Climate Change and Where to Live: Which Cities Will Still Be Liveable in 2040?

Climate change is no longer a 2050 problem. It is a 2025 problem that is already reshaping where people can comfortably live, work, and raise families. If you are a professional in Lagos, Cairo, Karachi, Manila, or Mumbai, you are not reading about climate change in the abstract — you are living it. The 47°C heat waves. The flooding that paralyzes entire cities for days. The water rationing. The air quality that makes your children sick.

But here is what most climate coverage misses: the impact is not distributed evenly. Some cities are becoming dramatically less liveable, while others — often in the same countries that are building the strongest economies — are among the most climate-resilient places on Earth.

This article uses data from the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, the World Bank Climate Change Knowledge Portal, the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative (ND-GAIN), and city-level climate risk assessments to map out where livability is heading through 2040. The picture is sobering, but it is also actionable.

The Climate Livability Index: How Cities Are Ranked

Climate livability depends on several interconnected factors. No single metric tells the whole story, but the combination of these five dimensions gives a reliable picture of long-term habitability.

Climate Livability Dimensions

Dimension	What It Measures	Why It Matters
Heat Stress	Days above 35°C, wet-bulb temperature trends	Outdoor work capacity, health risk, energy costs
Flood Risk	Frequency of major flooding events, sea-level exposure	Property damage, infrastructure disruption, displacement
Water Scarcity	Per-capita water availability, groundwater depletion rates	Basic survival, agriculture, industrial capacity
Air Quality	Annual average PM2.5, ozone exposure days	Respiratory disease, child development, quality of life
Infrastructure Resilience	Adaptation spending, drainage systems, emergency response	Ability to withstand and recover from climate events

The Cities Facing the Steepest Decline

Let's start with the difficult data. Several major cities in developing countries are on trajectories that make long-term livability increasingly challenging.

Heat Stress Projections for Major Cities (2025 vs. 2040)

City	Country	Avg Days Above 35°C (2025)	Projected Days Above 35°C (2040)	Change	Wet-Bulb 35°C Days (2040)
Karachi	Pakistan	45	78	+73%	12–18
Lagos	Nigeria	28	52	+86%	8–14
Cairo	Egypt	62	95	+53%	4–8
Manila	Philippines	38	67	+76%	22–30
Mumbai	India	36	61	+69%	18–25
Delhi	India	55	92	+67%	8–12
Dhaka	Bangladesh	32	58	+81%	24–32
Abuja	Nigeria	42	71	+69%	6–10

The wet-bulb temperature column is the most alarming. A wet-bulb temperature of 35°C is the threshold beyond which the human body cannot cool itself through sweating — prolonged exposure becomes fatal regardless of fitness level or access to shade. Manila is projected to experience 22 to 30 such days per year by 2040. Mumbai faces 18 to 25. Dhaka could see up to 32.

These are not worst-case scenarios. These are middle-of-the-road projections under the IPCC's SSP2-4.5 pathway — a scenario where emissions decline somewhat but not dramatically.

Flood Risk for Major Cities

City	Country	Population in Flood Zone	Annual Flood Damage (2024, Est.)	Projected Annual Damage (2040)	Sea Level Rise Exposure
Lagos	Nigeria	4.2 million	$4.1B	$12.5B	High (coastal, subsiding)
Manila	Philippines	3.8 million	$3.2B	$9.8B	Very High (typhoon + sea level)
Mumbai	India	5.1 million	$6.3B	$16.2B	Very High (monsoon + sea level)
Karachi	Pakistan	2.9 million	$2.8B	$8.4B	High (monsoon + coastal)
Cairo	Egypt	1.2 million	$0.9B	$3.1B	Moderate (Nile delta subsidence)
Dhaka	Bangladesh	6.8 million	$5.7B	$18.3B	Extreme (river + sea level + subsidence)

Lagos is sinking. The city is built on a lagoon system with significant portions below sea level, and land subsidence from groundwater extraction is accelerating. By 2040, the World Bank estimates that annual flood damages could triple to $12.5 billion — costs that fall disproportionately on middle-class neighborhoods that lack the drainage infrastructure of wealthier areas.

Manila faces the compound threat of intensifying typhoons and sea-level rise. The Philippines already experiences an average of 20 tropical cyclones per year, and climate models project these storms will become more intense even if their frequency does not increase.

Water Scarcity: The Slow Crisis

City	Country	Per-Capita Water (m³/year, 2025)	Projected (2040)	Status	Groundwater Depletion Rate
Cairo	Egypt	560	380	Absolute scarcity	1.2m/year
Karachi	Pakistan	750	490	Approaching scarcity	2.1m/year
Delhi	India	680	410	Approaching scarcity	1.8m/year
Lagos	Nigeria	1,100	720	Stress	0.9m/year
Manila	Philippines	1,350	890	Stress	0.7m/year
Mumbai	India	920	610	Stress approaching scarcity	1.4m/year

The United Nations defines water scarcity as below 1,000 m³ per person per year, and absolute scarcity as below 500 m³. Cairo is already in absolute scarcity territory. By 2040, Karachi and Delhi are projected to cross that threshold. For context, the average Canadian has access to approximately 80,000 m³ of renewable water per year — more than 200 times what a resident of Cairo will have in 2040.

The Cities That Will Remain Liveable

Now for the other side. Several cities in developed countries — many of which are also the strongest economic centers — are projected to remain highly liveable through 2040 and beyond.

Climate Resilience Scores: Top 20 Liveable Cities for 2040

Rank	City	Country	ND-GAIN Score	Heat Risk	Flood Risk	Water Security	Air Quality	Overall Livability
1	Calgary	Canada	78.2	Very Low	Low	Excellent	Excellent	9.2/10
2	Vancouver	Canada	77.8	Very Low	Low	Excellent	Good	9.1/10
3	Melbourne	Australia	76.4	Low	Low	Good	Excellent	8.9/10
4	Auckland	New Zealand	76.1	Very Low	Low	Excellent	Excellent	8.9/10
5	Edinburgh	UK	75.8	Very Low	Low	Excellent	Good	8.8/10
6	Ottawa	Canada	75.5	Very Low	Low	Excellent	Excellent	8.8/10
7	Wellington	New Zealand	75.2	Very Low	Moderate	Excellent	Excellent	8.7/10
8	Munich	Germany	74.9	Low	Low	Good	Good	8.6/10
9	Sydney	Australia	74.5	Low	Low	Good	Good	8.5/10
10	Toronto	Canada	74.2	Low	Low	Good	Good	8.5/10
11	Perth	Australia	73.8	Low	Very Low	Moderate	Excellent	8.4/10
12	Bristol	UK	73.5	Very Low	Low	Excellent	Good	8.3/10
13	Hamburg	Germany	73.1	Very Low	Moderate	Good	Good	8.2/10
14	Montreal	Canada	72.8	Low	Low	Good	Good	8.2/10
15	Adelaide	Australia	72.4	Low	Very Low	Moderate	Excellent	8.1/10
16	Manchester	UK	72.1	Very Low	Low	Excellent	Good	8.0/10
17	Christchurch	New Zealand	71.8	Very Low	Moderate	Excellent	Excellent	8.0/10
18	Berlin	Germany	71.5	Low	Low	Good	Good	7.9/10
19	Brisbane	Australia	71.2	Moderate	Moderate	Good	Good	7.8/10
20	Dubai	UAE	70.8	High	Very Low	Moderate*	Good	7.6/10

*Dubai's water security rating reflects massive desalination infrastructure investment. The UAE spends approximately $4 billion annually on water desalination, effectively engineering its way around natural water scarcity.

Canada dominates this list with five cities in the top 15. This is not coincidental. Canada has 20% of the world's freshwater reserves, relatively moderate warming projections due to its northern latitude, and has been investing heavily in climate-resilient urban infrastructure. Calgary and Vancouver consistently rank among the world's most liveable cities, and their climate trajectories suggest this will hold through 2040 and well beyond.

Australia contributes five cities despite being a continent known for extreme heat and drought. The explanation is infrastructure: Australian cities have invested heavily in water recycling, desalination, fire management, and heat-resilient urban design. Melbourne's water grid, for instance, includes a $5.7 billion desalination plant that can supply a third of the city's water independent of rainfall.

New Zealand is the quiet standout. Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch are projected to experience minimal heat stress, have excellent water security, and face only moderate flooding risk. New Zealand's geographic isolation and temperate maritime climate make it one of the most climate-resilient countries on Earth.

The Direct Comparison: Source Cities vs. Destination Cities

This is where the data becomes personally relevant. If you are living in one of the source cities and considering a move to one of the destination cities, here is what the climate trajectory comparison looks like.

Lagos vs. Toronto: Climate Comparison Through 2040

Metric	Lagos (2025)	Lagos (2040)	Toronto (2025)	Toronto (2040)
Days above 35°C	28	52	3	7
Annual flood damage (city-wide)	$4.1B	$12.5B	$0.3B	$0.5B
Per-capita water (m³/year)	1,100	720	9,800	8,900
Average PM2.5 (μg/m³)	68	75+	7.2	7.8
Climate adaptation spending/capita	$12	$18	$380	$520

Cairo vs. Melbourne: Climate Comparison Through 2040

Metric	Cairo (2025)	Cairo (2040)	Melbourne (2025)	Melbourne (2040)
Days above 35°C	62	95	12	18
Per-capita water (m³/year)	560	380	2,400	2,100
Average PM2.5 (μg/m³)	84	90+	6.8	7.2
Wet-bulb 35°C days/year	4–8	8–14	0	0–1
Climate adaptation spending/capita	$8	$14	$425	$580

Manila vs. Auckland: Climate Comparison Through 2040

Metric	Manila (2025)	Manila (2040)	Auckland (2025)	Auckland (2040)
Days above 35°C	38	67	1	3
Typhoon/cyclone exposure	20/year	20+/year (more intense)	1–2/year (mild)	1–2/year
Per-capita water (m³/year)	1,350	890	12,400	11,200
Average PM2.5 (μg/m³)	26	30+	5.4	5.8
Annual flood damage (city-wide)	$3.2B	$9.8B	$0.1B	$0.2B

Karachi vs. Calgary: Climate Comparison Through 2040

Metric	Karachi (2025)	Karachi (2040)	Calgary (2025)	Calgary (2040)
Days above 35°C	45	78	2	5
Per-capita water (m³/year)	750	490	25,000	23,500
Average PM2.5 (μg/m³)	71	80+	5.1	5.4
Wet-bulb 35°C days/year	12–18	20–28	0	0
Climate adaptation spending/capita	$5	$9	$410	$560

The adaptation spending per capita line is crucial and often overlooked. Calgary spends $410 per resident per year on climate adaptation — drainage systems, flood barriers, heat-resilient infrastructure, emergency services. Karachi spends $5. Even as climate impacts intensify, the capacity of wealthy cities to adapt creates a widening gap in lived experience. Two cities might face similar temperature increases, but the city spending 80 times more on adaptation will feel very different to live in.

The Health Dimension: What Climate Does to Your Family

Climate change is not just an infrastructure problem — it is a health crisis with deeply unequal distribution.

Climate-Related Health Impacts by City (2024)

City	Heat-Related Deaths/Year	Child Asthma Rate	Waterborne Disease Incidence	Dengue/Malaria Risk	Healthcare Spending on Climate-Related Illness
Lagos	2,800+	18.5%	High	High (malaria)	$890M
Cairo	1,900+	15.2%	Moderate	Low	$620M
Karachi	3,200+	21.3%	Very High	High (dengue)	$780M
Manila	1,400+	14.8%	High	High (dengue)	$540M
Mumbai	4,100+	19.7%	Very High	High (malaria + dengue)	$1.2B
Toronto	120	8.2%	Very Low	None	$85M
Melbourne	95	9.1%	Very Low	None	$72M
Auckland	35	7.8%	Very Low	None	$28M
Calgary	28	7.4%	Very Low	None	$22M
London	180	9.5%	Very Low	None	$120M

Karachi loses over 3,200 people to heat-related causes annually — a number projected to rise to 5,500 by 2040. Mumbai loses 4,100. Meanwhile, the child asthma rate in Karachi is 21.3%, driven primarily by air quality, compared to 7.4% in Calgary.

For parents, these numbers are not abstract statistics. They are the daily reality of deciding whether your children can play outside, whether the water is safe to drink without boiling, and whether the air they breathe every day is slowly damaging their lungs.

The Economic Cost of Living in Climate-Vulnerable Cities

Climate change has a direct economic cost that erodes professional earnings, even for well-paid workers.

Annual Climate-Related Costs for a Middle-Class Family of Four

Cost Category	Lagos	Cairo	Karachi	Toronto	Melbourne	Auckland
Generator/backup power	$2,400	$1,800	$1,500	$0	$0	$0
Water purification/bottled water	$960	$720	$840	$0	$0	$0
Air purifiers/health costs	$800	$650	$900	$120	$80	$60
Flood damage/insurance	$1,200	$400	$800	$150	$120	$100
Cooling costs (AC)	$1,800	$2,100	$1,600	$300	$200	$80
Lost productivity (heat days)	$1,500	$1,800	$2,000	$100	$80	$40
Annual Climate Tax	$8,660	$7,470	$7,640	$670	$480	$280

A middle-class family in Lagos pays an invisible "climate tax" of roughly $8,660 per year — money spent on generator fuel, water purification, air quality management, and lost productivity during extreme heat. The same family in Auckland pays $280. That $8,380 annual difference compounds over a decade into $83,800 — money that could have been invested in education, savings, or asset building.

What the Projections Mean for Long-Term Planning

Climate trajectories are not reversible on human planning timescales. Even under the most optimistic emissions scenarios, the warming already locked into the system means that cities like Karachi, Lagos, and Manila will be significantly hotter, more flood-prone, and more water-stressed in 2040 than they are today. The question is not whether these changes will happen, but how severe they will be.

Climate Livability Trajectory: 2025 to 2050

City	Livability Score (2025)	Projected Score (2035)	Projected Score (2050)	Direction
Calgary	9.2	9.0	8.7	Slight decline, remains excellent
Toronto	8.5	8.3	8.0	Slight decline, remains very good
Melbourne	8.9	8.5	8.0	Moderate decline, remains very good
Auckland	8.9	8.7	8.4	Slight decline, remains excellent
London	8.1	7.9	7.5	Moderate decline, remains good
Berlin	7.9	7.6	7.2	Moderate decline, remains good
Dubai	7.6	7.2	6.5	Significant decline, dependent on infrastructure
Lagos	5.2	4.3	3.4	Steep decline
Cairo	4.8	3.9	3.0	Steep decline
Karachi	4.5	3.5	2.6	Steep decline
Manila	5.0	4.1	3.2	Steep decline
Mumbai	4.7	3.8	2.9	Steep decline

The divergence is dramatic. By 2050, Calgary's livability score is projected to be 8.7 — virtually unchanged from today. Karachi's is projected to drop to 2.6, making basic daily life a constant struggle against heat, water scarcity, and flooding.

For professionals making 10-to-20-year career and family plans, these trajectories matter enormously. Where you live is not just a lifestyle choice — it is increasingly an economic, health, and safety decision that will compound over the decades ahead.

The cities that were built for the 20th century's climate are not necessarily the cities that will thrive in the 21st century's climate. The data suggests that many of the world's most climate-resilient cities happen to also be in the countries with the strongest economies, the best healthcare systems, and the most active immigration programs. That convergence is not a coincidence — it is the same institutional capacity that builds climate resilience also building economic opportunity.

Understanding these trajectories does not mean giving up on the cities you love. It means making informed decisions with clear eyes about the physical reality of the next two decades. For millions of professionals in climate-vulnerable cities, that informed decision is increasingly pointing toward the same set of destinations — places where the air is clean, the water is abundant, the infrastructure is resilient, and the future looks liveable.