can plan for climate migration while mitigating their carbon footprint. Investments in adaptation and mitigation can and should be made in dialogue with each other. Any investment made in risk and carbon management that benefits people today will benefit people tomorrow, if done correctly.
For example, investments in zoning and housing focused on transit-oriented development (TOD) will reduce current transit emissions, but they will also provide a basis for future emissions reductions by leading to stronger measures of efficiency, convenience, and sustainability in dense, mixed-income housing.
Mixed-income housing with lower transportation and energy costs will be essential to supporting a diverse group of local residents and climmigrants. Second, while no place can escape climate impacts, it is well established that impacts are unevenly distributed and concentrated in ways that define the exposure and vulnerability of populations. Yes, there are risks of extreme precipitation and wildfires in Vermont and upstate New York, but that’s a relative picnic compared to what the Southwest and Southeast are facing.
Likewise, ideological policies, anti-scientific belief systems, and the general lack of institutional capacity in the Sun Belt have the effect of amplifying these costs and vulnerabilities.
It is undeniable that some places and some people are relatively better off. While many people in the Northeast and Rust Belt face a legacy of economic exclusion, environmental injustice, generations of underinvestment, regional wildfires and droughts, and even frightening tick-borne diseases, they do not face the same existential convergence of risks as other regions.
Florida’s future will undoubtedly be shaped by sea level rise, wildfires, groundwater salinization, toxic and fecal contamination of drinking water systems, mega-hurricanes, stationary tropical systems, flooding of all types, extreme heat, and dengue and cholera outbreaks in ways that are almost unimaginable.
As a commentator from Buffalo said BBC“We’re not an oasis. We’re less lousy.” There’s certainly some truth to that claim, but it doesn’t carry much weight for the thousands of Puerto Rican migrants who moved to Buffalo after the devastating 2017 hurricane season.
Excerpt from North: the future of post-climatic America by Jesse M. Keenan. Copyright 2025. Published with permission of the author.
