To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
In this world, where everything and everyone is for sale, we must sustain independent media we can trust. If you believe independent journalism is critical to protecting democracy and the common good, please support Common Dreams this Giving Tuesday! We wouldn't exist without you.
"Tribal consultation must be treated as a requirement—not an option—when the federal government is making decisions that could irrevocably affect tribal communities," said Interior Secretary Deb Haaland.
Indigenous tribes and conservation groups applauded the Biden administration on Tuesday for listening to the demands of Alaska Natives, who have called on the federal government to protect 28 million acres of land in the state from mining—warning that failing to do so would threaten food security and cultural identity for tens of thousands of people.
U.S. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland's announcement that the land would be protected from mining interests—reversing a decision by former President Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee—"is a big deal for the communities and wildlife who call Alaska home," said Dan Ritzman of the Sierra Club.
"These lands and waters are unparalleled not only for their natural beauty, but for the habitat they provide imperiled wildlife, and the recreation opportunities they offer us," said Ritzman, who heads the group's Conservation Campaign. "These 28 million acres are some of the last truly intact wildlands in the United States. Secretary Haaland deserves credit for listening to those who have called for their protection for generations to come."
The Bureau of Land Managament (BLM) said Trump made an "unlawful decision" when his administration ended longstanding protections for the lands "without sufficient analysis of the potential impacts of such a decision on subsistence and other important resources, appropriate tribal consultation, and without compliance with other legal requirements," opening the lands to oil and gas extraction.
"Tribal consultation must be treated as a requirement—not an option—when the federal government is making decisions that could irrevocably affect tribal communities," said Haaland. "Continuing these essential protections, which have been in place for decades, will ensure continued access and use of these public lands now and in the future."
"These 28 million acres are some of the last truly intact wildlands in the United States."
The Wild Salmon Center noted that the lands in question contain some of the largest remaining intact ecosystems in the country, "from high alpine tundra to the pristine estuaries and wetlands in places like Bristol Bay, home to the world's most abundant wild sockeye salmon runs."
Alaska Native tribes have also called for the public lands to be protected because they serve as a habitat for caribou.
"Secretary Haaland's decision today is an important step toward a future full of healthy lands, waters, and people who thrive on wild salmon, waterfowl, other migratory animals, and seasonal plant life," said Anaan'arar Sophie Swope, executive director of Mother Kuskokwim Tribal Coalition. "Our Yukon-Kuskokwim region's wetlands are vital to our people's way of life."
Swope said the coalition is pushing for further action from the BLM to stop the "dangerous and destructive" 315-mile pipeline proposed by Donlin Gold.
"These actions would ensure future generations' ability to safely live on the land while carrying our customary and traditional knowledge," said Swope.
Haaland's announcement comes two months after the Biden administration blocked the construction of an industrial road that would have opened access for mining in Alaska, and weeks after the BLM proposed expanded protections for the Western Arctic—but President Joe Biden's approval of the Willow oil extraction project has been condemned as an "oil stain" on his climate record.
Drew McConville, senior fellow for the Center for American Progress, said the restored protections announced Tuesday are an "historic victory for public lands and the result of unwavering advocacy from Alaska Native communities."
"The Trump administration's attempt to open them up to industrial development was both shortsighted and reckless," said McConville, "especially when Alaska is warming at more than two times the pace of the rest of the planet."
While applauding the proposal, climate advocates said they would "keep fighting to ensure there's no new oil extraction on a single acre" of the region.
Indigenous groups in Alaska were joined by climate advocates on Friday in welcoming the Biden administration's proposal to expand protections from oil and gas drilling in the Western Arctic, though some groups emphasized that the federal government should not stop with the newly announced effort.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) said it was opening a 60-day comment period regarding a potential expansion of areas protected from drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A), also known as the Western Arctic.
The announcement comes three months after the Biden administration unveiled protections for 13 million acres of the 23 million-acre reserve, barring oil and gas companies from extraction there.
With wildlife including the 150,000-strong Western Arctic caribou herd, muskoxen, polar bears, migratory birds, and native plants depending on the reserve as their habitat, the Sierra Club said President Joe Biden's moves to designate Special Areas in the region are crucial—especially considering the Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the world.
"If enacted, these proposed protections would be another historic move towards long-term preservation of America's Arctic," said Athan Manuel, director of Sierra Club's Lands Protection Program. "The Arctic is at the frontline of climate change. President Biden is making it the frontline of climate action."
"If enacted, these proposed protections would be another historic move towards long-term preservation of America's Arctic."
The group pointed out that further protections would allow the NPR-A to store carbon and provide subsistence hunting and gathering areas for Alaska Natives including the Iñupiat.
Protections like those proposed on Friday, said Nauri Simmonds of Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic, are "vital for balancing the systematic disempowerment that's happened in our region for decades" as fossil fuel companies—with the approval of administrations including Biden's—have extracted oil and gas in the Arctic.
"In my Aaka's (grandmother's) lifetime, she witnessed the transition from living a traditional lifestyle to experiencing the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System being constructed and oil fields erected close enough to her traditional lands to be seen, heard, and lead to evacuations for Nuiqsut (the most impacted village from oil and gas development on the north slope of Alaska) as recently as 2022," said Simmonds. "We welcome this most recent announcement, and will continue to work towards building stronger communities in ways that lead to autonomy and self-determination on our traditional lands."
The BLM said it plans to consult with Alaska Native tribes during the 60-day comment period.
Groups including Friends of the Earth (FOE) and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) expressed cautious optimism about the Biden administration's plan to further protect the largest single unit of public lands in the U.S. from oil and gas exploration.
Raena Garcia, senior fossil fuel and lands campaigner at FOE, called the comment period "a great step toward conserving the Arctic's ecological and cultural significance," but warned that the proposed protections "should not stop at today's announcement."
The Department of the Interior "must establish additional safeguards to prevent the irreversible environmental harm that oil and gas projects like [the Willow oil drilling project] pose to our climate and communities," said Garcia.
Cooper Freeman, Alaska director at CBD, said the entire Western Arctic must "be protected from all oil drilling."
"Anything less is like shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic," said Freeman. "If the federal government continues to allow oil drilling anywhere on the reserve, it'll fuel the climate chaos devastating polar bear dens, migratory bird nesting wetlands, and caribou calving grounds in designated special areas. We'll keep fighting to ensure there's no new oil extraction on a single acre."
If we are to restore old growth, combat climate change, and preserve wildlife habitats and have forests for future generations to experience, we must change the way that we manage our public forest lands.
In December, the Biden administration took a redwood-sized step toward protecting old-growth trees and forests. Following a presidential executive order in April 2022, the U.S. Forest Service announced that it intends to amend all 128 forest land management plans to conserve and expand old growth in national forests. That move clears the way for us to stop chainsaws from felling our oldest trees, which are worth more standing than as lumber. We commend Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack (who presides over the Forest Service) and his team.
As with any policy proposal, the devil is in the details. To truly prevent timber companies from chopping down our old-growth trees and forests, the final version of this proposed amendment, expected in January 2025, must be stronger in a few specific areas.
Environment America and our allies with the Climate Forests Campaign have been and will continue to advocate for the strongest possible protections for these trees and forests.
While it is a strong step in the direction of protecting critical trees and forests, even if the Forest Service’s final amendment includes the robust protections described above, it will still omit many important trees and forests.
Some of these forests are managed by another federal agency, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Interior Secretary Deb Halaand and BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning should propose their own plan to protect older trees and forests on BLM’s lands.
We’re facing twin crises—climate change and biodiversity loss. To combat both, we need more “climate forests”—vibrant ecosystems full of older trees that absorb and store carbon.
Old-growth forests are irreplaceable and worthy of elevated protection, but there are hardly any left. To recover even a fraction of what was lost to logging over the centuries, the United States must act to protect mature trees and forests, the future old growth, from commercial logging. These forests are still developing and will turn into old-growth ecosystems, supporting biodiversity and storing more carbon if we let the trees grow. The solution to our shortage of old-growth forests is to nurture these future ones, but the Forest Service’s proposed amendment would not confer meaningful safeguards for mature forests.
Humans have built wooden homes, fences, furniture, and other products for centuries. The problems started when people began to believe that trees were most valuable when chopped down. We started industrial-scale logging to clear land for agriculture, cities, railroads, and highways. We’ve managed our forests accordingly, accepting a Forest Service mission that includes the “productivity of the nation’s forests.”
After more than a century of management for “productivity,” many of our nation’s “forests” are rows of trees of uniform species and age that we let grow only to chop down in a few decades. They resemble fields on a farm. Two-thirds of our country’s forests are “timberlands,” designated for industrial logging. If you embrace the concept of a forest as a fully functioning ecosystem, developing over decades or centuries without large-scale human interference, then it’s clear that the public forests of the United States mostly come up short.
This shortage is unfortunate because we’re facing twin crises—climate change and biodiversity loss. To combat both, we need more “climate forests”—vibrant ecosystems full of older trees that absorb and store carbon. Our national forests and grasslands are home to 3,000 species of wildlife, and according to the Forest Service, “forests in the U.S. remove the equivalent of about 12% of annual U.S. fossil fuel emissions.” No other technology can match forests for carbon removal at this scale. We don’t even have to invest in research and development to spin up new forests. We simply have to let our existing forests grow.
Approximately 38% of forestland in the United States is publicly owned, most of that is managed by the federal government. If we are to restore old growth, combat climate change, and preserve wildlife habitats and have forests for future generations to experience, we must change the way that we manage our public forest lands.
The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have their work cut out for them. Step one should be to finalize this proposed amendment so that it protects as many trees as possible. The administration must simultaneously be working on step two: developing durable policies for protecting the rest of our “climate forests.” We’ve heard too many trees fall in our forests. Now, it’s time to keep them standing.