By Marc Serota
James Hansen, director of climate science at the Earth Institute at Columbia University, has stated that "Switzerland would be a good choice." Given this, the columnist of the magazine 'The Atlantic', Adrienne LaFrance, explains that the European country could be an ideal place for several reasons: "it has no access to the sea, which means that it is protected from rising sea levels. And the Swiss authorities seem to take global warming-related threats seriously, which is not the case in much of the rest of the world. "
In addition, LaFrance highlights that the country was the first to submit a contribution to the international climate agreement, promising to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.
On the other hand, LaFrance argues that Denver, in the state of Colorado, could be an attractive destination to go to, but warns that many scientists say that climate change could exacerbate droughts and damage water quality.
When considering climate-related vulnerabilities, economic stability can be as important as environmental factors. "So it may be an overly simplistic answer, but the safest place for climate change may be a place with a strong and diversified economy and responsive institutions with the capacity and willingness to tackle emerging challenges," says Richard Alley, a professor of climate science at Pennsylvania State University.
"So, the key to having security is not to escape - relocating elsewhere is not exactly an option - but to face and prepare for the reality that is happening," says the columnist.