Earlier this month, the U.S. Forest Service announced it would not be following through with the National Old Growth Amendment, which would have protected some of Oregon's iconic old-growth trees.

The amendment was the result of a Biden administration order to tally old-growth forests on federal lands and make a plan to protect them from climate-based threats.

For Brenna Bell, forest climate manager at 350PDX, pulling the plug may have been for the best. While acknowledging the amendment offered protections, Bell said there were too many loopholes.

"Old trees still would have been logged, except people might have believed that it was protected," she said. "So, not having it, so people don't have that false sense of protection, might be a good thing."

The amendment would have prohibited commercial logging on about 25 million acres of old-growth forests. Bell added that since the amendment would most likely have been repealed under the Trump administration, withdrawing now allows for the possibility of stronger legislation down the road.

Contrary to what many people may believe, Bell said, old-growth forests in the Northwest continue to be logged. She explained that federal timber targets drive logging on national forest land, pushing forests to meet volume quotas. While most logged trees are smaller second growth, she added, there's always pressure to cut large trees to meet targets faster.

Bell suggested eliminating timber targets to better protect old-growth forests.

"If we could just make it so trees could be logged a.) to meet the local timber demand or b.) to have restoration purposes," she said, "but not because of some arbitrary target that is set in Washington, D.C., and then just distributed to all of the different forests."

The Trump administration will most likely increase timber targets, said Bell, regardless of whether there is local demand. Reports show the Biden administration allowed the Bureau of Land Management to cut old-growth trees at a faster rate than the previous decade.

Old-growth forests in Oregon's Coast Range absorb and store more carbon per acre than almost any other forest in the world.


get more stories like this via email

A local nonprofit with a mission to advance regenerative agriculture is hoping its new video can open up an untapped world of science to a younger audience.

It is not every day kids see animated characters rapping about the importance of soil microbes but the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute created "The Soil Microbe Song" as a way to educate children.

Nicole Tautgus, agroecologist and research director at the institute, said she saw a gap in K-12 science education even she experienced, as she didn't hear the term "soil science" until she was in college. A former professor and her toddler son inspired Tautgus to write the song about soil.

"There's this concept that kids love to put their hands in the dirt, and there's this concept of healthy eating that we talk about," Tautgus outlined. "But I don't think that it gets connected very well to the soil, to the plant, to the kitchen, to the plate."

Studies shows farm soil tends to lack beneficial microbes, which help retain nutrients and suppress disease, and affect crop outcomes. Organic farming enhances microbial activity in soil. She added more people are beginning to see the importance of sharing these topics with children.

"Soil microbes are the hot topic among farming right now, and they're absolutely integral to everything that soil does," Tautgus pointed out. "So, why not introduce children to this concept? We talk to them about germs and washing their hands, but there's also a whole world of beneficial microbes."

Tautgus explained animated soil microbes parade around in the song, describing what each of their roles are, to hopefully engage children and anyone else who watches it.

"I think when you get into the world of soil microbes, it becomes technical really quickly," Tautgus acknowledged. "There's a lot of words in the video and a lot of it whizzes by, but the words weren't my goal."

The institute plans to develop accompanying lesson plans and materials in hopes the video can be used in classrooms across the state.

A Michigan nonprofit is among the groups raising concerns about a potential conflict of interest between President Donald Trump and the Line 5 tunnel project.

President Trump's national "energy emergency" order has fast-tracked more than 600 projects, including Enbridge's Line 5 tunnel, for quicker approval.

According to records from the Federal Election Commission, Trump's campaign last year received more than more than $1 million in donations from Tim Barnard, CEO of the project's contractor, Barnard Construction.

Levi Teitel, communications coordinator for Progress Michigan, called it problematic.

"We're drawing attention to this potential conflict of interest," Teitel explained. "And what it could mean for the integrity of the Great Lakes and also for our government as a whole."

Enbridge has responded in a statement saying, in part, it hired Barnard Construction Company and Civil and Building North America in 2023, during the Biden administration, following a robust and lengthy selection process.

Opponents of Line 5 have cited spill risks, Indigenous rights and the project's contribution to continued reliance on fossil fuels among their concerns.

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently affirmed the state Public Service Commission's decision to grant permits for the underwater pipeline project, rejecting legal challenges from environmental groups and tribes concerned about its ecological and cultural impact. Teitel argued the approval process for Line 5 has been flawed.

"This process should require public input," Teitel contended. "That's usually what really happens when it comes to federal permitting for fossil fuel projects. If this were fast-tracked, it could spell danger and potentially an explosion risk."

The Line 5 project involves constructing a 4.5-mile tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac to encase the crude oil pipeline and reduce spill risks.


get more stories like this via email

Greenpeace has been ordered to pay several hundred million dollars stemming from the Dakota Access Pipeline protests and some are saying the verdict leaves a chilling effect on free-speech matters.

Nearly a decade ago, protests in North Dakota captured worldwide attention as the oil pipeline project advanced, with Indigenous rights serving as a focal point. The events still reverberate today, including a civil trial where an affiliated energy company sued Greenpeace, accusing it of defamation and orchestrating illegal acts within the protests. The global nonprofit argued it had a limited presence.

James Wheaton, founder and senior counsel for the First Amendment Project, a public interest law firm, worries about the verdict's precedent.

"The problem is going to be that anybody who helps to organize a peaceful, lawful protest could face ruinous litigation," Wheaton pointed out.

He suggested activists might worry about being dragged into court versus expressing their First Amendment rights. Greenpeace said it will appeal and has warned a large civil penalty could force it to cease operating in the U.S.

The company behind the case, Energy Transfer, said the outcome is a win for Americans who "understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law."

A broader aspect of the case is what's known as a SLAPP lawsuit, with experts noting these are sometimes brought by corporations against people or nonprofits speaking out on various issues. Even if the plaintiff does not win, the defendant is saddled with mounting legal costs.

Wheaton helped start the movement to usher in anti-SLAPP laws around the country. He explained how they work.

"The court can freeze the case in its tracks at the very beginning and test whether it has enough merit to be allowed to go forward or should be dismissed immediately," Wheaton outlined.

Dozens of states have such laws on the books, but North Dakota is not among them. Critics of anti-SLAPP laws said they make it too easy for a court to quickly dismiss a case. But Wheaton feels they do not prevent plaintiffs from having their day in court, and he would like to see more states adopt them.


get more stories like this via email