[00:00:08] Speaker A: Good planets are hard to find out. Temperate zones and tropic climbs and thriving seas, winds blowing through breathing trees, strong ozone, sunshine.
Good planets are hard to find. Yeah.
[00:00:36] Speaker B: Hello, K squid listeners. It's every other Sunday again, and you're listening to sustainability now, a bi weekly k squid radio show focused on environment, sustainability and social justice in the Monterey Bay region, California and the world. I'm your host, Ronnie Lipschitz. Climate change is transforming what scientists call the Lancey interface. With crumbling cliffs, falling structures, tidal and storm flooding, and loud homeowners demanding government action. What can we do? Should that interface be buttressed and built up to prevent further coastal erosion? Or is manager retreat a better strategy? My guest today is Rosanna Shaw, an environmental reporter for the Los Angeles Times and a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 2020. Shaw has just published California against the sea visions for our vanishing coastline. She's traveled the state's 1200 miles coast and talked to experts, politicians and the public to see what is happening, what communities are doing, and what we can expect for our coastal future.
Rosanna Shaw, welcome to sustainability now.
[00:01:43] Speaker C: Hi, Ronnie. Thanks for having me.
[00:01:45] Speaker B: Why don't we cut to the chase? Tell us about your book and what are the primary geological and climate related issues and threats facing the California coast and who the players are in this drama.
[00:01:58] Speaker C: Oh, gosh. I'm still working on my elevator pitch for this book. I mean, at a very high level. It's about sea level rise, specifically in California, and what the rising ocean means for the future of arguably one of the most iconic coastlines in the world and what it means for our infrastructure, our communities, and our precious beaches and coastal ecosystems, and kind of what it means to acknowledge that our shoreline is shrinking, the ocean is moving inland, and we're supposed to move with it. And what does it mean to acknowledge that this is truly the reality and something that we need to attend to in our lifetimes? And in terms of kind of the players in this drama, I would say everybody. I think that's the interesting thing in the process of writing this book, that some folks think that sea level rise is an issue for the so called coastal elite, for example. But anyone in California who has a love for the beach, who wants to go to the beach, who wants a beach to go to 2030, 40, 50 years from now, has a stake in this matter. And ultimately, it's just so funny because I started writing this book almost from a science writing perspective. That's kind of what I considered myself, first a science writer, and then I realized that you can't write about science without thinking about the policy. So it became a book about science and policy. But then I realized you can't science your way out of an issue as all encompassing as climate change. And the policy alone is not going to solve it either. This is a social question and a social problem at its core. So I would say this book is truly a book about California and the systems that have created California, the systems that have gotten us into the situation in the first place, political, economic and social. And it truly is an examination, ultimately, of the story of California along the coast, past, present and going into the future.
[00:04:08] Speaker B: So I mean, really, it's about mean. When you get right down to it, all of the science can be offered and all of the predictions, and at the end of the day, it's really about the struggle over the future of the coast. Right. And that's really a political one, I think.
[00:04:22] Speaker C: Yeah, it's a political issue, but when we talk about it, and for anyone who ends up reading the book, it's an emotional issue and it begs a lot of philosophical questions. So I would say this book doesn't read necessarily like a political book per se. It truly is philosophical in its exploration. And that surprised me, too, because again, as a old school newspaper reporter, I went into it thinking, I'm going to lay out the facts, facts, facts, facts. This is going to feel like a history book. But truly it became this really emotionally driven, philosophically grounded exploration of California, this landscape that we all feel kinship to and ultimately what we want from it in the future.
[00:05:04] Speaker B: Yeah. I didn't mean to imply that the book was politics, but that the issue. Right. Ultimately, it's about the contrasting visions, and we'll get to that in a bit.
[00:05:18] Speaker C: Right. To quote one of the, Jack Ainsworth, one of the former executive director of the California Coastal Commission, he told me, and it's quoted in the book, that when you're dealing with real estate, as expensive and as prime as coastal real estate in California, it ultimately comes down to being a political issue.
[00:05:40] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:05:40] Speaker C: And I'm sure we'll talk about that a lot more, too.
[00:05:42] Speaker B: Right. But what motivated you to research and write this book?
[00:05:46] Speaker C: Trying to think how to answer this question concisely. I mean, a few thoughts mean, to start, I would just say that I feel so lucky to be an environmental reporter at the LA Times, where the way we've structured our environmental coverage is by specialty. So I specialize specifically environmental issues pertaining to the coast and ocean. I don't have to think about freshwater or river systems. That's my colleague Ian James. Someone else is dealing with wildfires. Another person is just purely dedicated to air quality and someone else on the high desert and clean energy. So being able to just live in this realm of coastal and ocean science and policy allows me to really think about climate change, specifically through the lens of sea level rise, for example. And for years with the coastal beat. I'm the coastal beat reporter at the LA Times. For years I would write what would be considered the more old school approach to newspaper reporting. A new study comes out that finds that x amount of fetus will rise, will hit California by the end of the know. I would write that story as a breaking news story. The headlines would be grabby and everyone would go, oh my God. And then a day later, people move on. And so in the same way a disaster, sadly, can wipe out a community. And then the sun comes out the next day and another disaster happens somewhere else in the world. People move on to the next news cycle. I was really reckoning with just this notion a few years ago that people tend to remember the stories you tell them, but not necessarily the data, right? And people remember how they feel when they are responding to these narratives and these stories. And so for me, as a science reporter, I really started to. My job isn't just to present the facts and the science, it's to help people make meaning out of this data. So from there, I started to think, kind of put on my more writerly hat and my storytelling hat and also thinking, know, what would it mean to expand upon some of these through lines, these thematic through lines I've been starting to notice in my body of reporting on sea level horizon, California. And that's where kind of this conversation about what would it look like to have this be told in book form? What would it be like to have 90,000 words to write about this issue rather than 1000 words? And I started by talking to a lot of kind of bigger market type publishers and agents. And I would say, generally speaking, very generally speaking, the mass market approach to a book like this would be to write about a book about capital, sea level rise, all around the world, all around the country. California would be one chapter alongside a chapter about New York and Louisiana. And, you know, ultimately, that chapter on California would have led us to parachuting into Malibu and retelling the story of Malibu, or going to San Francisco and telling a story that, again, feels iconic and nationally resonant. But for me, as someone who covers truly every inch of the California coast, all 1200 and some miles of it, not to mention the San Francisco Bay inner shoreline. There was just so much nuance to be said there that deserved more than a chapter. So it was just that really hearing all those conversations about how a book about sea level rise involved one chapter of California made me want to double down to find a publisher who would want to publish a book completely about California, where every chapter took you to a different place in California. And I wanted to challenge those notions that we have of what the California coast is, who lives there, who it's for, and ultimately what our visions are for its future. And so that's where I ended up with the publisher that I signed with Heyday Books, based in Berkeley. And this is truly a book written by someone who lives and works in California, published by a publisher that has a long track record and history with California. And, yeah, very long story short, this is the book that I wish had existed when I started covering the coast. And Heyday really believed in helping me bring to the finish line a book that I felt like needed to be written, and not necessarily a book that would be the mass market sell. And ultimately, it's been really rewarding to hear how much this book has resonated with folks even beyond California. Because, again, the story of California and what's happening in California offers such important lessons and glimpses into the future on what every coastline in the world will face at some point in the future.
[00:10:14] Speaker B: Well, Heyday is a great publisher.
[00:10:17] Speaker C: I love heyday.
[00:10:18] Speaker B: Yeah, they published Ernest Columbach's Ecotopia 50 years ago, and I've been doing those kinds of books ever since. How long did it take you to write it?
[00:10:30] Speaker C: Oh, gosh.
If you consider the pandemic to be like 50 years, I would say.
I started writing about the issue in 2016, 2017. I would say the timeline of the book, I would say, takes place between 2018 to 2022. That's kind of where most of the book lives in terms of a snapshot in time. And, yeah, I would say the reporting. I've been reporting basically since 2017. I kind of really committed to writing this book and seeing what a manuscript would look like in 2020. So three years of writing and a couple more years of reporting, and it's so interesting.
I'm curious to hear what folks think of the ending, because I knew where to start the book, but I had no idea how to end the book and the number of times I rewrote the ending, because how do you end a story about an issue where the ending is still to be determined based on the decisions that we make today? Right. And so part of me feels like I'm still not done with the book. And even just with all the wonderful book events and book talks in the last couple of weeks and months, it's just a really humbling reminder to me that we're still very much living the story, rewriting the ending, hopefully. And I consider this book almost like the first chapter of the story, so I don't feel like it's done quite yet. But let's just say I started in 2017 to think more deeply about the issue.
[00:12:04] Speaker B: Okay. How did you come to be an environmental reporter? What prepared you for this particular mission?
[00:12:11] Speaker C: I mean, a strong dose of cynicism, lack of desire to make money, and I'm kidding.
I would say that I've been at the LA Times since 2010, so 14 years. And I joke that I spent much of my early years at the LA Times covering all the reasons why California should not have been built the way it was before. So I was kind of like a breaking news, general assignment disasters reporter. I covered earthquakes for a number of years. I was kind of on the SOS drought team in 2015. I've covered wildfires, and then I covered the whiplash of El Nino, and then I covered the next drought, and I've also covered landslides, and I've argued with my coworkers about whether it's a mudslide or a debris flow. And then a few years ago, there was an opening on the environment team to cover the coast. And that's where I really felt things click.
To be an environment reporter, you do have to know the science, and you have to be able to translate the science, but then you have to bridge it to the policy, and then you have to geek out about the ecology and the animals and the plants, and you have to kind of really intrinsically have this passion, love for the land and the habitats and this coexistence with nature. And then on top of that, it's like the people, right? The people that interact with the nature. So ultimately, it's also a very features heavy, narrative, heavy type of reporting. And so with the coast, especially, though it's. Know, I didn't grow up in California. I grew up in Massachusetts. But coming to California, moving to, like, the beach, was what really kept me here. And I think just the number of people that I talk to and I meet every day up and down the coast who have the story of how they connected to the ocean, how they fell in love with the ocean, why the ocean is so part of their identity as California, and really just solidified for me why the story of our coast is so inseparable from the story of, you know, here we are on the edge of two huge extremes, a seismically active plate and a massive ocean, the largest body of water on the entire planet. And it's stitched together by this ever shifting line in the sand that moves with every single high and low tide. And so, yeah, the stories are endless. And very rarely do you hear journalists say that they have found their forever beat. But this know, after covering so many aspects of California and our relationship to this very dynamic know, being the coastal reporter has really felt like my home, for my home journalism, at least. And so, yeah, like, it's been. It's been truly an honor and a privilege to cover the coast and to meet just so many amazing people up and down the coast.
[00:14:59] Speaker B: Is there anyone else in our remaining newspapers in California who also covers the coast, or are you now the one person?
[00:15:08] Speaker C: Oh, yeah. There's a ton of reporters, and now I'm scared to start naming them because Paul Rogers at the Mercury news is someone I read religiously. And there's so many great environment reporters in California. And another local reporter, Ezra David Romero for KQED, also has been covering sea level rise. But I think the San Francisco Chronicle also has a really great environment team. But I think, yeah, having these specialties is, I think, a privilege, and I feel so lucky to be able to just focus on coastal issues and sea level rise. But there are definitely a number of really great environment reporters in California covering sea level rise on top of other environmental issues. And I would say the journalism landscaping in California, at least, still remains very committed to our story of the environment and land and our relationship to land.
[00:16:02] Speaker B: You're listening to sustainability now. I'm Ronnie Limpsitz, and my guest today is Rosanna Shaw, an environmental reporter for the Los Angeles Times. And we're talking about her new book, California against the Sea Visions for our vanishing coastline.
I particularly like the way that you brought in Native Americans into these various landscapes, and maybe you can talk a little about that.
What inspired you to do that?
[00:16:31] Speaker C: Yeah. Thank you so much for just creating space for this question. I think I have so many thoughts here. To start, when I first started covering the coast as a reporter, I make a whole list of, like, who are all the quote, unquote stakeholders? We love. Hate that word stakeholders. Who is supposed to be at the table? What are all sides of an issue? And what I realized is that the native perspective along the coast is largely missing, and the history of indigenous communities in California is pretty different than the story of Native America and the rest of the country. And it's heartbreaking and tragic what happened. And I think know, due to the fact that there are relatively less federally recognized tribes along the coast of California, the voices are not necessarily as institutionalized in a lot of these conversations. And the fact that so many native communities along the coast have been pushed out and then priced out means that as working in this issue, as someone who is now kind of trying to communicate and tell this broader story of the coast, it is our responsibility to make sure that the voices that are not at the table, but that should be at the table, are actually brought into these conversations. And so with the native perspective, I think I said earlier that I knew pretty early on where to start the book. And it's to begin with a story that is very beloved by the, you know, the people of present day Santa Barbara and Malibu, and kind of almost like the first oral record of sea level rise and sea change and moving with the tide. Right. And so there was a really cool and very powerful and beautiful interpretation of this age old story that's seen through the lens of sea level rise. And kind of, as I was looking for the ending of this book, they kept rewriting the ending of the book. It gave me chills when I realized the minute I heard it, I knew that was the ending. And it ends with a story by the Kashaya people. And there's something really powerful to me that the book, the story of our coast past, president, future, gave the first word to the Chumash and the last word to the kashia. And that really hammered home for me a point that I feel like I hear a lot more now today. But just this reminder that, a, it's so important to acknowledge and center and bring in native perspectives in these conversations, but b, that we shouldn't just talk about the native perspective in past tense. That's something that I still see happen a lot. This knowledge, this wisdom, these perspectives speak to a different time in the past, when we lived in different relationship with nature. But those perspectives still exist today in the present, and they belong to these conversations about the future. And so in that way, I do hope that this book allows kind of this more expansive way of thinking about who belongs in this conversation, and ultimately, how these non western perspectives do complement the very western centric ways of looking at this issue. And ultimately, my hope is that indigenous knowledge in western science and policy are able to build on each other in a conversation that is compatible rather than in parallel or separate.
[00:19:53] Speaker B: So the two primary issues on the coast are development on the one hand and sea level rise on the other, due to climate change. What are the predictions? Okay, what are we talking about here in terms of sea level rise and what are particular hotspots? Where is this particularly going to have an impact and on development?
[00:20:17] Speaker C: So I just said that numbers, people's eyes gloss over, but I'll just throw out some key numbers that have kept me grounded. Numbers are very sobering. So at a very, very high level, we're looking at six, possibly 7ft of sea level rise in California by the end of the century. That's a lot. And 2100 feels far off, but it's also not that far off into the future. And that number translates differently depending on where along the coast you are. But just very generally speaking, we're looking at six to 7ft as the high end extreme in California by the end of the century. And then if you kind of bring it down to 2050, which is kind of how the science communication has shifted the state of California, almost all of its agencies, have committed recently to prepare as many communities as possible for three and a half feet of sea level rise by 2050. So 2050 is less than 30 years away and we are supposed to prepare for three and a half feet of sea level rise. And then in terms of property, I mean, there was a big study by the US Geological Survey fairly recently that found that more than $370,000,000,000 in property could be at risk of coastal flooding by the end of the century. If we continue business as usual, and that's like billions, and we look at kind of the wildfire damage in the state, the earthquake damage and all of that combined is still not as big as what we're seeing in terms of the potential for flood risk and flood damage from sea level rise by the end of the century. And then from an ecological standpoint, I think the numbers that have really resonated with me and resonated with a lot of folks is know more than two thirds of our beaches in southern California could be completely drowned out by the end of the century if we continue business as usual. And then wetlands, coastal wetlands along the Pacific coast could go completely extinct as an ecosystem by end of the century. So there's this term coastal squeeze that a lot of scientists talk about. If we continue to fix the shoreline with our infrastructure, with our built environment, and the ocean continues to move in, what gets drowned out? Everything between that first hard line in the sand and the rising ocean. So that's our beaches, our wetlands, and all of our natural coastal ecosystems and the beaches that are so intrinsic to California and where are the hotspots? I mean, anywhere we built where water is supposed to be. And that's a lot of places along the coast. If you think about.
Sorry, this is a very numbers heavy answer, but more than 90% of our coastal wetlands in California have been filled in, altered or destroyed in the spirit for the sake of development. And now the water is trying to move back in. So any place that was built on a former wetland, that's a. And that. There's a lot of that along the coast. San Francisco, this might be, this still shocks some people, but a large portion of San Francisco was built on top of a filled in marsh. And so there are a lot of questions, again, of what does it mean now that the water is trying to move back in and take back the land that we have tried to take from the.
Then, you know, the other half of it? I kind of break California's coastline into, like, two broad categories. One is communities and homes and infrastructure built on wetlands. And the other grouping is just cliffs, homes and infrastructure built on top of cliffs that are now really at risk of accelerated erosion. Because these cliffs used to be buffered by wide and sandy beaches. And over the years, the waves have moved in, the water has moved in, the waves are now carving right against the cliffs at high tide, and these cliffs are now subject to a lot of erosion. So, yeah, I would say that nowhere is necessarily spared. And this is a reality that every coastal community needs to think about more seriously and more urgently.
[00:24:09] Speaker B: In California, there's sort of a paradox here. Right. Which is that the USGS is $370,000,000,000 as long as that property can be protected. Right. And as soon as it goes underwater, its value van. It vaporizes. So there's an interesting story there, I guess, or way of thinking about how property values are calculated. But anyway, with these rising property values, there's a lot of struggle between those who live there and those who want to keep other people out. So could you talk about this tension and how sea level rise has magnified or intensified this tension?
[00:24:52] Speaker C: Yeah. And what you just said is so fascinating. I was just having a conversation with someone who kind of sharpened into focus for me and put it really bluntly, like, what is our expectation of government? Is it the role of government to protect life safety or to protect property value? And that is a question that I think we have kind of lost sight of. And someone put that so bluntly to me. And so many of the points of tension right now along the coast, when it comes to sea level rise, adaptation comes down to, is it the government's job to protect and preserve property value, and what does that look like, and what are the expectations and OC level rise? Obviously, that is accelerating the number of cases where this question is being posed. And it's magnifying and amplifying the need to do something quickly.
Very generally speaking, our default response, not just property, too. If it's like Pacific Coast highway or the rail line or any kind of public infrastructure that's considered critical to keeping life moving, as usual, if the ocean moves in, starts to erode something, or threatens a piece of infrastructure, whether it's a home or a critical infrastructure, our default response to this day is to build a wall and try it to hold back the ocean. And then the question becomes, how big are we willing to build this wall? How many times are we willing to rebuild it? And who's going to pay for that continued cost of maintaining this hard line in the sand that is trying to hold back the largest body of water on this planet? And yes, sea level rise, the increasing rate and frequency and intensity of high wave events and coastal swells and just even sunny day flooding is really putting into question, who's going to pay for this? Are we willing to pay for this? And ultimately, whose job is it to maintain life exactly as it was before? And at what point does the conversation need to shift into, okay, are we trying to hold on to the status quo in perpetuity, or do we need to rethink how we want to live along this inherently dynamic space between land and ocean? And so those are some really tough questions. And I think the most radical thing I'll probably say here is that ultimately, a lot of these questions on sea walls and defending against the ocean as it rises and pushes inland comes down to maintaining property lines. Not just property value, but property lines. And the radical thing I'll say is that the ocean does not care about any of these lines. Property lines, jurisdictional boundaries, this city's boundary versus this city's boundary, public tide lands versus private property. All of this is meaningless to the ocean as it's trying to move in and to take back some of the shore. And so some of the systems that we are locked into making these decisions and some of these systems that are affecting the way we respond and the way we prioritize how much of it is us serving these systems that no longer serve us. And again, at what point do we really just have to step back and think, is this all still working for us? And is this for the betterment of society? So I will step off my soapbox now, but these are all tough questions. And I think that sea level rise is truly intensifying these flashpoints that have been brewing for a really long time. And now it's just becoming increasingly unavoidable in terms of just having to talk about it as a community and to really start to set priorities on how we want to move into the future.
[00:28:34] Speaker B: Well, of course, this is an issue that faces all kinds of arenas. People living at the forest interface, right? People living in river bottoms because the land is flat. But one could also say, well, people make choices about where to live. And when they make those choices, there are certain risks inherent in them of which they should be aware. So the question of responsibility seems to me is maybe it's a philosophical one again, in the sense that, well, you made the choice to buy this extraordinary house on the cliff. Why should anybody else be responsible when it falls into the ocean?
[00:29:19] Speaker C: Well, going back to kind of this notion of, like, are we serving the systems that no longer serve us?
The book explores, for example, this notion of resilience. The old school definition of resilience is our ability to bounce back after a disaster. Katrina levels New Orleans, and we shall rebuild. We are resilient. And the idea how we measure resilience is our ability to remain unchanged and to build back exactly what we lost at the exact same place that we lost it. And so our insurance system for so long sets us up to make these decisions. Look at what's happening with wildfires. An entire town gets leveled by a wildfire. And what does your insurance cover? Your insurance covers what you lost in the place that you lost it and to rebuild. And you have the option of rebuilding and recovering what you lost. But is that actually the resilient decision in response to our changing climate? And so I have a lot of empathy for the folks who have to make these really tough decisions that do feel like intense personal sacrifices within these systems that have forced us to make these decisions. So, for example, I literally just talked about three and a half feet by 2050. 2050 is less than a 30 year mortgage away. But we have so many people in this state, in this country, who are locked into making decisions about and risk calculations and property value calculations based on the 30 year time frame, right? So we are almost forced to make these decisions in arbitrary time frames. And I think that also complicates the way we perceive risks, the way we're willing to take on costs and sacrifices. So this is a very long winded philosophical way of saying this is not an easy problem. And again, we aren't equipped to make some of these decisions in an easy way because, again, the systems that are put in place in our society today make it really hard to change and to be resilient in a transformative kind of way.
[00:31:21] Speaker B: Again, another paradox is that as humans, we want things to be as stable and predictable as possible for as long as possible. And the coast is a continually changing site. Right. It's very dynamic. And so I suppose resilience ought to be psychological as much as physical, that people become ready to make the changes that are necessary for them.
[00:31:49] Speaker C: Yeah, and I'm so glad you made that point, because I think one of the core themes of this book, and I would say it's a reflection of my own personal philosophical journey, too, in exploring this issue, is that so many people today still think of the coast as static, as a place that doesn't move, when the coast is actually a process, a process between the constant tension and dance, between land and ocean. And like you said, the shoreline is always moving. Yet if you look at Pacific Coast highway or the rail line or the way we've built entire neighborhoods and cities right on the sand, we have tried to fix the shoreline in a way that is inherently incompatible with the natural process of the coast. And so what does it mean to reset our expectations for the shoreline, to see the beach, for example, as a dynamic process rather than a static space? I mean, I was guilty of this, too, when I first moved to California. And ultimately, can responding to sea level rise be represented as an opportunity to rethink how we build and live and share this very dynamic space versus responding to it as something that we have to defend against? Because I think we're still kind of in the survival and defense mode when we talk about sea level rise. So many of the conversations today are still so centered on what it is that we're going to lose. What is it that we're going to sacrifice? What's it going to cost us to change? And like you said, we want stability, but we have chosen to settle along a place that is inherently unstable.
But change has been the only constant along the coast. And I think to acknowledge that might actually shift the conversation towards a. Okay, how do we re envision what it means to actually live in harmony with the rhythms of the ocean and the coast and the tides?
[00:33:58] Speaker B: You're listening to sustainability. Now, I'm your host, Ronie Lipschitz. And my guest today is Rosanna Shaw, who reports on the ocean for the Los Angeles Times and has just published California against the sea visions for our vanishing coastline. One of the things that I think is really interesting is 200 years ago, nobody with any wealth or means lived along the ocean. It was a place where poor people lived, and it was a place where industry was built.
Have you looked into why that perspective on the coast changed? Did you do any kind of research or reading about that? Because I'm curious what motivated that shift?
[00:34:44] Speaker C: It's like you and my book editor must have talked to each other before this podcast.
[00:34:49] Speaker B: I've read a lot of these books.
[00:34:52] Speaker C: Yes, my editor, she's truly wonderful, also asked this question. I want to say, like, draft three of the manuscript, because my first two drafts went in all starry eyed and just with the assumption that California had always loved the beach and that California culture was always kind of just so, again, like this idea that the beach is just so embedded with our identity. And then my editor just asked, she had a note in the draft. She was like, when did this start?
How far does this go back? And this can't be like something that just happened. And so in going back through the history, there's just so many fascinating stories of how at the turn of the 19 hundreds, people thought the Pacific was too scary and too big.
We need that energy.
You know, the, some of our earliest county lifeguards were brought in to help make the ocean not feel as scary. We truly created intentionally, the tourism industry and this notion of going to the beach for recreation and leisure. And there are stories of how some of our earliest developers, the people who developed Venice in Los Angeles and Huntington beach, they brought big wave surfers from Hawaii to LA to show how it could be fun and cool to surf in the ocean and to, again, treat the beach as a playground. And then after World War II was truly when leisure, this notion of being able to relax and have fun and to lay out a towel on the sand and enjoy the sunshine for the afternoon. That notion of leisure really took off after World War II. And I think it's around that time where you see development on the coast really take off, because before then, it was like you said, the coast was a place strategically for ports. The coast was the perfect place to build all your oil drilling infrastructure. The coast was a great place to put your power plants and all of your other, your wastewater, sewage treatment plants.
It's fascinating to see how much beach culture was intentionally created and how much it evolved and ultimately became this self fulfilling cycle of supporting tourism and increasing real estate prices. And really, again, this value of beach recreation has now become so core to the California economy. But it is fascinating, too, because we think of now Santa Barbara and Santa Monica and Malibu, but the residual of our industrialization of the coast still exists, too, if you just take the time to look and go to Oxnard or Wilmington. And there are also communities along the coast who don't live the California dream. And I think that was also another really important thing for me in the book to again expand our image of who lives on the coast and to make sure that no voices and communities are overlooked or forgotten in this conversation about what it means to reconfigure our shoreline.
[00:37:58] Speaker B: You tell two interesting stories about that. One about Alvizo and the other about Marina, both of them not that far apart. Maybe you could say a few words about each of those and how they're industrial landscapes that are now trying to become post industrial. Really?
[00:38:16] Speaker C: Yeah. So real quick, Alviso is in San Jose today in the south Bay of San Francisco Bay. And for anyone who's flown into San Francisco and seen from the plane those gigantic ponds that are weird looking colors, those are salt evaporation ponds. And again, speaking to this lesser known industrial history of our coastline in California, San Francisco used to be home base for some of the largest salt mining companies in the country. And salt truly kickstarted our chemical revolution and so much of our industrial evolution in past decades and centuries. And so these salt evaporation ponds are wetlands that are trapped in the form of salt ponds. And now there is this really inspiring movement to kind of undo those salt ponds and restore and return the landscape back to its natural kind of salt marsh wetland ecosystem. And the trick here is we need to do this before the sea completely takes over everything and drowns out everything. So time is of the essence here. But I think the salt ponds are a really interesting example of how we can choose to deindustrialize the shoreline rather than further develop the shoreline. In these places where we have an industrial legacy, we're at a fork in the road. We can either turn that quote unquote underutilized land to build more housing, or we could restore and reconfigure the landscape back towards something that is more in harmony with the more natural rhythms of the shoreline, especially as the water is moving in. And with know marina is this little town. Stop by town along Monterey Bay. It's long been kind of the industrial sacrifice zone for the regions where a lot of the recycling plant and there was a sand mining operation there for more than a century. And for marina fraught topics like manage retreat and sea level rise adaptation to marina, it's also a largely working class community with a huge refugee population. Folks there really see responding to sea level rise as an opportunity to also deindustrialize their shoreline, to prevent this perpetuation of continuing to zone their town for industrial reuse, and to start restoring some of the land back to beaches and public parks and open space. Because for a community like Marina, having such a shared natural resource is truly the gem of the community. I mean, the first time I went to Marina, I got there right before sunset, and I pulled into the state beach, and I felt like the whole town was there just watching the sunset. There's just, that was such a nice reminder, too, that the beach does truly serve as a public square for so many communities up and down the coast. And going into the future, it's going to be so critical to preserve these places of wonder, for it's super important about preserving the space for future generations.
[00:41:29] Speaker B: I do have a question about the restoration of the marshes in San Francisco Bay. I mean, when the sea level rises, won't those restored marshes get flooded out?
[00:41:39] Speaker C: Yeah, going back to the question of time. So marshes are supposed to be underwater sometimes, and sometimes above water, and marshes are actually a really cool natural buffer to flooding. And they're also great ecosystems for carbon sequestration and all of the things. I feel like we can do a whole podcast on why wetlands are underappreciated. But I think with these wetlands, the trick is, I mean, there's like thousands and thousands of acres of salt ponds that could be turned back into wetlands. And if the wetlands get restored in the near future, there is still a lot of time for the wetlands to take root, to build up sediment, to have all these plants, and then it could serve as truly a buffer that is in our title from actual land. But if we take 30, 40 years to truly build out and restore this wetland, as some of these projects have taken a really long time to move through the permitting process, I would say that then it is too late. And I think that is a core worry of the people who have been working on this project. And I talked to people for the book who have spent their whole careers working on reversing the salt ponds back to something that is more naturally compatible to the shoreline, and also designed in a way that would help support and protect kind of the landward communities going into the. I think, you know, the projections keep moving up, the numbers keep getting worse, and it is a matter of time. The wetlands can only be saved when there is still time before the ocean completely moves in.
[00:43:17] Speaker B: You're listening to sustainability now. I'm Ronnie Lipschitz, your host. And my guest today is Rosanna Shaw, an environmental reporter for the LA Times, who's just published California against the Sea. Let's talk about regulation and governance. Okay, who's in charge? Is anyone in charge of regulating what can be done on the California coast?
[00:43:42] Speaker C: That's like a short middle and a long answer, and I'm choosing, trying to figure out which one to go mean. So the California Coastal Commission is one of the most powerful and also unique land use regulatory agencies in the, you know, the coastal commission's mission is to uphold the Coastal act. And truly, this agency has the edict to look at the big picture from a statewide perspective, to manage the coast and this landscape as a collective landscape, and ultimately to protect the coast as a broad public good. So in California, under the coastal know, the beach cannot be privatized. And so that is core to some of what drives the decision making of the coastal commission, to protect the beach on behalf of the public and to make these decisions in a way that does not harm the public good.
That said, a lot of the way the coastal commission is structured gives power to local agencies and cities and counties and kind of at the more micro level to make these day to day decisions and these parcel by parcel decisions. So there is this really interesting dance that's been going on for decades between state control and local power from kind of a reporter, storyteller, writer, big picture perspective. I think we need both. I think that there is no one size fits all solution, but there is a big picture and a collective vision that we should be a part of. And so I think that having more individualized attention to specific issues and specific places and understanding, kind of the nuances and the social histories and the politics and the different geographies and geologies of a place is important. And having people who are well versed in each place to make these decisions and feel empowered to make these decisions is important. But we also need, it is important to not lose sight of the big picture, because a lot of what happens is that it ends up being a your land versus my land kind of argument. And so I think the coastal commission is very good at making sure that people don't lose sight of the big, you know, managing just the big picture alone is not also going to make progress on an issue that truly requires every single person to be engaged and to have every level of expertise involved in making these decisions. So that was a very complicated answer to a complicated issue. But ultimately, everyone needs to be involved. And similarly to solving climate change, we need systemic change. But that also doesn't let us off the hook for individual action, and that it is really important to not lose sight of the big picture while also being responsible for the more micro decisions and actions that could be taken.
[00:46:44] Speaker B: But sometimes individual homeowners get into big fights. With the commission, you give some of these stories about trying to build sea walls and on their property, I presume. Right? That's the other thing. And so the commission, for some, has come to be seen as this sort of monster which is intent on taking away people's property and their mean. I don't think that's a fair description, but there is that. I wanted to just raise one stories. San Francisco state Senator Scott Weiner, and I'm sure you know about this, just introduced legislation to reduce the coastal's commission jurisdiction over, quote, privately owned urban parcels along the city's western edge. That's San Francisco specifically. What is that all about?
And, I mean, it's described as kind of the first shot in house building housing on the coast so that everybody gets their chance to live on the coast. I mean, this is an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, and I was wondering if you know anything about it. I mean, I have some thoughts.
[00:47:55] Speaker C: I'm not quite ready to talk about that. Do we need to talk about that on the podcast?
[00:47:59] Speaker B: No, we don't. However, I will say something, that there is a proposal to build a high rise apartment building a few blocks from Ocean beach in the midst of an area which is all single story, single family housing. And it sounds to me like this is an exception that Weiner is trying to introduce in order to facilitate the construction of that apartment building.
[00:48:28] Speaker C: I think what I will say here is that a. Be prepared for a lot more stories this year on the intersection of housing and environmental issues and that our state has an affordable housing crisis and it has a climate change crisis. And those two issues have been moving largely in parallel to each other in a way that just sitting back and looking at the big picture, it's going to clash. And it has started to clash. And in some ways, to me, it's a battle of narratives right now where there are misunderstandings on each side. For example, a misunderstanding of what?
Perhaps a misunderstanding of the mission of the Coastal act and what it's ultimately supposed to serve, who it's supposed to serve, the public. And at the same know this question of where do we build housing that we so desperately need at a time when so much land in California is no longer safe to build on? And what are the precautions we need to take to make sure that we are not building new housing in hazardous places that will need to be saved either now or in the future? So those are kind of some of the challenging questions that there are no easy answers for. I'm starting to see an increasing intensity in folks trying to present solutions to these issues, but it's really tricky. And I think that ultimately it comes down to two very fraught and important issues, the climate crisis and the affordable housing crisis in the state. And I think ultimately, folks need to work together and to be in better conversation with each other on what those solutions are without jeopardizing kind of just to see each other's blind spots, too, and to really actually be having the same conversation. Because for me, I still see a lot of these proposed solutions and these conversations and these issues moving in parallel with each other.
[00:50:32] Speaker B: Well, we have only a few minutes left, so maybe we should go out on an optimistic note. Maybe you can tell us about the last chapter in your book called Bridges to the Future. What is that? The story there, the narrative?
[00:50:46] Speaker C: Oh, I don't want to give away the ending, but. Oh, well, I guess I will say it's a story that I alluded to this earlier. It's about the Kashia people in northern California. And it was a story that deeply moved me. And it was a story that when I heard it, I knew this was going to be the ending of the book, the ending for now, of the story that still continues to be lived by every single person in California. And I think what I'll note about the ending is know counter to what you might think about the subject of this book. I'd like to think this book is hopeful. I really didn't want to write a book that was depressing, that was only doom. And even with my publisher, I was like, do not make a cover that looks too scary. I want a cover that really captures the spirit of California and really kind of conveys the moment that we're in with this issue. And it's not all scary. There is hope. Know we are running out of time, but we still have time to make so many decisions that could transform and change our future for the better. And ultimately, in that last chapter, bridges to the future, it is a snapshot of moments that gave me hope moments that kind of presented a potential path forward or a potential alternative forward that some places and some communities are already starting to take. And even these small incremental steps in a different direction could make all the difference. So ultimately, I would say that last chapter is a practice of hope. And I get asked all the time, how much hope do I have as a climate change reporter, as an environmental reporter on this, who lives and breathes this issue? And I would say the fact that I'm still working on this issue in itself is also a practice of hope. And the fact that this podcast exists and the fact that people are listening to it means that we all still have hope, that there is a way forward and that this issue is worth engaging with and working on. And I would ultimately encourage everyone to have these tough conversations. And it isn't easy, it's going to be sticky, but we all have a duty to talk about it, to think about it, and to do something about it.
[00:53:12] Speaker B: Well, Rosanna Shaw, thank you so much for being my guest on sustainability now.
[00:53:17] Speaker C: Thank you for the tough questions and the thoughtful questions. You got me going.
[00:53:22] Speaker B: You've been listening to sustainability now interview with Rosanna Shaw, who reports on the California coast for the Los Angeles Times. Her book, California against the Sea Visions for our vanishing coastline, was recently published by Heyday Books. If you'd like to listen to previous shows, you can find
[email protected] slash SustainabilityNow, as well as Spotify, Google podcasts and Pocketcasts, amongst other podcast sites. Thanks for listening, and thanks to all the staff and volunteers who make k squid your community radio station and keep it going. And so, until next, every other Sunday. Sustainability now.
[00:54:08] Speaker A: Good planets are hard to find out. Temperate stones and tropic climbs and thriving seas, winds blowing through breathing trees, strong ozone and safe sunshine.
Good planets are hard to find. Yeah, good.
