Gallup snubs Washington's livability, but climate gets the last say

America's leading pollster gauges the "future livability" of America's states, and Washington lags behind... North Dakota? But Gallup didn't consider the biggest factor of all.

Projected temperature increases under lower and (likelier) higher emissions scenarios.

U.S. Global Change Research Program

Projected temperature increases under lower and (likelier) higher emissions scenarios.

Risk of desertification. Green means "humid, not vulnerable." Sorry, Spokane, you're in the red.

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Soil Survey Division

Risk of desertification. Green means "humid, not vulnerable." Sorry, Spokane, you're in the red.

It'll keep getting worse down there: change in drought risk projected for 2035-2065 from 20th century baseline.

Ken Strzepek et al., MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

It'll keep getting worse down there: change in drought risk projected for 2035-2065 from 20th century baseline.

Hold on to your tender civic ego, fattened on four decades of top scores in various “livability” indices. Gallup this month released a new list with a twist: state ratings of future livability, based on "13 metrics encompassing economic, workplace, community, and personal choices.” Those metrics range from “economic confidence” and pace of job creation to how nicely (or not) employers treat workers, whether residents think their city is “getting better” or worse, whether they have easy access to clean drinking water and “a safe place to exercise,” whether they smoke, are obese, or saw a dentist in the past year, and whether they “learned something new yesterday." That last seems a rough measure of the creative and intellectual capital that’s been much touted lately as the engine of civic success.

The shocker: Washington doesn’t even place among the top 10 states overall. It rates highly in many health and lifestyle indicators —third-lowest in smoking, sixth-highest in clean water, eighth in “learning something new,” 10th in managers who “treat you like a partner.” But it ranks much worse in economic outlook and general expectations: 36th in job creation, 32nd in share of workers with full-time jobs, 34th in perceived standard of living, and 22nd in whether a city or area is generally “getting better” or not.

Crunch these all together and Washington comes in 12th among the states, just behind Massachusetts, Maryland, and South Dakota and narrowly ahead of Kansas, which never got such plaudits since Dorothy clicked her ruby slippers and recited “There’s no place like home.” But it’s well behind Utah, Gallup’s runaway winner as best place to live in the decades to come. Minnesota, Colorado, Nebraska, North Dakota, Virginia, and Hawaii round out the top eight. West Virginia, Kentucky, and Mississippi come in last, in this as in so many other rankings.

It’s no surprise that North Dakota, whose unemployment rate is lower than Mitt Romney’s taxes, tops the economic indicators. Nor that Utah, with so many abstemious Mormons and overcompensating Outside readers, scores lowest in smoking and high in other health indicators. But these findings should still be taken with several grains of salt.

First, coming from Gallup, they’re based on self-reporting rather than data crunching or expert prognostication. That opens the door to all sorts of cultural and regional biases, as in the famous factoid that suicide rates were higher in Scandinavia than anywhere else. (Turns out they’re lower there than in many other European and Asian counties, and much lower than in the ex-Soviet Union. The Scandinavian authorities were just more forthright about recording suicides than those elsewhere. Even now, some rates reported by the WHO sound suspiciously low.) Does Mormon confidence undergird Utah’s great expectations, and does Midwestern stoicism put a better face on prospects in the Plains states?

Second, the criteria considered are something of a grab bag, as Gallup itself concedes: “The selection of the 13 metrics was not based on any statistical model, but rather on their presumed relevance to future livability.”

Most important, Gallup did not consider the factor that will likely make the biggest difference in livability, in the fullest sense of the word: climate. If a place gets too hot and dry and storm-wracked, or becomes inundated by rising seas, it won’t support the same life and lives it does now. And dental visits and bosses’ attitudes will seem like trivial matters or fond memories. (Remember when people had “jobs”?)

This summer has brought another foretaste of climate changes to come, as drought and near-record heat seared the heartland and southland. In June and July, national weather maps became exercises in schadenfreude: While most of the country blazed in the orange and red of 90- and 100-degree-plus temperatures, two tongues of cool green reaching down the coasts of Maine and Washington, plus a sliver in the high Rockies, beckoned tantalizingly. An old friend in New Mexico whom I hadn’t seen in decades showed up in Seattle, saying he’d looked at the map and decided it was time to finally visit the Pacific Northwest. My neighbor met a woman who’d just moved here from Texas. “Climate refugee?” he joked, but she didn’t laugh or give him a WTF look. “Of course,” she said.

The changing climate won’t wear easy on us either. The best projections say we’ll get wetter winters, with more floods and less snowpack, and hotter, drier summers. But our temperatures won’t rise nearly as much as those almost everywhere in the country. We won’t face the chronic drought threat that looms over most of the country’s southern half, from California to Nebraska and then down to Florida. Washington’s wet side won’t turn to desert, as most parts of the West that aren’t already arid may, even if present trends merely continue.

Instead, we’ll face 50 million desperate, gun-toting climate refugees from the new Super Sunbelt, clamoring to eat our last berries and roots. The new livability.


Topics: Climate

About the Author

Eric Scigliano's reporting on social and environmental issues for The Weekly (later Seattle Weekly) won Livingston, Kennedy, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and other honors. He has also written for Harper's, New Scientist, and many other publications. One of his books, Michelangelo's Mountain, was a finalist for the Washington Book Award. His other books include Puget Sound; Love, War, and Circuses (aka Seeing the Elephant); and, with Curtis E. Ebbesmeyer, Flotsametrics. Scigliano also works as a science writer at Washington Sea Grant, a marine science and environmental program based at the University of Washington. He can be reached at eric.scigliano@crosscut.com.

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Wed, Aug 22, 8:05 a.m. Inappropriate

It is worth noting that mass migrations, even intranational migrations, can be very disruptive. The mass migration of blacks out of the South into the northern industrial centers, together with the stress of the Great Depression, caused much of the racial violence of that era. I know the remark about "gun-toting climate refugees" was somewhat flippant, but depending on how bad the climate gets, it could be a serious problem if the Northwest is hard-pressed to cope with the demands of a rapidly increasing population.

A good rule might be that no one will be permitted to enter Washington or Oregon who supported measures to restrict immigrants into their own states.

Posted Sun, Aug 26, 11:58 p.m. Inappropriate

"The mass migration of blacks out of the South into the northern industrial centers, together with the stress of the Great Depression, caused much of the racial violence of that era.'

That comment is wrong in so many aspects, there's no point in listing them. Everyone can do that for themselves.

sarah90

Posted Wed, Aug 22, 8:21 a.m. Inappropriate

The Democratic Party's immigration plank is incompatible with the Democratic Party's professed environmental plank. For the simple reason that one cannot have their cake and eat it, too.

Researchers at Oregon State University have determined the Number One Threat to PNW salmon and their habitats is increased immigration into the region; the vast majority of which comes from outside the U.S. and Canada.

Yet, our state's sundry sanctuary policies encourage the influx.

And everyone, be they Mexican, Guatamalan or people who "supported measures to restrict immigrants into their own states" has an environmental impact. They all require water, food, housing, electricity; they all drive, have kids, have dogs; they all do what we all do. And the more of them/us there are, the more they/we impact the environment.

Keep Washington to political affiliates Pepper. It will be spoiled all the same.

BlueLight

Posted Wed, Aug 22, 4:52 p.m. Inappropriate

My mother was raised in Minnesota and North Dakota, but after playing golf on New Year's Day on a visit to Seattle, she went home, threw away her gloves and hats, and moved here.

sandik

Posted Tue, Aug 28, 8:19 a.m. Inappropriate

After 20 years of decrepit urbism, Seattle turned itself from the most livable place to an unlivable snarl of overly dense concrete bunkers.

And in 20 years, North Dakota will have the weather of California.

jabailo

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »