Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rising sea levels will effect every location that is currently at sea level regardless if they are on a coast or located further inland. Many places along the Great Lakes Shores would be affected by this.
Great lakes are not at sea level, and are not a flood risk in terms of global warming at all.
Chicago and other Midwestern cities will not be flooded like NYC, SF, LA, Miami, etc.
BUT it will be affected by severe summers and shorter but colder winters. This however, will affect the entire country, so that is why I say the Midwest will probably be the best bet for fresh water and resources.
I suggest you go to this informative sight Uscusa.org and look around. It's a very fascinating sight that offers insight as to how the country will be affected by global warming.
Thanks. I am familiar with the Union of Concerned Scientists. I wondered if that was what you meant, but there are so many sites re global warming issues, so I thought I'd mention the boo-boo. That is a great site and I appreciate you mentioning it!
Maybe I will look at MN. I used to live in N WI, but gee, the taxes. I'll look into the COL in MN now.
I think some of you are missing the "pollution and crime" part of the OP's question, as well as the "living simply" part.
I would avoid any city over maybe 300k. It sounds like you're looking for things outside the major cities. I would stay in the Midwest or Great Plains area.
You might look at maybe small-midsized midwestern cities that are near farms and more readily sustainable. College towns also seem to be very livable with steady employment bases and educated, affluent populaces. I would count suburbs out since eventually big-city problems are going to radiate out.
Some to think about: Iowa City, IA; Columbia, MO; Rochester, MN; Sioux Falls, SD, Dubuque, IA; Ames, IA; La Crosse, WI and maybe Madison, WI.
Live Simply? I think of the Great Plains region of the midwest.
Cities such as Omaha and Kansas City will offer ample job opportunities without all the crime and poverty of rust belt cities, and without all the expenses of "major" cities.
Kansas City isn't incredibly safe. Actually, as a metro, it's more dangerous than St. Louis (on Morgan Quitno's list).
I agree about the midwest. Although there are risks of tornadoes and earthquakes, as well as potentially dangerous animals (scorpions, tarantulas, rattlesnakes in Missouri), we do not often have large fires such as in California, or major earthquakes (although we're supposedly overdue for a bigger one), or hurricanes. Flooding can happen, but we haven't had a major flood since 1993.
And water typically isn't hard to find. I myself live about 30 miles from a decent-sized lake, and Current River. There are a few other rivers nearby, too.
There are inconviences about the midwest, as far as being really hot in summer and freezing in winter. But overall I think the area is pretty safe.
St. Louis is a nice area, as well as pretty beautiful, if you like major cities. If not, there are smaller cities in Missouri, such as Columbia, Springfield, and Jefferson City. The area I live in is mostly rural, though. Springfield is a couple hundred thousand, and it's pretty spread out, but it's a nice town. Branson is just south of it.
Sorry but I'll take my chances on the edge of the continent. Its more than worth it.
Montclair18, SharpHawkeye GOT my point. I'm not suggesting that I want to hide. There are basic requirements for Quality of Life and I suggest one basic is air to breathe that is reasonably free of dangerous pollutants. Another basic is the right to live without fear. So, air quality and crime issues are important. People complain about unfriendly towns and neighborhoods, but do they really understand what is expected of them to make good towns and neighborhoods?
The US has lowered the bar as far as Quality of Life. As long as there are "things to do" like shopping and movies and restaurants we seem to accept anything that goes with it. If we continue to accept crime and pollution as something we have to live with or something that the other guy in the "bad" neighborhood has to live with, we don't deserve anything better.
The US ingests as many prescription pills as it does for a reason.
Last edited by lookaround; 03-02-2008 at 06:56 AM..
Reason: spelling correction
Phooey on Forbes and all those "Best To Live" lists! How about a City Data's Best Places To Survive" list? With the mortage/housing issue, drought problems, pollution, increasing crime, unemployment, swarms of people flooding into one city or another and increasing these problems...where are the best places to survive well and live simply (and simply live)?
Well, let's take these one by one:
1. Morgage/housing issue is temporary. Eventually it will not be an issue. So I would cross that one off the list in about 2 years or less. The housing market has ups and downs.
2. drought problems: With this issue, I guess I would be leary of anyplace without a long-lasting water supply. I am not familiar with which places would have that issue. But, I would think the southwest would be one. The drought in the southeast is slowly ending. Again, drought is also cyclical.
3. Pollution: There are all types of this issue. I would think that any large or medium sized city would be affected by this. Actually, I think everyplace is affected by this. So, no sense moving.
4. Increasing crime: Well, you leave a place that has a crime-issue. Move to a place and it gets a crime issue. It's a gamble. I will stay where I am. (Baltimore: which currently has a 20 year low for homicides this year). This is another gamble. If something catostraphic (sp.) happens, I would think even the safest place in the states would then be caught up in it.
5. Unemployment: Well, with this one, I really don't see the car companies coming back. But, that could change with engineering and new technology in the future. For now, I guess I would rule out Michigan.
6. Swarms of people: Where will the future swarms head to? Currently, I guess I would rule out everyplace without good planning and efficient mass transit. (Phoenix, Las Vegas come to mind--but that could change.)
So--in the long and short of it, I would stay right here in Baltimore and survive the best I can.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
