The busy season of U.S. Supreme Court decisions has come to an end, and among the policies justices struck down is the federal government's ability to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants. But what does it mean for Idaho?

Justices ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency needs approval from Congress to address something big and new such as climate change, reversing the agency's attempt to regulate coal-fired power plants. The decision places more responsibility on states to govern carbon emissions.

Marie Kellner, conservation programs director for the Idaho Conservation League, said her group is disappointed with the decision, but notes it may not affect Idaho's trajectory much.

"Here in Idaho, we're moving in the right direction and I actually don't have a lot of concern that this opinion is going to change or reverse that direction, because the the market's already making it happen," she said. "We're moving in that way."

Idaho Power, which serves 600,000 customers across southern Idaho and eastern Oregon, has already committed to providing 100% clean energy by 2045. Avista, which has 400,000 electric customers in the Northwest, similarly plans to provide 100% clean power by 2045.

Last year, renewable energy generated nearly three-quarters of Idaho's in-state electricity - but that's mainly from hydropower, according to the Energy Information Administration. Still, Kellner said, the Supreme Court's EPA decision will have some impact on the state. She noted that climate and air pollution don't recognize state boundaries.

"These are collective problems for all of humanity, and this decision made it that much harder for the states, the utilities, the regulators that had not yet made clean energy commitments," she said. "This allows them a little more time to be reliant on these fuels that are making people sick, and that are heating up the world."

Despite the ruling, the Biden administration has said it's still aiming to cut fossil-fuel emissions completely from the electricity sector by 2035.

A new poll found Pennsylvania Republican voters want political candidates to prioritize preserving and growing manufacturing including tariffs in the United States.

Pennsylvania manufacturing has been the backbone of economic impact of more than $113 billion dollars and accounts for nearly 10% of all jobs in the state.

Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, said they partnered with Morning Consult and conducted a national poll with Republican voters in Pennsylvania on their attitudes on issues affecting blue-collar work and policies to move the nation forward.

"Republican voters definitely want their presidential candidate to put front and center a strong trade policy that includes tariffs on China," Paul reported. "As well as other pro manufacturing policies like investing in our infrastructure, prioritizing blue-collar jobs."

The poll revealed in Pennsylvania, 83% of Republican voters agreed the federal government's purchase of too many foreign-made goods over "Made in USA" products has caused manufacturing job loss in America.

Paul noted voters support expansion of the pending tariffs on foreign steel and various Chinese products.

"A large percentage of Republican primary voters in Pennsylvania think those tariffs need to be increased," Paul emphasized. "In fact, to help American manufacturing, to help jobs here, and to also take on some of the policies of the Chinese Communist Party."

Paul added voters want to see the government in Washington show they have their backs on more manufacturing opportunities in the Keystone State. The poll showed 86% of likely Republican primary voters think it is important for the U.S. to maintain a strong domestic steel industry.

Scientists at Purdue University have been experimenting to create adhesives designed to be easier on the environment.

So many products from cellphones and shoes, to furniture and cars all contain adhesives. And because of their petroleum base, there are downsides, as the adhesives may have a strong odor and not be biodegradable when they end up in landfills.

Jonathan Wilker, professor of chemistry at Purdue University, along with his team of chemists found a safer alternative by studying oysters and mussels.

"We take the information we learned from the animals and we create 'biomimetic' adhesives, we call them," Wilker explained. "Surface adhesives that are modeled after biological systems."

Wilker noted like adhesives, sea animals stick to coastal rocks to build their communities. His lab team wanted to make a product just as strong, but also affordable, nontoxic, and sustainably sourced. Wilker's team also had to consider the availability or scale of the materials they started with at the onset of testing.

Research indicates most wood adhesives using petroleum-derived products contain formaldehyde resin. Formaldehyde is already strongly regulated, and more restrictions could be coming in the European market.

Instead, Wilker's formula uses soy oil, mixed with malic acid, a compound which gives apples their tart flavor. He pointed out they have tested it successfully on wood, plastics and metals. Wilker added he is happy to see the interest generated since the findings were published in the journal "Nature," and would like to see more.

"We're looking for partners to help commercialize the technology and actually have an environmental impact," Wilker stressed. "(The) ideal timeline is now; there's no reason to wait. We think we've got it to the point that it's ready to go out."

Future plans for the adhesive are to do further research for possible use in the medical field, as well as for industrial materials and packaging.

Virginia environmental advocates are looking for protections of old-growth forests.

In 2022, President Joe Biden issued an executive order to have old-growth forests across the country inventoried.

A U.S. Forest Service report finds the agency is responsible for more than 24 million acres of old-growth forests. This amounts to only 4% of forests in the U.S. However, around 76% of these lands are unprotected from logging operations.

Sam Evans, national forest and parks program leader for the Southern Environmental Law Center, said the U.S. Forest Service needs to consider which forests should be cut, and which should not.

"The responsibility there is for the Forest Service to figure out what's the healthiest mature forest, what mature forest is on the best track to restore that, and sort of leaving it alone," Evans contended. "Letting it age into 'old' condition. Perhaps there are other mature forests that aren't in good condition, and maybe we can focus on those for timber cutting."

Environmental groups are reluctant to see the trees cut down, since they help stave off climate change. Studies find old-growth forests can store between 41% and 84% of the total carbon stock of all trees. Losing the trees represents a carbon equivalent to one-quarter of the country's annual fossil-fuel emissions.

While forests are being planted in place of any old-growth forests made into timber, Evans noted younger, even-aged forests do not carry all the benefits of an old-growth forest.

"They really don't have a lot of diversity," Evans pointed out. "They're just a lot of trees of the same age, and a lot of shade on the ground. Those forests, those post-logging forests, don't have a huge biodiversity benefit."

He added seeing it come to fruition will require cultural changes on the U.S. Forest Service's part. Earlier this year, the agency held a comment period when more than 92,000 people spoke about different elements to consider in developing a rule regarding climate policies to protect, conserve, and manage the national forests.