In this year alone, the U.S. has had a myriad of natural hazards worsened by climate change: the earliest recorded Category 5 hurricane to make landfall; floods throughout the country; record-breaking heat everywhere; tornadoes in the Midwest; and wildfires in the West. The La Nina weather pattern is expected to arrive soon, which is likely to fuel storms in the Atlantic during this year’s hurricane season.

Climate change amplifies the frequency, duration and intensity of extreme weather events. It can cause all kinds of disruptions and health hazards while driving up expenses like heating, cooling and homeowners insurance.

Get hammered enough by amplified weather events and you might wonder if there’s somewhere a little less hazard-prone to live. While there is no place on Earth that is immune to the impact of climate change, some places are less exposed to risk than others.

Last year, NerdWallet examined federal data and found that most of the fastest-growing places in the U.S. are also at high risk for natural hazards that are exacerbated by climate change. This year, we explored which places — in this case, counties — are least likely to feel the impact of natural hazards.

Isolation doesn’t guarantee fewer risks — just fewer people

If you rank places only by Federal Emergency Management Agency rating, the counties in the U.S. with the lowest risks are the places with the fewest people.

At the top of that list is Loving County in North Texas, where just 64 people reside — the least populous county in the country. No. 2 is Kalawao, Hawaii, which was originally established as an area of forced isolation for people with Hansen’s disease, or what was once more colloquially known as a leper colony. And No. 3 is Keweenaw, Michigan, a peninsula containing a national park where, as the county’s website says, you can “find solitude in the pristine, remote wilderness while sharing trails with the island’s moose and wolves.”

However, solitude doesn’t make for the best measure of risk from natural hazards. FEMA’s risk index takes population into account as part of social and community risk when it makes its risk designations — it stands to reason that the fewer the people, the lower the risk. But, of course, the natural hazards are still there: North Texas isn’t immune from extreme heat, tornadoes or extreme thunderstorms, for example. A Hawaiian island won’t be immune from a hurricane, earthquake, flash flood, wildfire or tsunami. And any area that is designated a peninsula, like Keweenaw, Michigan, is highly likely to be flood-prone.

While FEMA’s National Risk Index measures current risk, it must be noted that extreme weather effects are projected to worsen as the planet continues to warm on our current trajectory, and in coming decades, coastal flooding will increase as sea levels rise.

Note also that FEMA’s ratings consider not only the kinds of events that can be worsened by climate change (floods, droughts, wildfires, storms), but also natural hazards that aren’t affected by climate change, like earthquakes and volcanoes.

What midsize counties have the lowest climate change risks?

To get a better picture of what might make an area least vulnerable to natural hazards and still boast the creature comforts of basic infrastructure, NerdWallet set a population control of at least 100,000 people. It includes the annual cost of living in 2023 dollars, according to the Economic Policy Institute’s Family Budget Calculator for households comprising two adults and two children.

What most populated counties have the lowest climate change risks?

People migrate to some of the most populated areas in the country for obvious reasons, like the availability of housing, jobs, entertainment and a desire for proximity to lots of other people.

Among the counties with populations above 1 million residents, here are the counties where the risk of natural hazards is lowest. The analysis also includes the annual cost of living in 2023 dollars, according to the Economic Policy Institute’s Family Budget Calculator for households with two adults and two children.

No matter where you live, climate change will cost you

The terrible truth about climate change is that even if you uproot your life and move to a place with low risks of natural hazards, intense weather events are still likely to find you. For example, most of the relatively high risks in midsize counties have to do with winter weather. In some places, winters are becoming less severe, but in others, they are worsening. And one big event could be devastating.

In the U.S., extreme weather events cost nearly $150 billion per year, according to The Fifth National Climate Assessment, a report released in November 2023 by the federal government. That sum doesn’t account for additional costs including loss of life, health care costs, or damages to what are known as ecosystem services — for example, food, water, timber and oil. There’s a billion-dollar weather or climate disaster in the U.S. every three weeks, on average, the report found. That is compared with one every four months in the 1980s.

Despite all this, nearly half of all Americans (45%) don’t believe that climate change will affect them personally, according to a December 2023 survey by Yale University. So how about what a single person pays: Issues related to climate change will cost a child born in the U.S. in 2024 at least $500,000 — and as much as $1 million — over their lifetime due to indirect and direct costs (such as missed cost-of-living increases and lower earnings), according to an April analysis conducted by ICF, a global consulting firm, and released by Consumer Reports.

Some current and future costs are likely to include:

• Homeowners insurance. If you’re a homeowner, you know all too well how heightened weather-related disaster risks play into your homeowners insurance premiums. In certain places where risk is highest, private insurers won’t provide coverage for floods and wildfires.
• Home maintenance, upgrades and safeguards against climate risks. These could include installing a sump pump or resealing basement walls; upgrading insulation and windows; adding or enhancing heating or ventilation systems; roofing upgrades and more.
• Energy bills. With increased heating and cooling needs come higher energy bills.
• Food. Weather changes present challenges to food production, which could lower supply and increase prices.
• Higher taxes due to more government spending and lower government revenues. The Consumer Reports report cites reduced personal and corporation earnings that lead to less tax revenue combined with higher expenses that the government must take on for health care and infrastructure damages.
• Lower income. The Consumer Reports analysis cites a possible decrease in labor hours due to extreme weather, which may lead to lower earnings.

Climate migration within the U.S. is already happening. A 2021 survey by the real estate website Redfin found that among those who plan to move, half say climate change-fueled conditions like natural disasters and extreme temperatures are factors in their decision. There are expenses associated with uprooting your life and moving elsewhere — and those aren’t costs that everyone can afford.

Anna Helhoski writes for NerdWallet. Email: anna@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @AnnaHelhoski.

The article You Can’t Escape Climate Change, but in Some Areas, Risk Is Lower originally appeared on NerdWallet.

These pearl-clutching (or more aptly, Pringles-clutching) reports are likely premature. That’s largely because weight-loss drug usage isn’t yet widespread enough to make a difference to the food economy.

As more weight-loss drugs are developed and approved by the FDA, that could all change. But the stars must align, and in this case that means: Shortages cease and there are enough injectables to go around; the price comes down to an affordable level for the average consumer; health insurance begins covering these drugs for weight loss; the known side effects prove tolerable enough for long-term use; and no new dire side effects emerge that deter consumers entirely.

In other words, there are a lot of “ifs and maybes” involved that make experts like Barry Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, skeptical that the drugs will have a significant economic effect anytime soon.

“It’s not going to have an impact on the population unless the drugs get brought down in price. Until then, you’re not going to see a monster impact in our country,” says Popkin. “It really needs to be in the hundreds of millions of consumers to have a monster impact. Even if out of 300 million consumers, a million take those drugs, it’s a tiny drop in the bucket for the food industry.”

The barriers to entry and questions about the risks of long-term use mean these drugs are unlikely to leave a mark on either highly profitable junk food companies or the broader food economy in the near future.

How these new weight-loss drugs work

The new class of weight-loss drugs are glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) drugs. The drugs include semaglutides like Ozempic and Wegovy, which are made by Novo Nordisk, a Danish pharmaceutical company; tirzepatides like Mounjaro, which is owned by Eli Lilly; and liraglutides like Saxenda, which is owned by Novo Nordisk.

GLP-1 drugs make your desire to eat plummet by mimicking a naturally occurring hormone that, when entering the body, sends the message to your brain that you’re full. It also simultaneously slows down the digestive system.

The effect is far more dramatic than the digestive-tract-churning teas that weight loss influencers sling on social media: The Mayo Clinic cites studies that found, depending on the drug, users can drop anywhere from 10.5 to 15.8 pounds. The weight loss can be even higher — about 33.7 pounds — for those who combine the drug with lifestyle changes.

Health insurance rarely covers the cost of these drugs, at least for weight-loss purposes. Ozempic may be the best-known GLP-1, but it isn’t actually approved for weight loss, as it contains a lower dose of semaglutide than Wegovy, which is FDA-approved as a treatment for obesity. Paradoxically, Ozempic is usually covered by health insurance because it’s usually covered for non-weight-loss purposes, while Wegovy is less likely to get the green light since it is explicitly a weigh-loss drug.

GLP-1 injections are done weekly and are intended for long-term use, which means if you stop taking the drug you could gain weight again. The drugs also have the potential for unpleasant-to-serious side effects. The most typical reactions are gastrointestinal problems that could be severe, including the potential for ileus, a condition in which the intestines temporarily stop working, according to the FDA.

An effective, at-home injectable weight-loss drug is unsurprisingly appealing to American consumers who want to drop weight fast. Prescriptions for some of the most popular weight-loss drugs jumped 300% in less than three years, according to Trilliant Health, a health care analytics firm.

Fewer cravings could be a blow to Big Snacks

Throughout October, the GLP-1 hype in the media led to fears that America’s newly resolute dieters would put a dent in the junk food industry’s profits — which led to scrambling among snack-makers to reassure their investors:

• On Oct. 2, the CEO of Kellanova — the maker of snack foods like Eggo waffles, Pop-Tarts, Rice Krispies Treats, Pringles and Cheez-Its — told Bloomberg that the company was studying how new weight-loss drugs alter dietary behaviors in order to “mitigate” any possible impact.
• On Oct. 3, U.K.-based Barclays Investment Bank recommended that investors short sell stocks for junk food companies.
• On Oct. 4, it was widely reported that Walmart found that customers who filled GLP-1 prescriptions subsequently spent less on food purchases.
• On Oct. 11, the CEO of PepsiCo — maker of Pepsi sodas, along with snacks like Doritos and Cheetos — reportedly said during an earnings call that so far there’s been a negligible impact on the business, but they’re keeping watch for any potential headwinds.
• On Oct. 19, Nestle reportedly said during an earnings briefing that it was working on food products specifically intended to meet consumers’ appetite-suppressed needs as weight-loss drugs take hold in the market.
• On Oct. 30, shares of Krispy Kreme Inc., the eponymous doughnut creator, tumbled after analysts expressed concern about the impact of GLP-1 on demand for the confections.

All of this alarm-sounding may be overstated, for now, but isn’t entirely unwarranted: Among those who are using GLP-1s, nascent evidence suggests that lowered appetites lead to fewer grocery purchases, in general, and fewer purchases of snacks, in particular.

Consumers who used GLP-1 medications and saw 15 pounds or more of weight loss have cut their grocery purchasing by 11%, while those who used the drugs and lost less than 15 pounds reduced purchases by 7.7%, according to a Dec. 5 survey analysis by Numerator, a data and tech company servicing the market research industry. Snack purchasing declined by 8.8% among the group that lost 15 pounds or more.

But these slimming drugs come at a hefty price

Even if consumers want to curb their appetites and drop weight, they might not be able to afford to. GLP-1 drugs are expensive and, due to a shortage, both Wegovy and Ozempic have limited availability in certain dosages, according to the FDA.

An assessment of GLP-1 injectable drug prices worldwide, released Aug. 17 by KFF, an independent health policy research, polling and journalism organization, found that the typical price for Ozempic is higher in the U.S. than in other countries. The typical price for Ozempic is $936 per month ($11,232 annually) while Wegovy is $1,349 per month ($16,188 annually).

Health insurance rarely covers the cost, at least for weight-loss purposes. Medicare doesn’t cover any prescription drugs for weight loss, but Ozempic is covered for diabetes.

Be it the high price tag or the laundry list of side effects, the viability of long-term GLP-1 use is up in the air: An analysis of pharmacy and medical claims data by Prime Therapeutics, a pharmacy benefits manager, found that only 32% of 4,255 patients who had been prescribed GLP-1s continued taking the drug a year after the initial prescription.

“What we don’t know, and I don’t think we’re going to know for a while, is how long people keep taking these drugs,” says Marion Nestle, a molecular biologist, nutritionist, New York University professor emeritus and public health advocate who blogs about food politics. “The story is that you have to take them forever or the weight is going to come back.”

Experts say snack food giants bear responsibility for obesity

The current crop of GLP-1 drugs are costly to consumers, but arguably, so is obesity. The condition is prevalent in the U.S., with one in three adults considered obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For children, the rate is 1 in 5, and those who are obese in childhood are more likely to remain obese into adulthood.

Americans with obesity pay an estimated $1,861 in excess medical costs annually, according to a 2021 report by researchers at Harvard University and George Washington University. Severe obesity is even more expensive: $3,097 in excess cost annually per adult.

“For many people, losing five or 10 pounds is virtually impossible,” says Nestle (the molecular biologist, not the company). “They can’t do it because the social environment in which they live is such that food is available all the time. Everybody’s eating it and they’re expected to eat it.”

Popkin says the roots of the food industry’s role in obesity began in the latter half of the 20th century as global food companies began to “pull apart, almost molecule-by-molecule, the components that go into food and reconstructed them into what we now call ultra-processed foods.” He adds, “Back then we just called them junk food. But they did it to a large component of the modern packaged food supply.”

Both Popkin and Nestle say the snack food industry is directly responsible for encouraging people to eat larger portions of all food, as well as ultra-processed snacks.

“The food industry went through a deliberate campaign in the 1980s and ’90s to encourage people to snack,” says Nestle, adding “They created this situation, and they’ve got to deal with the consequences. I’m not very sympathetic.”

Cheaper GLP-1s are on the way

GLP-1 drugs are likely to get cheaper, and the wait for an affordable version may not be too long. If insurers begin covering the drugs, it would likely lead to widespread usage that could change the food industry.

Nestle says, “If enough of these versions get out there, there’s going to be competition. Once the studies show without question that people’s health improves, it’s very hard for health insurance companies to say they’re not going to pay for these drugs.”

Eli Lilly, which already produces the GLP-1 drug Mounjaro, recently introduced a cheaper weight-loss drug called Zepbound that’s now available at pharmacies in the U.S., retailing for about $1,060 per month ($12,720 annually), according to the company. That’s 21% lower than the out-of-pocket price for Wegovy.

A less expensive GLP-1 alternative could spur other pharmaceutical companies to introduce their own cheaper versions. Pharmaceutical companies have the incentive to develop and make drugs widely available; recent projections by Goldman Sachs Research assert that GLP-1 drug revenue could reach $100 billion annually in the next decade.

The demand is already there: Nearly half of adults (45%) say they’d be interested in taking a safe and effective weight loss drug, according to a July 2023 KFF Health Tracking Poll.

Impacts to the food industry might not be what you expect

Out-of-pocket costs, lack of health care coverage, shortages and potential for side effects of GLP-1s may be enough to curb any immediate concerns within the snack food industry’s U.S. operations.

And even if GLP-1s do become more accessible and practical for long-term use, Popkin says worldwide companies — like grocers and the biggest food producers — are less likely to see much of a dent to their businesses.

“Manufacturers like Walmart, Aldi and Trader Joe’s are selling in every country in the world. It’s not just Europe and the U.S., but in the third world, too,” says Popkins. “These are huge chains. They could stand to lose in the U.S., but they’re not going to. And they might even gain.”

The gains could come from the most expensive items in the grocery store — the food around the edges of the supermarket, such as produce and meat, which are the primary profit source in the food industry, says Popkin. “So for the food sector, if people are shifting out of the middle of the aisles to the edges of the store, they’re gaining more. If the world eats more fruits and vegetables, farmers gain more income and grocery stores would make more money.”

As for snack food companies, how might they respond to widespread use of GLP-1s? It’s possible that they’ll change the portions or what’s in the products to meet consumers where they are, says Nestle, adding, “Maybe they’ll market smaller portions — now there’s a concept.”

The article Will Ozempic Change the Food Industry? Not Yet, but Give It Time originally appeared on NerdWallet.

A new analysis by NerdWallet finds that the majority of the fastest-growing places in the U.S. are also high-risk areas for natural hazards.

“Extreme heat and humidity is going to be a reality pretty much no matter where you move,” says Alex De Sherbinin, senior research scientist, deputy director and adjunct professor of climate at the Columbia Climate School at Columbia University in New York. “But life-threatening damages from those kinds of things are going to be more restricted to some locales than others.”

You’re more likely to experience extreme weather right now than at any other time of year. That’s because the U.S. is in its “danger season,” the period between May and October when North America experiences its worst climate impacts, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy organization.

The summer, so far, has been brutal. June was the hottest month on record for the entire planet until July broke that record, according to the Copernicus Climate Change Service, a program organized and funded by the European Union, member states and related agencies.

In the U.S., the South baked from oppressive heat; the surface water temperature off the coast of Florida reached 101 degrees Fahrenheit; and Death Valley sweltered at 128 degrees Fahrenheit — the hottest day on record. In addition, floods drowned parts of New England, and Canada’s worst-ever wildfire season is still expected to choke the northern half of the U.S with smoke periodically until the first snowfall.

These are just the immediate effects of our climate emergency. Predicted long-term effects include sea-level rise by as much as 10 to 12 inches in the 30-year period between 2020 and 2050, the same rise that was measured over a 100-year period from 1920 to 2020, according to a 2022 report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

___

Fast-growing places are at high risk for worsening climate conditions

Among the 10 fastest-growing counties, two are considered at very high risk for natural hazards and eight are considered at relatively high risk for natural hazards. None of the fastest-growing counties are considered at relatively moderate risk or low risk.

A person waiting for the subway wears a filtered mask as smoky haze from wildfires in Canada blankets a neighborhood on June 7 in the Bronx borough of New York City. (Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

For context, of the 3,231 counties the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) risk index covers, 15 are considered at very high risk (0.46%); 129 are considered at relatively high risk (3.99%); and 397 are considered at relatively moderate risk (12.29%).

All of the fastest-growing counties are located in the western or southern parts of the U.S., including six counties in Texas, three in Florida and one in Arizona.

Each of the counties carries its own potential hazards: hurricanes in all three counties in Florida; heat waves in Maricopa County, Arizona; and a near-biblical assortment of risks in the Texas counties, including cold waves, heat waves, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires and more.

There have been 4,762 federally declared disasters in the U.S. since 1953, according to FEMA data. Each of the fastest-growing counties has had its fair share of federally declared disasters in the last 70 years. Hillsborough County, Florida, had the most events (39), followed closely by Lee County, Florida (37), and Montgomery County, Texas (36). In each of these counties, tropical storms were the cause of the disasters.

Warming sea surface temperatures due to climate change cause hurricanes that are larger, have more intense wind speeds and greater precipitation, according to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, an environmental policy think tank.

___

What happens when you move to a high-risk area

In general, moving from one place to another is heavily age-dependent, says De Sherbinin. Younger people tend to be more mobile as they establish their careers, and tend to settle down when they have a family. Older people migrate at the end of their careers because they want to retire somewhere near family or have amenities they value most.

“These classical motivations have been relatively impervious to the sense that there is a growing risk that we face as a society,” says De Sherbinin.

Prioritizing your lifestyle and career preferences over avoiding extreme ecological risks is simply human nature, says De Sherbinin. Why? People don’t necessarily think catastrophe will happen to them.

De Sherbinin says when you move to an area that’s highly vulnerable to climate change effects, the rationalization usually goes something like this: “‘I’m not going to be the one to lose my house over the cliff into the Pacific Ocean, because I’m just lucky.’”

The U.S. tends to be an outlier when it comes to people moving into areas where risks are really high, says De Sherbinin, who studies the human aspects of global environmental change. But the higher the risk of natural hazards, the more vulnerable the population is to direct and secondary impacts of weather events. Direct impacts are more immediate bodily harm and property harm, while secondary impacts are typically longer-term, such as economic loss, social unrest and potentially a retreat from the area.

As stated earlier, climate change is worsening the likelihood and the extreme nature of weather events, which means those high risks may manifest in a real way and more often.

Andrea Washington weeps after pouring water on herself in the Hungry Hill neighborhood on July 11 in Austin, Texas. Washington began to cry as she spoke about the heat and her health. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

For example, the extreme heat conditions in Texas recently were made significantly more likely by climate change, according to the U.S. Climate Shift Index (CSI) Map. Intense heat in Houston, the county seat for Harris County — the second fastest-growing county according to the Census Bureau — is now five times more common due to climate change, according to the CSI Map. Without climate change, extreme heat would otherwise be rare for that area, according to the CSI scale.

About 80% of the U.S. population lives in cities where “heat island” effects exacerbate extreme heat conditions. Among the 44 major cities analyzed by Climate Central, a nonprofit science and news organization, nine have more than 1 million people who feel at least 8 degrees Fahrenheit hotter due to the urban environment. Among those nine cities, three are in the fastest-growing counties listed in this analysis. Houston is on the list, as well as Phoenix in Maricopa County, Arizona, and San Antonio in Bexar County, Texas.

___

Weather-battered places may become uninsurable

Moving to an area that’s at high risk for natural hazards may cost you more than you bargained for, in more ways than one, beginning with property insurance.

Insurance giants State Farm and Allstate recently announced that they’re no longer issuing new homeowner policies in California. State Farm cites “rapidly growing catastrophe exposure” among its reasons for pulling back.

Loretta Worters, vice president of media relations for the Insurance Information Institute, says the industry is at a pivotal point as a whole. Insurers are developing strategies to better understand the risks of extreme weather events, but it’s getting more difficult to price risk, she says. It also costs consumers more to get insurance because the risks are so great, Worters says.

“Everybody wants this idyllic kind of lifestyle; we want to be on the coast or we want to be in these beautiful, serene areas where there’s lots of shrubbery and privacy,” says Worters. “But you can’t get fire trucks in — into areas that are prone to wildfires. A lot of these people’s homes are situated such that it’s hard for the trucks to get up there because they’re on winding roads.”

California isn’t the only state where insurance may be hard to come by due to chronic weather events. Flood-prone states have long felt the sting of rising rates and difficulty getting coverage. A recently rolled-out change to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is making it even more expensive. The program is often the only one available in flood-prone areas.

FEMA says the rate increases, known as “Risk Rating 2.0,” will enable the agency to distribute premiums and set rates that are more equitable than in the past. The new methodology assesses more variables than it used to like flood frequency, types of flooding, the property’s distance to a water source as well as its elevation, and costs to rebuild.

On June 1, a group of 10 states joined a suit led by Louisiana Attorney Gen. Jeff Landry against FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration in an attempt to block steep rate increases to the NFIP that went fully into effect on April 1. The states — which include Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia — argue the higher rates could force policyholders to drop their coverage or end up surrendering their homes and businesses.

Insurance costs have climbed in the last few decades: Insured catastrophe losses have increased by nearly 700% since the 1980s when adjusted for inflation, according to the Insurance Information Institute. And in 2021, insured losses from natural catastrophes totaled $130 billion — 76% higher than the 21st-century average.

If more insurers pull out of areas due to chronic weather conditions like wildfires and hurricanes, areas could become astronomically expensive to insure, if not altogether uninsurable. Fewer private insurers available means homeowners will likely need to turn to Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) plans. All states have some type of a plan, which is instituted at the state level and backed by private insurers licensed to write insurance in the state. All of the companies have a proportionate share in any profits, losses and expenses of the plans.

FAIR plans usually offer only basic coverage and are used “as a last resort,” according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), a nonprofit regulatory support organization.

Worters, of the Insurance Information Institute, says FAIR plans are likely to have higher deductibles and less coverage, and they may be more difficult to obtain. Still, they’re widely used: 10% of Florida homeowners have insurance through the state’s FAIR plan, the Citizens Property Insurance Corp., as of March 2022, according to the NAIC.

People kayak up and down the flooded waters of Elm Street on July 11 in Montpelier, Vermont. (Photo by Kylie Cooper/Getty Images)

Rising rates are a source of anxiety and frustration for policyholders, says Worters, but she adds that the insurance industry isn’t the only party that must respond to worsening climate conditions. Property risks can be mitigated, she says, through policy and property safeguards such as building codes in hurricane-prone areas or defensible space requirements — buffers around property — in wildfire-prone areas.

“We’re insuring it, but if you continue to live in these areas and you don’t take any measures to safeguard your home or your business, it just makes things worse.”

Stephanie Pincetl, founding director and professor at the California Center for Sustainable Communities at UCLA, says changing how we live will be crucial to combating the impacts of climate change. “I think that we need to realize the American pattern of land use contributes 100% towards climate change and also has lots and lots of other ramifications. And we have not been dealing with that,” says Pincetl. “We have large houses, we have many bathrooms, we have private gardens and so on. And those are inherently energy-intensive, land-intensive and water-intensive.”

___

Will people migrate due to climate change?

If climate conditions worsen in your area, you’ll inevitably be faced with this conundrum: Should I stay, or should I go?

The answer to that question will largely depend on if you’re responding to an ongoing climate issue or you’re forced to respond to an event, says Andrew Jakabovics, vice president for policy development at Enterprise Community Partners and co-author of “Housing Markets and Climate Migration,” by the Urban Institute, an economic and social policy think tank.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an independent think tank, says climate change-fueled disasters are increasing migration worldwide. CFR finds most migration occurs within national borders, but cross-border migration is expected to rise. At the end of 2022, 8.7 million people worldwide — 675,000 in the U.S. alone — were living in internal displacement due to weather-related disasters, according to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC). From 2008 to 2022, 11.1 million people were displaced in the U.S. due to weather-related disasters, the IDMC found.

Chronically worsening conditions — annual wildfires, hurricanes, heat waves and floods — may not necessarily destroy your property, but they’re certainly going to impact your life. Experts say extreme weather events are the ones that make it more difficult to stand your ground.

“We’re not well-evolved in terms of our reasoning to kind of take into account low-probability but very high-impact events,” says De Sherbinin. “We can react when something massive happens and decide, ‘Oh, God, that was really way too much,’ but we’re not well-evolved to address things that are kind of gradually changing over time.”

A woman drinks among sand dunes near a sign warning of extreme heat danger on the eve of a day that could set a new world heat record in Death Valley National Park on July 15 near Furnace Creek, California. (Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)

And for people who already live in high-risk areas, their single biggest investment is their home, says De Sherbinin. And they’re not going to leave just “because flood risk has risen from one in 100 years to one in 10 years,” he says. “They just roll the dice and figure that out later. Or they’ll lobby to get their government to build the necessary infrastructure to protect them.”

When people do leave, they rarely go far. The Conversation, a nonprofit news organization largely written by academics and researchers, mapped out where people move following flooding disasters through FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program from 1990 to 2017. It’s a buyout program that pays homeowners to purchase and demolish flood-damaged homes. The data shows that no matter where the flooding occurred, most homeowners who took a buyout stayed close by — just 7.4 miles was the median distance. Three in four people stayed within 20 miles of their original homes.

Among those who do leave, typically familial ties and communal ties drive relocation choices, says Jakabovics. “If you’re leaving the island of Puerto Rico, there was a kind of a preexisting population in parts of Florida. That was by no means the only geography that people moved to, but there was a concentration there,” says Jakabovics.

There are also people who, even in the event of a disaster, want to return to their homes because, understandably, it’s their home. At that point, habitability becomes a question of safety compliance, insurance and more. If you’re not a homeowner and you want to go back, you may face an even bigger challenge.

“If you’re a renter, right, you have very little control over the physical state of the property. And so, it depends on what the landlord has to or can do,” says Jakabovics. “We know that post-Hurricane Katrina, a lot of the rental stock was uninhabitable and some of the new insurance requirements and things like that made it very, very difficult to keep those properties habitable.”

Of course, the longer you wait to leave a high-risk area, the more challenging it might be. “Instead of a kind of orderly, thoughtful process, which Americans have a very hard time with, people will be losing their shirts,” says Pincetl.“They won’t be able to sell their properties.”

___

Is anywhere really safe to live?

Nowhere is entirely safe to live, but some areas will be less prone to certain disasters than others. Heat is most extreme in the southern states, and especially in the most arid locations; flooding is worse along the coasts and near large bodies of water; and tornadoes are more common in the Great Plains. The San Andreas fault stretches along the entire California coast, while other, smaller fault lines are spread throughout the west. The highest-threat volcanoes sit along the West Coast of the continental U.S., as well as Alaska and Hawaii. No place is immune.

Whether you can go somewhere “safer” will depend on your financial situation. For millions of Americans who live in poverty, the more relevant question is likely to be, “Can I afford to go?”

Populations that are more often affected by and less able to withstand the health impacts of climate change include older adults, children, low-income communities and some communities of color, according to a 2018 government report known as the “Fourth National Climate Assessment.”

Leaving one area for another will always be easier for those with the financial resources to do so. When extreme weather or a natural disaster hits, those with greater socioeconomic challenges have less ability to leave. And they’ll also bear the brunt of worsening weather conditions to come.

___

Methodology

NerdWallet drew the list of fastest-growing counties using 2021-2022 data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the most recent available data set. The fastest-growing counties in this list were limited to the top 10. The fastest-growing counties are those with the highest numeric population increases over a set period. The 10 counties were then matched with their corresponding risks using the Federal Emergency Management Agency National Risk Index and FEMA’s historical data for disaster declarations from 1953 onward.

In the opening weekend of “Barbie,” the highly anticipated film directed by Greta Gerwig brought in $162 million. That’s the highest-grossing opening weekend ever for a film directed by a woman and the 20th highest-grossing film opening weekend of all time, according to Box Office Mojo by IMDB Pro, a site that tracks box office revenue.

In recent years, the theater-going experience seemed kaput. Dwindling attendance was largely due to a combination of pandemic closures and the proliferation of streaming services offering more film entertainment than you could consume in a lifetime. Box office declines led to closures: 2,165 screens in the U.S. closed from 2019 to 2022 — about 5.3% — according to a March report by the Cinema Foundation.

Theaters endeavored to make the movie-going experience enticing again through renovations and expanded food and alcohol options. Still, revenue remained lower than before the pandemic: $7.4 billion total gross in 2022, compared with $11.4 billion in 2019, according to Box Office Mojo.

The dire state of theater attendance is what makes “Barbie” so remarkable. When compared with the all-time top opening weekends for summer movies, “Barbie” came in at No. 10, according to Box Office Mojo. For context, while “Barbie” brought in $162 million, the highest-grossing opening weekend ever was for “Jurassic World” (2015), with $208.8 million. “Barbie” did outearn franchise follow-ups “Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom” and “Jurassic World Dominion,” as well as the “Dark Knight” and “Spider-Man” movies.

___

The hype machine fueled Barbie’s success

“Barbie” tells the story of Barbie, played by Margot Robbie, who lives in Barbie Land with many other Barbies and Kens. An existential crisis leads her and Ken, played by Ryan Gosling, to travel to the real world in search of purpose.

Unlike the doll’s typical audience, “Barbie” isn’t meant for small children — and neither is the marketing. The collaborations for “Barbie” achieved ubiquity in the weeks before the film’s release, through Barbie apparel, Barbie home decor, Barbie pool floats, Barbie candles, Barbie jewelry, Barbie cosmetics, Barbie dog clothes, Barbie hair products, Barbie fast food and much more.

Meanwhile, the stars’ public relations tour included Robbie giving a Barbie dream house tour for Architectural Digest magazine and re-creating classic Barbie looks on the red carpet. Gosling showcased his affection for Ken (dubbed “Kenergy”) in interviews. The rest of the PR tour was halted by the SAG-AFTRA strike, which has brought Hollywood productions virtually to a standstill.

The release of “Barbie” was timed well for very-online consumers. The film’s opening on July 21 landed on the same day as the release of Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer” — a biographical thriller about J. Robert Oppenheimer’s work on the Manhattan Project that led to the first nuclear bombs. The bizarre juxtaposition of the two very different films by critically acclaimed directors quickly led to a social media phenomenon: Barbenheimer.

The Barbenheimer sensation fed film discourse for months leading up to the films’ releases, sparking bootleg merchandise and birthing memes blending the plastic blonde bombshell with Oppenheimer, portrayed in the film by Cillian Murphy, and a mushroom cloud. A popular meme is the real Oppenheimer’s most notorious quote, originally from the Hindu scripture Bhagavad Gita, “Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds,” but styled in Barbie typeface and a hot pink hue.

The social media fervor challenged moviegoers to see both films in succession, spurring theaters to market double-feature ticket packages. The theater giant AMC reported that 87,000 members of its loyalty program AMC Stubs booked tickets to see both films on the same day.

“Oppenheimer” cashed in on Barbenheimer, too, bringing in $80.5 million in its first weekend, according to Box Office Mojo. It’s the first time that two movies amassed $80 million or more on the same opening weekend, and it was the fourth highest-grossing box office weekend ever, according to multiple reports.

___

Can ‘Barbie’ success be replicated?

A summer of blockbusters might remind people just what they’re missing while they’re scrolling at home. In addition to “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer,” the action movie “Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning, Part One” was released on July 12 and set a five-day opening record for the franchise with $80 million.

There are more upcoming opportunities to draw in audiences: 40% more wide movie releases are expected in 2023 compared with 2022, according to the National Cinema Foundation.

It’s possible “Barbie” could start a trend among studios to spend big bucks on marketing in order to keep bringing people back into theaters. Then again, a big budget doesn’t necessarily work if the movie isn’t ultimately well-received. Another Gosling-led film, “Blade Runner 2049,” which was released in 2017, had an estimated $130 million marketing budget but still flopped at the box office.

Mattel is banking on Barbie’s profits as a signal that consumers want more nostalgic toy-related content. The company launched a film division in 2018 and has plans for an entire Mattel cinematic universe, including a reported 45 films in development based on other classic toys like American Girl, Polly Pocket, Hot Wheels, Masters of the Universe, Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots, the card game Uno and even the Magic 8 Ball.

Will any of those films be nearly as successful as “Barbie”? To quote that Magic 8 Ball: Ask again later.

Federal student loan default occurs after nine months without a payment. Late notices turn into collection calls, and your creditor – the government – can take you to court and even garnish your paycheck. Once you default, you’ll no longer qualify for repayment plans that could make payments manageable.

Understanding your options can help reduce the risk of default.

How veterans end up with student debt

“Some student are unsure how to fully access their benefits or what programs they’re eligible for — that could lead them to borrow and leave benefits on the table,” says Colleen Campbell, associate director for postsecondary education at the Center for American Progress, a public policy think tank.

Veterans often take out student loans after exhausting their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, which cover tuition and fees and include a monthly housing allowance and money for books. Not everyone uses their GI Bill benefits, and some don’t qualify for 100 percent tuition coverage.

Additionally, veterans borrow more frequently when attending for-profit schools than public colleges, according to an analysis by Veterans Education Success, a nonprofit that provides free legal assistance to student veterans.

Why veterans are more vulnerable to default

Veterans tend to be older than traditional undergraduates and are likelier to be employed while in school, says Kathy Payea, senior research fellow with Veterans Education Success. They also may be supporting families.

These conditions can make it harder for veteran students to finish college on time. Students who fall below half-time attendance status have to start paying back their loans.

Additionally, due to the factors above, some veterans may be attracted to for-profit online college programs that often don’t deliver, Payea says.

Veteran borrowers often default after attending for-profit college programs: One-third of a cohort of student veterans who enrolled in for-profit schools in 2003-04 defaulted on their student loans in the 12 years after, according to an analysis of federal data by Veterans Education Success.

If you’re facing repayment challenges, here’s how to ease the burden.

Get help with repayment

All federal student loan borrowers have access to repayment options beyond the standard 10-year plan. Income-driven repayment, for example, caps your monthly payment at a portion of your income and extends the length of repayment.

Current service members also may get repayment help through branch-specific repayment programs or through the Department of Defense. The Navy, for example, offers an incentive that pays off up to $65,000 of a sailor’s federal student loans in their first three years of active-duty service.

Ask your designated military personnel officer to find out how to access these benefits.

Pause loan payments

Military deferment allows borrowers to postpone loan repayment while on active duty and immediately after. This applies to federal and private loans.

In addition to military deferment, all borrowers can get in-school deferment and forbearance in case of financial hardship. Contact your lender or servicer to learn how.

Get loan forgiveness

Military service can qualify federal loan borrowers for Public Service Loan Forgiveness, which will forgive the remainder of your loan balance after 120 qualifying payments. You must be in the military or working in the public sector while making each payment.

Borrowers who are totally and permanently disabled can have their loans discharged. The Department of Education identifies those who may be eligible for loan discharge due to disability by matching borrowers with student loans to the Veterans Affairs database. Eligible borrowers will receive application details directly from the department and can learn more on disabilitydischarge.com .

If you attend a school that closes before you finish your degree, you’re eligible for closed school loan discharge. Or if you believe you’ve been misled or defrauded by your school, you can apply for borrower defense to repayment, which, if you’re approved, will discharge your loan debt.

Reduce your interest rates

If you took out a loan before enlisting, your interest rate is capped at 6 percent while on active duty as part of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Borrowers in areas of combat or serving during national emergencies are eligible for a 0 percent interest rate. This rule applies to both federal and private loans.

This article was provided to The Associated Press by the personal finance website NerdWallet. Anna Helhoski is a writer at NerdWallet. Email: anna@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @AnnaHelhoski.

Related links

Post 9/11 GI Bill Benefits: https://benefits.va.gov/gibill/

NerdWallet: Student loan repayment options: https://nerd.me/student-loan-repayment-plans

Disability discharge: https://disabilitydischarge.com/