Best Places to Live to Avoid Climate Change

No one on the planet is left untouched by the effects of climate change, from rising temperatures and sea levels to worsened air pollution and droughts that threaten water and food security. But as many experts have found, climate change disproportionately impacts marginalised and minority communities, many of whom are forced to flee their homes in a growing phenomenon known as climate migration. While it is critical that the world works together to drastically and rapidly cut down greenhouse gas emissions and invest in climate mitigation and adaptation, it’s understandable for individuals – at least those with the resources and the means – to consider relocating to the best places to live to avoid climate change. 

—

So where are the best places to live that are least affected by the changing climate? The answer depends on what is being measured: geographical advantages, efforts to reduce emissions, or the ability to adapt. We explore these three perspectives, while recognising that no country is free from climate risk.

Best Places to Live to Avoid Climate Change

On Geographical Advantages

A paper published by the Anglia Ruskin University in the United Kingdom has identified five countries in geographical locations with “favourable starting conditions” that may allow them to be less touched by the effects of climate change: New Zealand, Iceland, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Ireland. The results are based on the analysis of the countries’ carrying capacity – refers to a species’ average population size in a particular habitat, isolation, and self-sufficiency. 

In terms of carrying capacity, all these countries with the exception of the UK, have a small population, a high fraction of agricultural land, and direct access to seas. This indicates that they are rich in terms of food resources. 

When it comes to isolation, these five nations are mostly detached from heavily populated landmasses. According to the study, the reason that isolated communities are likely to be “lifeboats” is based on the presumption that globalisation will be reversed when the temperature rises, causing economic depression and social unrest. Therefore, in this worst-case scenario, isolated countries tend to be less affected by the economic and social instability of neighbouring countries. 

Lastly, in terms of self-sufficiency, these countries mostly have abundant renewable energy and non-renewable energy sources, showing their high potential of being energy-wise independent.

On Climate Mitigation

The Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) compares countries across four categories: greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy, energy use and climate policy. It measures climate protection performance, rather than how safe a particular place is from heat, flooding or other physical hazards. Strong mitigation policies therefore do not, on their own, establish the best place to live.

Geographical advantages also do not guarantee strong climate policies. The Climate Action Tracker assessment of Australia gives the country an overall rating of “Insufficient” and says its policies and commitments need substantial improvement to align with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit. This assessment concerns mitigation, rather than the safety of individual Australian communities.

Because greenhouse gases affect the global climate, reducing future risks requires sustained emissions cuts across countries as well as local adaptation.

On Climate Adaptation

There is a presumption that the level of a country’s vulnerability facing climate change directly correlates to its exposure to the physical factors of climate change, leading to the conclusion that the most vulnerable countries are exposed to most physical threats. Although this is accurate in most cases, there are still many countries that experience physical threats but are less vulnerable to climate change. 

The ND-GAIN Country Index assesses vulnerability to climate change and readiness to improve resilience. Institutions, infrastructure and the ability to invest in adaptation influence how well a country can respond. Climate hazards should be distinguished from geological hazards such as earthquakes and most tsunamis, which are not caused by climate change.

National scores are a starting point, rather than a guarantee of local safety. Exposure and adaptive capacity vary within countries, so decisions about where to live also need evidence about local flooding, heat, water availability and infrastructure.

Adaptation also depends on access to finance. At COP29 in 2024, countries agreed a climate finance goal of at least US$300 billion a year for developing countries by 2035, with developed countries taking the lead. They also called for scaling up finance from public and private sources to at least US$1.3 trillion a year by 2035. These goals cover climate action more broadly, rather than adaptation alone.

You might also like: Climate Refugees: When Home Becomes Uninhabitable

The Main Takeaway

There is no single best place to live to avoid climate change. Geography, emissions policies and adaptation capacity each tell part of the story, and local conditions matter. Not everyone has the resources or means to relocate, nor should people be forced to leave their homelands because of climate change. Reducing emissions and investing in resilience remain essential wherever people live.

Collective action can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen adaptation, helping communities protect food production, water supplies and livelihoods as climate risks increase.