SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
biodiversity
The Fix Our Forests Act Is a Logging Bill Disguised as a Firefighting Bill
If passed, it would open millions of acres of forests to logging without scientific review or citizen input. A better name for this legislations would be the Fix It So We Can Log Without Citizen Oversight Act.
Feb 10, 2025
It comes in a box with a picture of a fire extinguisher on the front. Below it the words: Guaranteed to stop wildfires. But when you open it up there’s a chainsaw inside. Tucked beside it is a piece a piece of paper saying, “Now without citizen overview!”
That’s the Fix Our Forests Act, a logging bill disguised as a firefighting bill. The tell is in the numerous and creative ways it would obstruct citizen input, from delaying citizen review until after the trees are cut to reducing the statute of limitations for filing lawsuits from six months to 120 days, seriously straining the ability of small citizen groups to apply legal restraint. It waives National Environmental Policy Act protections on fire-sheds as large as 250,000 square acres and allows loggings to proceed even if courts find the logging plan violates the law. There are no limits on the size and age of trees that can be cut, and the language is so vague that even clear cuts could qualify as “fuels treatment.” If passed, it would open millions of acres of forests to logging without scientific review or citizen input. A better name for this legislations would be the Fix It So We Can Log Without Citizen Oversight Act.
Introduced by Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), and having passed in the House, it’s now being rushed through the Senate in an attempt to capitalize on the heightened fire concern surrounding the tragic LA fires. A vote is expected any day now.
If our forests are broken, might it be the successive rounds of logging trucks and roads, chainsaws and feller bunchers, herbicidal treatments and industrial replanting of greenhouse-grown monocrops that did the breaking?
The bill claims to “protect communities by expediting environmental analyses, reducing frivolous lawsuits, and increasing the pace and scale of forest restoration projects.” But if protecting communities were really the goal, this bill would pour resources into the only methods proven to do that: hardening homes and defending immediate space.
Most homes don’t catch fire directly from flames themselves, but from embers blown ahead of a fire. Simple measures like screening vents, covering gutters, and pruning vegetation directly around buildings dramatically improve their fire resilience. Thinning vegetation in the immediate surroundings, within 100 feet or so of the dwelling, can also help. These were among the recommendations of the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission. But rather than heed those recommendations by investing in boots on the ground to harden homes and educate communities, the bill diverts resources to backcountry logging.
The U.S. Forest Service has spent years making the argument that “mechanical treatment” of forests reduces wildfire. Independent research, however, comes to different conclusions, that thinning harms the forest and actually increases the very conditions that favor fire—heat, dryness, and wind. The reasons are fairly obvious. For instance, removing trees makes it harder for forests to slow wind, increasing the wind speeds of potential fires and thus the speed of spread. It also allows more sunlight to reach the forest floor, heating up the ground. Even more importantly, trees don’t just stand around soaking up sunlight, they also cool and hydrate their surroundings. It’s called transpiration, and can be understood as a kind of sweating, just like we do to keep cool in the sun. A single tree can have the cooling power of up to 10 air conditioners.
But that really is just the beginning. Those trees also help make rain. By sweating water vapor they not only cool the air, they deliver water vapor to the sky, feeding the formation of clouds. Even more remarkable, they seed that vapor with biochemicals such as terpenes (the forest scent) and other bits of biota that provide the grains for eventual rain drops to condense around. Forests make clouds. Those clouds then rain down, watering other forests, hydrating soil and vegetation, and increasing resilience to wildfire.
In other words, what the Fix our Forests Act calls dangerous fuels are also air conditioners and humidifiers, rain makers and rain catchers, as their needles gather and slow the falling of rain, allowing it to seep into the ground and make its way to aquifers, which will prove critical during the dry season. Of course, older, deeply rooted trees are best able to tap this water, but there are no protections for them in the Fix Our Forests Act.
Given that the concern is fire, it’s remarkable how little this legislation ever mentions water, its antidote. Though I did find, in section 119, under “Watershed Condition Framework Technical Corrections,” calls to strike the word “protection” from watershed provisions in a previous, similar bill, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, under George W. Bush. (To see a short, simple demonstration of how plant moisture effects flammability, watch this.)
Perhaps the problems with this bill are explained by the first word of the bill’s title: “Fix.” You can fix a car. You can fix a broken plate. But can you “fix” a forest? Can you “fix” a living ecosystem of infinite complexity? Such language represents an outdated way of thinking about the living world around us, and marks the very kind of thinking that’s gotten into this mess in the first place. And one needs to ask: If our forests are broken, might it be the successive rounds of logging trucks and roads, chainsaws and feller bunchers, herbicidal treatments and industrial replanting of greenhouse-grown monocrops that did the breaking?
Yes, there are instances where careful thinning of small trees and undergrowth is indicated, such as right around built communities or in industrial plantations planted too densely. But such measured action doesn’t need this bill, and this bill isn’t about such measured action. Rather, as put by Robert Dewey, vice president of government relations with Defenders of Wildlife, the bill “will do little of anything to combat fires and instead plays favorites with the timber industry which is hungry to consume more of our forests—removing large fire-resilient trees and devastating the lands and species which call them home.”
As mentioned, the bill is moving quickly. Last minute citizen outcry is the only thing standing in its way.
The following Senators have been identified as key votes: John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Angus King ((-Maine), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), and John Fetterman (D-Pa.)
Keep ReadingShow Less
Actuaries and Scientists Warn Climate Shocks Risk 'Planetary Insolvency'
A new report "shows a 50% GDP contraction between 2070 and 2090 unless an alternative course is chartered," said the lead author.
Jan 16, 2025
U.K. actuaries and University of Exeter climate scientists on Thursday warned that "the risk of planetary insolvency looms unless we act decisively" and urged policymakers to "implement realistic and effective approaches to global risk management."
Actuaries have developed techniques that "underpin the functioning of the global pension market with $55 trillion of assets, and the global insurance market, collecting $8 trillion of premiums annually, to help us manage risk," Tim Lenton, University of Exeter's climate change and Earth system science chair, noted in the foreword of a report released Thursday.
Planetary Solvency—Finding Our Balance With Nature is the fourth report for which the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) has collaborated with climate scientists. In financial terms, solvency is the ability of people or companies to pay their long-term debts. Co-authors of one of the previous publications coined the phrase planetary solvency, "setting out the idea that financial risk management techniques could be adapted to help society manage climate change and other risks."
Three IFoA leaders—Kalpana Shah, Paul Sweeting, and Kartina Tahir Thomson—explained in their introduction to the latest report how "planetary solvency applies these techniques to the Earth system," writing:
The essentials that support our society and economy all flow from the Earth system, commodities such as food, water, energy, and raw materials. The Earth system regulates the climate and provides a breathable atmosphere, it is the foundation that underpins our society and economy. Planetary solvency assesses the Earth system's ability to continue supporting us, informed by planetary boundaries, tipping points in the Earth system, and other scientific discoveries to assess risks to this foundation—and thus to our society and the economy.
Our illustrative assessment of planetary solvency in this report shows a more fundamental, policy-led change of direction is required. Our current market-led approach to mitigating climate and nature risks is not delivering. There is an increasing risk of severe societal disruption (planetary insolvency), as our economic system drives further global warming and nature degradation.
"Impacts are already severe with unprecedented fires, floods, heatwaves, storms, and droughts," the document points out, emphasizing that human activity—particularly burning fossil fuels—drives climate change and biodiversity loss. "If unchecked they could become catastrophic, including loss of capacity to grow major staple crops, multimeter sea-level rise, altered climate patterns, and a further acceleration of global warming."
The report was released as wildfires ravage California and shortly after scientific bodies around the world concluded that 2024 was the hottest year on record and the first in which the average global temperature exceeded a key goal of the Paris agreement: 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. In the United States, experts identified 27 disasters with losses exceeding $1 billion.
"We risk triggering tipping points such as Greenland ice sheet melt, coral reef loss, Amazon forest dieback, and major ocean current disruption," the new publication warns, adding that "tipping points can trigger each other," and if multiple are triggered, "there may be a point of no return, after which it may be impossible to stabilize the climate."
Food system shocks and more frequent and devastating disasters increase the risk of mass mortality for humanity—including due to hunger and infectious diseases—along with mass migration and conflict, the report highlights.
"Climate change risk assessment methodologies understate economic impact, as they often exclude many of the most severe risks that are expected and do not recognize there is a risk of ruin," the document stresses. "They are precisely wrong, rather than being roughly right."
Specifically, lead author and IFoA council member Sandy Trust said in a statement, "widely used but deeply flawed assessments of the economic impact of climate change show a negligible impact" on gross domestic product (GDP).
However, Trust continued, "the risk-led methodology, set out in the report, shows a 50% GDP contraction between 2070 and 2090 unless an alternative course is chartered."
To mitigate the risk of planetary insolvency, the co-authors called on policymakers around the world to implement independent, annual assessments; set limits and thresholds that respect the planet's boundaries; enhance governance structures to support planetary solvency; and "enhance policymaker understanding of ecological interdependencies, tipping points, and systemic risks so they understand why these changes are needed."
They also underscored the need to limit global warming and avoid triggering tipping points with actions such as accelerating decarbonization, removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, restoring damaged ecosystems, and building resilience.
"You can't have an economy without a society, and a society needs somewhere to live," said Trust. "Nature is our foundation... Threats to the stability of this foundation are risks to future human prosperity which we must take action to avoid."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Shame': Sweden to Start New Year With Controversial Wolf Hunt
"The Swedish government since 2010 has been blatantly disregarding the wolf's special protection status, allowing a yearly licensed quota hunt and thereby breaking E.U. law," one campaigner said.
Jan 01, 2025
Sweden is set to start a controversial wolf hunt on Thursday that could see its declining wolf population fall by another 8%.
The country has authorized the killing of 30 of the nation's 375 wolves—or five entire families—in a move that conservationists say is illegal under European Union law. Ultimately, the Swedish government wants to nearly halve the minimum number of wolves for "favorable conservation status" from 300 to 170.
'Imagine... the outcry if this were Sri Lanka killing leopards, or Botswana lions, both much trickier animals to live with," U.K. environmentalist Ben Goldsmith wrote on social media. "Shame, shame on Sweden."
"If Sweden, one of the richest countries in the world with a population of 10.5 million people, can't accept a population of 375 wolves, what hope is there for the planet's biodiversity?"
Under the Council of Europe's Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, or Bern Convention, countries must preserve the populations of protected species so that they remain above a sustainable level. However, Magnus Orrebrant, the chair of the Swedish Carnivore Association, toldThe Guardian that E.U. law has not meant much for Sweden's wolves.
"The Swedish government since 2010 has been blatantly disregarding the wolf's special protection status, allowing a yearly licensed quota hunt and thereby breaking E.U. law," Orrebrant said. "We filed a formal complaint to the E.U. commission, leading to an infringement procedure against Sweden, as yet to no avail."
Excessive wolf hunting has been a problem in Sweden for decades, and was part of the reason that the country had no breeding population at all between 1966 and 1983. In addition, increased hunting slashed the population by nearly 20% between 2022 and 2023.
Beyond licensed hunts, Sweden's wolf population also faces pressure from poachers, according to conservation group Revolution Rov, with DNA evidence suggesting that up to 80 wolves are killed illegally each year.
"In many license hunting decisions on wolves in recent years, it has been argued that if legal hunting is allowed, illegal hunting will disappear, but that has not happened at all... Instead, even more wolves have had to die," the group wrote in a petition against 2024's hunt.
The group also wrote that Sweden's wolf population is genetically vulnerable, with many mating pairs being closely related. For the population to remain healthy, it needs an influx of new genes from wolves migrating from Finland or Russia, but these wolves are often killed before they can pair off.
Wildlife advocates outside of Sweden also criticized the 2025 hunt.
"I believe that one of the hallmarks of human progress is learning to coexist with other species that our ancestors once feared," wrote Wildlife Trusts CEO Craig Bennett on social media. "And sadly, it often feels like we still live in the Dark Ages."
Ecologist and conservationist Alan Watson Featherstone wrote: "I really do despair about humanity—we are such a selfish species. If Sweden, one of the richest countries in the world with a population of 10.5 million people, can't accept a population of 375 wolves, what hope is there for the planet's biodiversity?"
However, Sweden is not alone in Europe in its hostility to wolves. The Bern Convention in December accepted an E.U. proposal to lower the wolf's status from "strictly protected" to "protected." The decision followed complaints from farmers that the continent's rebounding wolf population was harming livestock, but conservationists say that allowing the killing of wolves will threaten the species in a vulnerable moment and is not the solution to livestock killings.
"The wolf is still endangered in many parts of Europe, and weakening its protection will only lead to further conflict and threaten its recovery," Ilaria Di Silvestre, regional director of policy at the International Fund for Animal Welfare, toldThe Associated Press in December.
The Bern Convention's decision, which will go into effect on March 7, will clear the way for the European Commission to alter its habitats directive for wolves to reflect their higher numbers in the mountains and forests of Scandinavia and Western Europe, which will then make it easier to approve more wolf killings.
"We are very critical to the path that the E.U. is now taking, downgrading the protection status of the wolf," Orrebrant told The Guardian. "If the E.U. follows up the latest Bern Convention decision by changing the wolf's protection status in the habitat directive, the result will be very negative not only for the wolves, but for all wildlife in Europe."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular