Paul Wellman
Zoe Schiffer, here sitting by a creek near her now-rebuilt home, said, “Growing up in Mission Canyon preserved my innocence …”
Mission Canyon Dreaming
Two years after the Jesusita Fire Sam Kornell Looks at the Idyllic Past and to the Global Future of Fire, Flood and Drought
Thursday, May 5, 2011
For Zoe Schiffer, growing up in Mission Canyon was a child’s equivalent of la dolce vita — the sweet life. Born in 1992 to Kim and Howard Schiffer, Zoe is dark and pretty, a vegan with a quick wit who is majoring in creative writing at Seattle University, where she is a freshman. With her older brother and younger sister, she spent her childhood in a modest home situated at the end of Tunnel Road, near the entrance to the Seven Falls trail. Chickens and turkeys roamed her backyard, maneuvering between a compost pile and a set of avocado trees that together conspired to keep her yellow lab Artemis incorrigibly fat.
Zoe’s father runs an international charity called Vitamin Angels. Her mother, a chef, is one of Santa Barbara’s first “slow food” proponents. By the time Zoe was born, the two were no longer hippies, but they still maintained a progressive spirit born in that era. Zoe guesses that she spent at least a quarter of her childhood shoeless, and when they weren’t reading, she and her siblings were outside, making lizard-catchers in their backyard or prowling through the densely unkempt canyons and ridges around their home.
“Growing up in Mission Canyon preserved my innocence for a long time,” Zoe told me recently during a break from school. It was a clear morning, and we were at the French Press, a coffee shop near the yoga studio where she takes classes. Sipping an Americano, she recalled her childhood fondly. “I had a lot of freedom. We didn’t have a TV, so we really had to make everything up — we had to create our own fun.” For years, Zoe said, she and a girlfriend a ridgeline away would meet at their fence lines and carry on shouted conversations across the canyon floor.
Idylls, of course, appear eternal — that is partly what makes them idyllic. But even idylls end. A little before 2 in the afternoon on May 5, 2009, a spark from a power tool started a fire near a trail in the back country not far from Tunnel Road. The resulting conflagration — which we now know as the Jesusita Fire — consumed nearly 80 homes, among them the Schiffer family’s. But when I asked Zoe if she could envision herself one day returning to live in Santa Barbara — fire risk and all — she nodded affirmatively.
Take a moment, however, for a thought experiment: What if somehow real estate prices in Santa Barbara miraculously dropped and a creative writing major could afford to buy a house in the same beautiful canyon in which she was raised? Zoe would have to take into account something that her parents never had to think about — global warming. Even I, who frequently write about climate change, nevertheless spend a considerable amount of time not thinking about it. I was born and raised in Santa Barbara, and when I consider whether I’d like to raise a family here — which is to say when I brood about how to afford to raise a family here — I scarcely ever take into account the probability that the future will not be like the present. “I don’t think I can be the only person who finds in myself a strong degree of psychological resistance to the whole subject of climate change,” the British journalist John Lanchester has written. “I just don’t want to think about it.”
By Paul Wellman
The Schiffer family during the construction of their new home (from left): Eliana, Zoe, Howard, and Kim.
The Greening of Gas
Today, there is more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than at any time in at least the past 15 million years, and climate modelers believe that within as little as two decades, the band of heat currently expanding northward and southward from the Earth’s equator could result in climate conditions in Southern California similar to present-day Northern Mexico. The Zaca, Gap, Tea and Jesusita fires, which came one after another in harrowing succession, are emblems of a larger process. The physical beauty and the temperate Mediterranean climate that infuses nearly every angle of the South Coast may, in coming decades, be ending. Scientists generally agree that fires like the one that burned down Zoe’s home will become more common, as will the drought that gives rise to them, as will the floods that follow.
Vividly etched in the memory of any longtime Santa Barbaran is the night of January 11, 1995, when torrential rain fell on the South Coast, causing the clay topsoil of the mountains and hills that cradle the city to grow heavy with water and then fluidly come apart, breaking and flooding downward. “State Street, known for its quaint shops, looked like a river bottom,” reported the L.A. Times. “Two unoccupied cars were completely buried in mud that filled the Mission Street underpass.” Together, the flooding and mudslides caused millions of dollars in damage.
The storm, at the time referred to as a “once in a century” event, is almost certainly an omen, like the Zaca, Gap, Tea, and Jesusita fires, of Santa Barbara’s future. Together, these things will steadily change what it means to be a resident of Santa Barbara. Climate modeling indicates that major storms are going to beset California more frequently in coming decades, and their damage will be compounded by the likelihood that they will interrupt periods of prolonged drought. Santa Barbarans who remember the flood also remember the seven years of drought that preceded it. For them, visions of desiccated lawns and recycled dishwater are still clear. Climate scientists agree that in coming decades, such droughts are going to come harder and last longer until, as Richard Seager, a scientist at Columbia University, has put it, “You can’t call them droughts anymore.”
Drought interrupted by brief but intense storms — in such circumstances, “The whole ecosystem either dies, gets attacked by insects, or gets hit by fire,” said Ron Neilson, a bioclimatologist with the USDA Forest Service. A recent report by the federal government found that it is “90-95 percent likely” that arid parts of the West, such as Santa Barbara, are going to experience significantly more wildfires in coming decades. “We are in the mega-fire era,” said Ken Fredrick, a spokesperson for the federal government.
By Paul Wellman (file)
The Schiffer house shortly after the Jesusita fire destroyed it.
In time, many people in high-risk areas — such as Mission Canyon — may no longer be able to get private homeowner’s insurance. Matthew Kahn, a professor at UCLA, said that he wouldn’t blame insurance companies for dropping coverage in places like Santa Barbara. “When Allstate decided to stop writing any new policies for California, wildfire was the number-one thing they cited,” he said. “I don’t fault them for that. How do you responsibly stay in that market if the future’s not like the past?”
During the Tea and Jesusita fires, Oran Young and his wife, Gail Osherenko, were forced to evacuate the condo they share near the Riviera Theatre, at the foot of Mission Canyon. Tall and ruddy, Young is one of the world’s leading experts on the Arctic. He is friendly, speaks carefully, and sticks closely to the most mainstream, uncontroversial scientific literature. If he is a scheming scientist attempting to hoodwink the public, he does an excellent job of hiding it.
“It’s not like Santa Barbarans are going to wake up one morning and bang — everything is different,” he said. “But we are going to find our lives progressively affected. If we’re looking at this from a 20-year perspective, we’re going to be seeing these kinds of issues” — intense storms, drought, and wildfire — “step by step becoming more central to our lifestyles.”
A bold line inscribed on pavement that tells an unignorable visual story about climate change would certainly have made an impression on me if I came face-to-face with it one morning on my way to get coffee.
Comments
Great article certainly should make you think and take action.
rblacumbre (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2011 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought this was going to be a story about how the Schiffer family rebuilt their family home and lives after the Jesusita Fire.
A wildfire reportedly started by a spark from a power tool being used to maintain the nearby Jesusita hiking trail.
Fuel + Oxygen/Wind + Ignition = Combustion/Fire/Conflagration. In the vicinity of homes and lives the fire was a disaster.
The article makes no reference to the conditions of abundant fuel + abundant wind...
Instead the author hijacks a story about wildfire and turns it into a story about Climate Change and Green House Gas Emissions.
Sam Kornell should call his work FICTION if he is going to interview scientists about science and then spin a yarn linking Global Warming/Climate Change with the the Jesusita Fire. He also gives short shrift to what, if anything, can done locally or worldwide to reduce the possible human impacts on GLOBAL warming... Shop the Farmer's Market, Eat a Vegetarian Diet, Take Shorter Showers, Drive Less, Fly Less, Bicycle More, Turn off the Lights and Computers and Televisions and sprinklers, Use less heating and air conditioning, Install Solar Panels --> Bottom Line: BUY LESS STUFF and use less energy !!!
Even with these changes do you actually believe that the we are going to get back to the 350ppm CO2 that the http://www.350.org/en/about/science folks suggest returning to in this century?
Native Americans, in what we now called California, intentionally caused fires in order to increase favored game species, protect themselves from predators (the favored habitat of the California grizzly bear was chaparral), and as a tool of warfare.
Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the world's energy. On average, one American consumes as much energy as 2 Japanese, 6 Mexicans, 13 Chinese, 31 Indians, 128 Bangladeshis, 307 Tanzanians, or 370 Ethiopians.
Wake up and smell the Coffee Americano...You obviously have no idea how big a change it would take to get the average Santa Barbarian to consume as little energy as someone in the developing world.
yojamey (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with the previous commenter. Further, it is no doubt, large and noble to address the inevitable climate change issues before us. When I first became involved in the environmental movement in the "70s", the battle cry of environmental leaders was the "population explosion". There was a best selling book written about it. Since that time I believe the world's population has more than tripled. There is only one way to reduce over consumption of the world's resources and reduce polution, including global warming. The earth can only renewably sustain a certain number of humans at any one time. Clever conservation practices can help increase that number, but there will alway be a tipping point. This is so obvious it dumbfounds me as to why it is politically incorrect to mention it today when it once was THE answer. It is more so now that ever.
If you want to pine about the way things used to be for poor Zoe, not affording to live in SB and that it doesn't really matter because SB will be a dessert soon anyway. Zoe's entitlement has been compromised. So sad. A reduced the population to 1960's levels would solve her dilemma. But then, if that were the case, maybe Zoe would not even exist. Maybe her Hippie parents would have decided that “0” population growth really was the prudent thing to do to preserve Mother Earth from the ravages of over population. Illegal immigration might not be an issue had the Catholic Church had encouraged it’s followers that birth control was not only OK, but encouraged, to help preserve the world for future generations, and that having 4, 5, or 6 children was politically incorrect and selfish. The same for India and China (which has taken action in this direction although certainly not with the ideal approach). There would be no global warming issues and less tension internationally as to where people can live a reasonable life style. The answer is simple. There are too many people for Mother Earth to support. Those passionate scientists are right. It’s not too late, if we take action now. That action is to support, encourage and ultimately reach “0” population growth. That is truly the only way the earth will survive.
That’s all of course if Earth is not wiped out by being struck by and asteroid or comet in the next 200 years. It is highly more likely than people realize and probably the most probable eventuality to occur before global warming or over population is contained. But that is a topic for another bone dry, over heated or flood decimated day in an overcrowded coffee Americana shop.
Peace :)
stevedre (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2011 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
SB will be a dessert soon?
Sounds delicious.
It will surely taste better than that yucky comment.
greenbanana (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2011 at 12:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SB has been dessert for a long time now!
mtndriver (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2011 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Commentor "Yojamey" nailed it.
The article serves as an excellent example of hidden agenda journalism. Take an omni-relate-able story of human hardship and a paradise waylaid and hijack it for good 'ol half-the-facts activism. I think we can all agree that author Sam Kornell performing a very public if not televised auto-castration would far better demonstrate both his climatic concerns AND his unflinching commitment to a "viable" solution than did this article. As is now, I really didn't get the feeling the Author had any skin in the game.
Back to nature is truly in the best interest of us all. And moderation in everything - especially moderation. But to out one for not being as globally enlightened as oneself is a fail. Live your ideal and teach by example and they are much more likely to follow.
There was so very much to learn from the Native Americans that truly managed their natural resources. And there still remains much to learn from them. Fires are natural. Fires can be useful. Forest mismanagement / under-management / non-management results in natural fires of unnatural proportions. Fires that burn so violently, and with such over-fueled intensity that it leaves an unsustainable landscape scorched deep into the topsoil.
Redirecting "sustainability" away from new mercury-fortified light bulbs and similar inanity and toward management of the flora overgrowth in most every biome - starting with the coastal sage and chaparral from La Jolla to Monterrey - might be timely and wise, particularly for Zoe's fam's newly re-erected digs.
Slowdive (anonymous profile)
May 17, 2011 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Not to worry; with the population explosion that is taking place soon all that grows will be covered and there will be nothing left to burn.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 18, 2011 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)