Five scientists (John. W. Day, M. Moerschbaecher, David Pimentel, Charles Hall, A. Yá˜nez-Arancibia) have written an interesting article about the best and worst places in the in the future United States based on sustainability when you take into account:
- climate change
- energy reserves
- sea-level rise
- extreme weather
Below are a few interesting excerpts from this 16 page paper.
Best places to live
The greener the better — unless there are too many people (circles indicate large cities).
Move to an Underperforming Region (and away from a Megaregion): Many areas rich in natural resources often have high poverty rates, perhaps due to “the resource curse”, usually applied internationally to countries rich in fossil fuels, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, but financially poor with stratified social classes. We believe this concept can be applied to states. You can see above that most underperforming counties are rural. These are regions that have not kept pace with national trends over the last 3 decades in terms of population, employment, and wages. Note that with the exception of the Great Lakes megaregion, the underperforming regions are outside of the 11 megaregions. These underperforming areas generally have high natural resources and agricultural production.
Worst Places to Be
Several areas of the U.S. will have compromised sustainability in the 21st century. These include the southern Great Plains, the Southwest, the southern half of California, the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, especially southern Louisiana and Southern Florida, and areas of dense population such as south Florida and the Northeast.