Residents of coastal town divided over future plans amid looming crisis: 'The stakes really couldn't be higher'
A Californian town is caught in a debate on how to protect itself from rising sea levels, as The San Francisco Chronicle reported. Some argue that "managed retreat" is the only option, meaning that at-risk people, businesses, and homes are evacuated out of the area and rehomed. Others believe that this is accepting defeat, and wish to build stronger sea walls and fight to protect Pacifica's community and land.
Gary Griggs, a professor of Earth and planetary sciences at UC Santa Cruz, said he believes it is impossible to build sea walls high enough to protect the town permanently.
"It's either going to be managed retreat or unmanaged retreat," he said, according to the Chronicle. "It's up to each community to decide."
Towns across the world are being impacted by increasing global temperatures just like Pacifica. Whether through droughts, extreme weather conditions, or rising sea levels, it is always the most vulnerable communities who suffer the most.
Although unexpected extreme weather events have occurred throughout history, the rising global temperatures are said to act "like steroids" to storms, supercharging them and making them more dangerous to local communities. Unsustainable actions such as burning fossil fuels that overheat the planet have a tangible knock-on impact on extreme weather impacting towns like Pacifica — and the lives of the people who live there.
Critical issues pertaining to this problem, such as rising sea levels and other forms of extreme weather, are constantly being researched by scientists and other experts.
Homes are being designed to be wildfire-proof and hurricane-proof, as great steps in the right direction. MIT has also developed a free web tool that allows people to check how the changing weather will impact how much they can enjoy the outdoors. But the most important thing that must change is the rate of carbon dioxide and methane pollution rates that are causing global average temperatures to rise in the first place.
If people are more attuned to the physical ways pollution is impacting themselves and their neighbors, they may become empowered to make personal lifestyle changes to benefit the environment — and also to hold corporations and governments to account and call for greater regulations.
Suzanne Drake, a Pacifica local campaigning for new seawalls, told the Chronicle, "The stakes really couldn't be higher. We're talking about the future of our community here."
How concerned are you about the plastic waste in our oceans?
Extremely
I'm pretty concerned
A little
Not much
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Researchers develop floating solar panels that could dramatically reshape eastern US: 'Doesn't sound like a lot, but it is'
Researchers develop floating solar panels that could dramatically reshape eastern US: 'Doesn't sound like a lot, but it is' Floating solar panels placed on bodies of water can actually produce more power per square foot than land-based systems. But scientists still have a lot to learn about how this tech affects nature and nearby communities. A study reported by the Cornell Chronicle, published on June 13 in the Cell Reports Sustainability journal, looked at both the benefits and the possible downsides of using floating solar across the U.S. Northeast. The researchers started by figuring out how many waterbodies could realistically support floating solar panels. They found that about 3.5% of existing bodies of water in the region would work. If all of them were used, floating solar could supply 25% of the Northeast's solar energy needs by 2050. That would also make up for all of the land area normally needed for land-based solar. The researchers said floating solar could provide 5% of the region's solar needs while avoiding placing panels in spots important for biodiversity and recreation. Combined with existing solar installations on land, the region's solar production could improve by 194%. "Five percent doesn't sound like a lot, but it is," said senior author Steven Grodsky. "That's 5% less that you would need to generate with terrestrial solar, which equates to thousands of acres and a major boost to solar energy generation with low potential for conflict." In New York State, floating solar could contribute 55% of the state's energy needs by 2030. If areas important to biodiversity are left out, that number drops to 24%. The study also points to a possible trade-off. Grodsky's team found that floating solar increased the amount of planet-warming gases by almost 27% on small ponds. He said, "Freshwater is far rarer than land, and we may wish to consider socioecological impacts of floating photovoltaics concurrent with potential co-benefits like land sparing." Lead author Adam Gallaher said this research gives communities and decision-makers a better way to plan: "This gives policymakers and stakeholders a playbook to take a data-driven, fact-based approach to tackling multiple crises." Do you think we should place solar panels over bodies of water? Absolutely Depends on the place Depends on the cost No way Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Floating solar means towns and energy providers will have to pay less for land and extra equipment. That can free up money for other local needs like schools and repairs. Plus, these savings can help keep energy prices stable for residents. For individuals wanting to make a difference on their own, installing solar panels is the ultimate home energy hack, because it can bring your cost of energy down to or near $0. EnergySage provides a free service that makes it easy to compare quotes from vetted local installers and potentially save up to $10,000 on solar installations. Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the the daily Crossword
San Francisco Chronicle
4 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Russia's earthquake was one of the biggest ever. Could California see a quake that strong?
Russia was shaken early Wednesday by an earthquake of staggering magnitude — 8.8 — on its far eastern Kamchatka Peninsula. Assuming the number holds, the quake would be the sixth-largest earthquake on record — the same magnitude as a 2010 quake in Chile that killed over 500 people, as well as a January 1906 Ecuador temblor whose tsunami waves reached the Northern California coast. Could the Bay Area — still traumatized by the 7.9-magnitude quake of April 1906 — see a quake of similar magnitude? The short answer is no, scientists say. Fault size is a factor in the maximum magnitude of an earthquake. The longest fault in California is the San Andreas, which runs 800 miles along the coast. But even the San Andreas maxes out around 8.3 magnitude, the U.S. Geological Survey says. By contrast, the Hayward Fault through the East Bay is just 45 miles long and probably maxes out around a 7.0 magnitude — or a 7.2 if combined with a quake on the nearby Rodgers Creek Fault, Stephen DeLong, research geologist at the U.S. Geological Survey, previously told the Chronicle. Information about the fault that produced the colossal quake in Russia was not immediately available. But the world record-holder — a 9.5-magnitude earthquake in Chile in 1960 — originated in a fault that is 1,000 miles long and 150 miles wide. Earthquake magnitudes are measured on a logarithmic scale. For each whole number the magnitude goes up, the amplitude of the quake rises tenfold — and the energy release is a whopping 32 times greater, per USGS. An 8.8-magnitude earthquake is shockingly powerful. A 7.0, which either of the Bay Area's two most worrisome faults could produce, is extremely dangerous also. The U.S. Geological Survey recently found that more than a million buildings would be damaged by a 7.0 quake centered in Oakland. 'The magnitude is less important once earthquakes get to around magnitude 7.0 than the proximity to the fault,' William Ellsworth, a professor of geophysics at Stanford, previously told the Chronicle. He noted that the 6.9-magnitude Loma Prieta earthquake, the 1989 quake that caused a section of the Bay Bridge roadway to collapse and caused fires in the Marina, was centered in Santa Cruz County. It would have wreaked more havoc had it been closer to San Francisco.
Forbes
24-07-2025
- Forbes
Why Millions Of Managers Are Becoming Obsolete—It's Not Rocket Science
Halo neuroscience CTO Brett Wingeier talks about the science to optimize brain and muscle ... More connections Liz Hafalia/The San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images) Earlier this month, Steve Blank, adjunct professor at Stanford University, wrote a wonderful article, 'Blind to Disruption -- The CEOs Who Missed the Future,' It was about the thousands of carriage firms in the early 20th century that vanished almost overnight when new technology made their way of doing things obsolete. Today, millions of managers face similar risks of obsolescence as almost everything that they have been doing for the last hundred years is less and less relevant. Spoiler alert: the risk is not principally AI. A New Branch Of Expertise: Neuroeconomics? There are of course many voices offering help. You've probably heard of macroeconomists and microeconomists. Now make way for the latest group of economists. They call themselves neuroeconomists. They are performing sophisticated scientific studies of the human brain with the goal of enhancing the quality of managerial decision-making. They begin with a basic framework that sounds sensible. Take the one proposed by A. Rangel, C. Camerer, and P. R. Montague and published in the National Library of Medicine. It divides the process of decision-making into five stages. First, what is the problem to be addressed? Second, what are the values to be assigned to possible courses of action?. Third, what is the action to be taken? Fourth, how valuable was the decision taken? Finally, what lessons are there for the future? The Key Problem Is What Is The Problem Most of the available work of neuroeconomics is so far focused on highly technical neurological analysis of steps 2-5. But guess what? The principal problem in management today lies elsewhere. It concerns the first step: what is the problem to be addressed? For more than a century, the central problem addressed by management has been how to maximize profits by cutting costs. That's the basis of mainstream economics. It's the reason Ronald Coase won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1991: firms exist to reduce transaction costs and enhance profits. You can read almost any introductory economics textbook and see that this insight is still so obvious that alternatives are not even considered. Management theory has been on a similar track for at least the last half century. Management has been principally focused on increasing profits to maximize shareholder value. That was the official position of the U.S. Business Roundtable for decades. Business schools still teach it. Most of the processes, systems, and mindsets of traditional management are still in place in big firms. So that is the problem that managers are required to solve, whether they like it or not. The Shift From Cutting Costs To Creating Value For Customers Just as in the early 20th century, the world has changed. The primary dynamic of a business has shifted from increasing efficiency by cutting costs to expanding demand by creating more value. Value creating enterprises emerged from the combination of two elements: first, entrepreneurs began using digital technology and AI to deliver exponentially more value than traditionally-managed firms; and second, digital technology gave customers the power to demand more value from businesses. The killer insight: value-creating enterprises not only satisfy customers: they make much more money than firms focused on making money. As a result, the primary goal of fast-growing businesses has shifted from cost-cutting and profits to value creation for customers. Because the potential gains from value creation dwarf any potential gains from efficiency, value creation for customers has become the primary goal of fast-growing businesses today. Meanwhile, profit-seeking firms that still focus primarily on improving efficiency and cost-cutting generate below-average value and are having difficulty in surviving. Two-thirds of the famous blue=chip firms in the Dow Jones Industrial Average are now performing below average (See the table below) Why AI Will Make The Divide Even More Dire In one sense, the explosion of AI represents a massive opportunity for management. Those firms already focused on delivering more value to customers will likely use AI to increase the benefits for customers and heap further riches on their firms. By contrast, AI will likely be used by managers still operating in a traditional mode as a way to cut costs even faster. The approach will likely aggravate the obsolescence of traditional managers and the firms that they manage. The difference in outcomes of the two groups of managers is largely unrelated to different neurological circuits in the brain. It's not rocket science or even neuroscience that's at stake here. The traditional managers are simply trying to solve the wrong problem. If these budding neuroeconomists would focus their research on the central challenge today, namely, the goal of the firm, their work could move from merely 'interesting' to profoundly 'useful'. And read also How Value Creation Resolves The Contradictions Of Running A Business Millions Of Managers Are Becoming Obsolete: Master Value Creation Now Table: 5-year total returns of firms in the Dow Jones Industrial Average: July 9, 2025 Five-year total returns of firms in the Dow Jones Industrial Average
