Better Prepare For The Climate Refugees Headed Our Way Shortly (San Diego: apartment, live)

[Serious Conversation]

If I was a "climate refugee," anywhere in CA would be off the list due to the amount of people and lack of water resources in much of the state. I'd be seeking out places with more water and more temperate climates and fewer people. Parts of Appalachia would work. Michigan. Maine. Upstate NY.

[seain dublin]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

Climate change and rising coastal waters are not to be taken lightly. Already Miami Beach is starting to "sink" under the Atlantic as streets regularly become waterlogged by encroaching ocean water. California, despite its high COL will be a primary target for these refugees as areas further inland start to get developed to accommodate the rise in the number of people fleeing the Southeast and Midwest. In the Northwest part of LA County where I live the streets are already choking with traffic during morning and late afternoon rush hours. I won't drive during those times. The map in the link below shows which parts of the West will be most inundated with these climate refugees (that's what the article calls them) and SoCal to Las Vegas is projected to be the largest growth region. That stands to region when you consider that land to the immediate west and east of the I-5 to Nevada is plentiful with undeveloped flat tracts.

The prices of real estate can only go up in SoCal so if you're thinking about selling, I'd advise not to, especially if you have children you want to pass your property onto. I recently sold a junkie 3+1 in Highland Park 1000 sq ft for 735K for my terminally ill mother. She paid 16K for it back in the early 70's so the sale was pure profit. I will have an enormous capital gain tax to pay but that still leaves roughly half a million to pocket. Others in this California forum I'm sure are in the same desirable position to cash in on their houses. Think before selling. But then plan for fighting even worse elbow to elbow people in the next 20 years if you decide to stay.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ration-is-here

Thanks for the laugh. Considering all the recent fires(once again and aren't all just natural), CA is the last place many would be heading. I have lived most of my live now in CA and now currently out of the country, watching the destruction from thousands of miles away gives you a mixed feeling of sadness, concern for those impacted, and than relief not being there to see it happen.

Originally Posted by tetka_grunya

I'd worry more about devastating earthquake in California vs climate refuges moving here

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/us/ri...rnd/index.html

The earthquake that happened a few months(one on a Thursday morning and than a stronger one that Friday night) brought back memories of 1994 and Northridge. People were a lot more civil 25 years ago, IDK how some would act today if they had to go without basic services for a few days.

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

You're saying, that climate refugees will flock to a fire-trap of a state? I'll have to see it to believe it.

Exactly, currently in Ireland where some of the country is getting battered with rain, well that still beats fire.

[seain dublin]

Originally Posted by saibot

What? It hasn't been 24 years since the last large earthquake in California! There have been seven 6.0+ quakes in CA since Northridge. Two of them were this year, the 6.4 and 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquakes; have you forgotten those already? We were lucky that they weren't in densely populated areas, but to say California only gets a 6.0+ quake every 25 years is patently false.

Exactly, the OP doesn't even have the correct year for Northridge. It was MLK weekend Jan. 1994, lived 3 miles from the epicenter.

You're absolutely right, the two this year were in remote areas, but felt very strongly over a wide area.

And what a silly thing for the OP to say, the longer we go without earthquakes the more possibility a large one will hit, and maybe not in a remote area.

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by seain dublin

Exactly, the OP doesn't even have the correct year for Northridge. It was MLK weekend Jan. 1994, lived 3 miles from the epicenter.

You're absolutely right, the two this year were in remote areas, but felt very strongly over a wide area.

And what a silly thing for the OP to say, the longer we go without earthquakes the more possibility a large one will hit, and maybe not in a remote area.

Being one year off on an earthquake is not a capital offense, seain. It's pretty petty of you to word it that way. You could have been more polite and just said, "Actually, the Northridge quake happened in 1994, not 1993." But you chose to get snippy about it. I guess that's your right. But bringing up odds of a next one occurring this date or that date is pretty silly, dontchathink? When and where exactly will the "large one" hit, seain? You don't know? Well, precisely, duh! So we're supposed to plan our lives around something that may or may never occur?

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

Being one year off on an earthquake is not a capital offense, seain. It's pretty petty of you to word it that way. You could have been more polite and just said, "Actually, the Northridge quake happened in 1994, not 1993." But you chose to get snippy about it. I guess that's your right. But bringing up odds of a next one occurring this date or that date is pretty silly, dontchathink? When and where exactly will the "large one" hit, seain? You don't know? Well, precisely, duh! So we're supposed to plan our lives around something that may or may never occur?

You mean the oceans rising so much it renders all of Florida unlivable? That sort of "something"?

[thrillobyte]

No, seain was referring to what we should do when the next "Big One" strikes, not sea level rise. I tried to gently point out to him that earthquakes, being unpredictable, let me quote him:


....the longer we go without earthquakes the more possibility a large one will hit, and maybe not in a remote area.


Well, what are we supposed to do with such a silly remark? Seain, you just live your life and when it hits, it hits, that's all. Just be prepared. I've been in Cali since 1958 and have only experienced three major quakes, the 1971, 1987, and the 1993....ooops, 1994, (thank you, seain ) and I'm still alive. So what was I supposed to do in 1971, pack up and move to Michigan?????? Actually earthquakes here have killed fewer people than hurricanes, tornadoes, and blizzards, possibly floods too. The thing is we Californians may never in our lifetimes get the "Big One" that everyone keeps talking about. Like I said, the last one was 25 years ago. I cannot imagine freezing my butt off, or evacuating every couple of years because of floods/hurricanes for 25 years simply because I was afraid the "Big One" was going to strike next.

[opossum1]

Originally Posted by Woody01

Plenty of water inland, you just gotta know where to look. My off-grid property is way inland and sits on top of a huge aquafier. Huge.

Also, inland areas have more 'real' lakes in my experience instead of relying on reservoirs fed by the Colorado River......

Good luck getting water out of that aquifer, sure someone has senior rights already. Anyway if you do have water...doesn't mean that the inland West generally has it to support any more population. Pray your well won't go dry, that's too.

Anyway, horrible water problems for inland areas such as Colorado, NM, Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, AZ and CA are kind of not a secret and a fact.

Homes living off hauled water, tanks everywhere... no drill permits....no watering outside the home....other watering restrictions...drying out wells....wells 1000ft deep....well costing 40-50K....entire towns running out of water...bad water...need I say more. Developers building subdivisions that look like Hiroshima. Good luck with water inland, haha.

LOL, "real" lakes all over inland West....must be like in the Lake country, Minnesota! Land'O'Lakes in the deserts....If there's a lake by the way... it won't be allowed to tap into it and take any more water, some lakes like Mono had already been ruined.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Serious Conversation

If I was a "climate refugee," anywhere in CA would be off the list due to the amount of people and lack of water resources in much of the state. I'd be seeking out places with more water and more temperate climates and fewer people. Parts of Appalachia would work. Michigan. Maine. Upstate NY.

This is actually what some Californians are doing; moving, or planning retirement moves, to the NW (which is getting drier, too, though), and elsewhere, to stake out a more reliable water supply, and less crowded conditions.

[thrillobyte]

Interestingly, I haven't seen the slightest rise in ocean levels at my beaches in Santa Monica and Malibu. So what gives with Miami?

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

Interestingly, I haven't seen the slightest rise in ocean levels at my beaches in Santa Monica and Malibu. So what gives with Miami?

All the Caribbean migrants are pushing it down into the ocean. Heard it from a friend -- say hello to my little friend...