When I recently calculated that parts of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties near the California coast were the best places to live amid GW for now, I neglected to factor-in water resources. Those places are going to get mighty drier, mighty fast.
I now favor the cooler and wetter side of the San Francisco Bay Area… for now. But not right on the Bay or ocean, of course. And forget Silicon Valley: long-term, it’ll be flooded by rising sea levels. [Earthquakes? Pshaw!]
I liked Tasmania and New Zealand, but recently heard they’re going to get substantially drier too. (Though NZ is marketing itself to Europeans afraid of the coming Little Ice Age in a century or two!!) Quito, Ecuador and Caracas, Venezuela [Viva Chavez!] actually look nice longer-term, but climatologically they’re pin-points, and won’t hold enough people to be significant longest-term. Of course, no place will!
The problem with the California coast, of course, is that when my new Nice Zone creeps northward over time, it’ll bump into the oldest residents of that region, the redwoods. Some tough choices will have to be made when that time comes. Not unlike having to go back to some more coal and nuclear when oil and natural gas run out… if we have enough of the latter to provide the time we’ll need to ramp-up the former… (hopefully temporarily) compromising anti-GW efforts and global peace and security, respectively. Of course, as I’ve said, GW is our worst chronic global problem, very-long-term; Peak Oil, Third World “dirty” industrialization* and the bad First World diet already coming with it, and the (hopefully) temporarily-shrinking magnetic field of the planet, are IMHO worse acute problems, much-shorter-term.
[*--'Chinese Communism: Screwing Workers and "the People" Just Like The Man!']