Adapting to a Changing World: The Critical Role of Climate Migration

Robert McLeman is a professor of environmental studies at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Canada. He has been researching the impacts of climate and other environmental changes on human migration for more than 20 years and serves on the Climate Migration Council.

TK: What inspired you to pursue a career at the intersection of environmental science and human migration?
McLeman: As an undergraduate, I studied physical geography, but I took a detour and ended up joining the Canadian Foreign Service. I worked there for about 12 years, in diplomatic missions in different parts of the world. What got me interested in climate migration was that in the early 1990s, we started to see reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warning that things were changing around the globe, including the large-scale displacement of people.

I was in Hong Kong at the time, where local researchers were studying the implications of sea level rise. I ended up doing my Master of Science degree at the University of Hong Kong and made climate migration my thesis project. Later, I left the Foreign Service to do my PhD at the University of Guelph in Canada. My research focused on drought-related migration in the United States, specifically the Dust Bowl migration of the 1930s, and comparing what happened during that period to what might happen in the future. That’s what brought me into an academic career.

TK: How did this lead you to the Climate Migration Council?
McLeman: When the Climate Migration Council started a few years ago, they were looking for academics to join their team, which included experts in urban planning and government. It seemed like a great initiative to bring the impact of climate change on migration to the forefront for decision-makers, and I liked their emphasis on cities. About 10 years ago, the global population transitioned from being primarily rural to urban, and urbanization rates are growing worldwide.

Cities will be places people are displaced from in certain circumstances, but in other cases, they’ll be where people end up moving. It’s critical to understand these dynamics as urban centers plan for the future.

TK: How do environmental changes drive human migration, and why is this a critical issue for local leaders and communities?
McLeman: It’s a really complex set of interactions. Let me use the example of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina to illustrate. Before the storm hit, people tended to evacuate to nearby counties and parishes, or just out of state. Then, when the flooding came, folks evacuated with government assistance, and many ended up farther away in places like Houston, San Antonio, and Atlanta.

What happened afterward tells of the complexity. The housing stock immediately shrank because of the flooding. People who came back tended to be homeowners with salvageable homes. Renters and those whose homes were completely destroyed often couldn’t return. These differences frequently fell along socioeconomic and racial lines.

At the same time, new migrants came into New Orleans. Historically, the city has had a large Caribbean population. After Katrina, however, many construction workers who had originally come to the US from Central America and Mexico arrived to help with the rebuilding effort. If you were to take a snapshot of the city each year after Katrina, you’d see demographic dynamics constantly shifting.

Robert McLeman
Robert McLeman

When we think about the relationship between climate and migration, we often simplify it to people losing their homes and moving elsewhere. But for policymakers, managing a city in a climate-disrupted world is far more complex. It involves factors like housing markets, labor markets, insurance regimes, government interventions, and family networks. Some people are trapped and want to relocate but lack the means, while others don’t want to leave because of strong cultural or social ties to their community, such as Indigenous groups or the Black population in New Orleans that’s been there for hundreds of years.

Displacement events often create immense emotional and social stress, particularly for those who cannot return to their communities.

TK: How do organizations like the Climate Migration Council address these challenges?
McLeman: Organizations like the Climate Migration Council are essential because while a lot of great research is being done in STEM disciplines, the challenge lies in mobilizing it for planning. Too often, we only turn to researchers after a disaster has already happened.

The Council brings expertise in how policies are made, how government structures interact, and how resources can be mobilized. Academics like me can forecast what’s likely to happen, but we’re not the ones who know how to execute policy or allocate resources. The Council has influential members who can advise senior decision-makers at federal, state, and local levels and emphasize that we need to plan for these challenges now. They show there’s solid science behind solutions and outline how to start implementing them.

TK: What advice do you have for young professionals and students interested in this field?
McLeman: I teach first-year science students at Wilfrid Laurier University, and we talk about these issues directly. Climate change isn’t going away, and its impacts are only intensifying. This means there will be more career opportunities in this field every year.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re studying biology, engineering, or even business administration—your expertise can make a real difference. My message to students is to think about how you can apply your skills to address climate-related disruptions to economies and people’s lives. There’s financial opportunity in these fields, but the potential for social good is even greater.

I also speak to older adults, like newly retired professionals, who want to make a difference. Even if their careers weren’t in this field, they can contribute to civil society organizations or serve on local government councils working on climate adaptation plans. There’s more work to do than people available to do it, so I encourage them to lend their energy to building climate-resilient communities.

TK: What trends will shape how local governments address migration over the next decade?
McLeman: Cities need to prepare for population shifts caused by climate change impacts like drought, wildfires, and sea-level rise. In 2016, I attended a workshop at Portland State University where urban planners from Seattle and Portland discussed how these cities, already fast-growing, would need to accommodate even more migration in the coming decades. 

For example, as water scarcity worsens in the Southwest and fires and heat affect other regions, more people will look to relocate to cities like Portland and Seattle. Planners asked, “What percentage of people can we expect each year, and how do we plan infrastructure for them?” They emphasized the need for at least 20 years of lead time to build roads, wastewater treatment plants, and other infrastructure to support growing populations.

Other cities, like Miami, may face a different reality and need to plan for population decline as sea-level rise becomes unmanageable. In all cases, decisions can’t be delayed. Municipalities must also address affordable housing and ensure access to primary healthcare, especially in low-income neighborhoods.

There’s no one-size-fits-all solution; each city has its own challenges. But the sooner communities start planning for climate-related migration, the better prepared they’ll be.

Designing for Wellness: The Link Between Transportation, Equity, and Health

Shima Hamidi is a Bloomberg Assistant Professor of American Health at Johns Hopkins University and the Director of the Center for Climate-Smart Transportation, a federally funded university transportation center that focuses on the intersection of transportation, climate change, and public health. 

TK: What are your focus areas?

Hamidi: My research focuses on the intersection of public health, transportation, and climate change. We spend about 90% of our time outside our homes, in public spaces like parks, public buildings, transportation networks, and sidewalks. These spaces play a crucial role in our health and well-being based on how they are planned. Living in more remote, suburban areas, compared to more connected and accessible places, significantly increases the likelihood of being involved in a fatal car crash. It also reduces the chances of being physically active, such as walking or biking, leading to higher rates of obesity and chronic diseases associated with it.

Environmental factors like greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution are also influenced by how we shape our neighborhoods through land use, community design, and transportation planning. This ties into issues of equity and environmental justice, affecting how much we pay for housing and transportation. Low-income and minority communities often experience isolation in their neighborhoods, which impacts their life expectancy.

My research shows that living in a more accessible and connected neighborhood can increase life expectancy by an average of one and a half years. This improvement is significant when you consider that, according to the CDC, a cure for cancer would extend life expectancy by about two years. We can make similar gains in life expectancy by simply changing the way we approach transportation, land use, and community design. 

TK: What motivated you to pursue this line of work? 

Hamidi: The U.S. traffic fatality rate is four times higher than that of other developed countries. Aperson in the U.S. is four times more likely to be in a fatal crash than someone with the same income and demographic profile in a European country. And the situation is only getting worse.

When you look at life expectancy and the chances of upward mobility, we are not performing well compared to other nations. The U.S. spends more on healthcare than any other nation, yet our health outcomes are not reflective of this, we rank number one among developed nations for obesity and chronic diseases.

We need to start thinking about these connections to public health before it's too late, when people become burdened by chronic disease and enter the healthcare system. We must shift our focus to preventive measures. We need to look at all the factors that affect people's health and well-being over the course of their lives. Public health isn’t a priority when we make land-use decisions—it’s not even part of the conversation.

Shima Hamidi.

TK: What is the best approach in making this sort of work actionable and implementable into policy?

Hamidi: One of the biggest challenges right now is the disconnect between researchers and practitioners. For example, I recently worked on a study about climate action plans in U.S. cities. Almost all of the top 100 cities have climate action plans, and many have declared a state of climate emergency. However, more than 60% of these cities are failing to meet their short- and long-term greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Why? Because there is often a gap between research and real-world action.

Our Center is dedicated to bridging that gap. Our mission is to conduct research that is actionable, practice-oriented, and ready for implementation. When researchers submit project ideas to us, the first filter we apply is how actionable the research is. We evaluate how closely it’s connected to practice and how likely it is to inform changes in current policies and practices that are unhealthy and unsustainable. We also require researchers to collaborate with at least three non-academic partners to help implement their findings after the project ends. Each project must have an implementation plan.

Every researcher must produce a two-page policy brief written specifically for policymakers. We focus on making our research easily translatable into policy and practice.

We’re fortunate to have partners like the Bloomberg American Health Initiative and Bloomberg Philanthropies, who help us disseminate our findings to local governments, city planners, policymakers, and mayors. These partnerships help us ensure that our research is actively used to influence real-world policy. That's a priority for every single project we undertake at the Center.

TK: Can you cite specific examples where measurable impacts helped in vulnerable communities?

Hamidi: One example with notable equity implications involves addressing traffic fatalities and infrastructure in low-income and vulnerable neighborhoods. These areas often face higher traffic fatality rates and lack basic pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, such as sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks, and even green spaces like trees. 

We recently released a study showing that wider lanes are more dangerous than narrower lanes, leading to more crashes and fatalities. We were overwhelmed by the interest from cities. We connected with over 20 communities at the state and local levels, all eager to implement lane narrowing and improve their street designs.

TK: What advice would you give to individuals who want to get involved?

Hamidi: First of all, when it comes to research, my number one piece of advice is to focus on partnerships. At our Center, we are always looking for partners, particularly from STEM fields. Research becomes actionable when it originates from real-world challenges faced by non-academic partners. They deal with these issues every day, and we, as researchers, can provide evidence-based information to help address them. By involving these entities in shaping the research questions and approach, we ensure that the findings are relevant and actionable.

Maintaining this collaborative spirit throughout the research process is essential. The completion of a research project should not be seen as the end but rather the beginning of the effort to translate findings into practical policies. Translation also relies on dissemination. We need to develop effective ways to share research results with policymakers and practitioners to ensure that the research can lead to tangible changes in policy and practice.

My second piece of advice is to have a voice in transportation decisions. There’s a disconnect between decision-makers and the voices of the community. 

It’s crucial to ensure that your voice is heard in local decision-making. Engage with your city council and representatives to express your needs and priorities regarding lifestyle and infrastructure. Often, underserved and low-income neighborhoods lack representation in these decisions. By speaking up, you help shape the focus of city priorities.

Finally, stay informed about local policies and projects that impact your community. Attend public meetings, provide feedback, and join local advocacy groups. Your involvement helps bridge the gap between community needs and policy decisions.

For organizations involved in making these decisions, it’s crucial to look at transportation and community design through the lens of health and equity. Too often, these decisions are made in isolation from the health impacts they have on people. We need to bridge that gap through more partnerships and collaborations.

California’s Groundbreaking AI Regulation: Debate on SB 1047

Author’s note: After this article was written, California State Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed SB 1047 on 29 September. In a letter to the California State Senate, he cited such reasons as a false sense of security, a threat to small business innovation, and a lack of adaptability.

California is at the forefront of AI regulation with the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act, Senate Bill (SB) 1047. This landmark proposal aims to ensure the safe and responsible development of large-scale artificial intelligence systems (AI). In a recent virtual event hosted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Carnegie), experts discussed the potential impacts of this bill on both innovation and safety in the tech sector. Moderated by the founding director of Carnegie California Ian Klaus, the panel explored the pros and cons of SB 1047, with the debate highlighting the complexity of AI governance.

Public Opinion and Concerns

A recent survey of Californians reflected mixed sentiments: 50% of respondents expressed concerns about AI’s risks, while 35% were optimistic about its benefits. This tension underscores the ongoing debate between prioritizing safety and fostering innovation. SB 1047, which seeks to establish safety protocols for frontier AI models, addresses this balance. The legislation would require developers of advanced AI systems to follow strict safeguards, including cybersecurity measures and whistleblower protections, to prevent harms such as cyberattacks or infrastructure damage.

Support for SB 1047

Proponents like Dan Hendrycks, director at the Center for AI Safety, argue that SB 1047 is crucial and timely, a claim that is supported by leading AI researchers such as Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio. Hendrycks emphasized that the bill targets only the largest companies which have significant resources, ensuring they implement safety measures without stifling smaller startups. Ketan Ramakrishnan, associate professor at Yale Law School, added that the bill builds on tort law and incentivizes AI developers to explore risks while offering transparency and robust whistleblower protections. He explained: “If these risks are real and serious and around the corner, then the idea that we should simply wait, muddle along, without incremental clarification of the existing law…that doesn’t make any sense.” He added, “What this bill does is it facilitates what is already going on in the industry [...] understanding risks […] and being careful before we plunge ahead.”

Opposition Voices

On the other side, critics like Ion Stoica, co-founder of Databricks, voiced concerns that the bill introduces additional liabilities for all developers, not just the largest companies. Stoica warned that placing thresholds on AI development could slow down innovation, especially in open-source projects. Lauren Wagner, an adviser to the Data & Trust Alliance representing opposition from startups and tech firms, argued that the legislation is premature, pointing out that the European Union took years to pass its AI regulations, and more time is needed to fully understand the impact of such laws. Wagner argued, “Major companies have come out against SB 1047, Open AI, hundreds of startups […] There’s too much uncertainty and we’re too early in the process.”

The Path Forward

Despite these differing viewpoints, panelist Jon Bateman from Carnegie observed that the debate feels familiar, echoing past regulatory battles in other industries. He suggested that while AI is a unique technology, the core challenge remains the same: how to regulate without stifling progress. SB 1047 is seen as a pivotal moment in shaping AI policy in the U.S. and could set a precedent for international standards. “AI is unique, but it's also in another respect just another software, and software as a whole is largely a fairly unregulated domain,” said Bateman. He ended by encouraging policymakers to “embrace the uncertainty of this moment and legislate or not legislate in a flexible manner.”

With bipartisan support, SB 1047 is on track to pass in California, potentially influencing AI regulation nationwide and internationally. The bill, while divisive, represents a critical effort to ensure AI development remains safe without stifling innovation in this rapidly evolving field.

The owner of this website has made a commitment to accessibility and inclusion, please report any problems that you encounter using the contact form on this website. This site uses the WP ADA Compliance Check plugin to enhance accessibility. Skip to content