Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

US Forest Service failing to protect old growth trees from logging, critics say

News Feed
Thursday, August 1, 2024

They are the ancient giants of America – towering trunks of sequoias or beech or ash that started to sprout in some cases before the age of the Roman empire, with the few survivors of a frenzy of settler logging now appreciated as crucial allies in an era of climate and biodiversity crises.Joe Biden has vowed to protect these “cherished” remnants of old growth forest, as well as the next generation of mature forests, directing his government to draw up new plans to conserve the ecological powerhouses that enable US forests to soak up about 10% of the country’s carbon emissions, as well as provide a vital crucible for clean water and wildlife.Little Rock Pond Shelter in Green Mountain national forest, Vermont. Photograph: Leon Werdinger/AlamyYet, the US Forest Service has not included mature trees in this new plan, which also includes loopholes conservationists say allow ongoing felling of trees that are hundreds of years old. The Forest Service, responsible for 154 national forests and nearly 25m acres (10m hectares) of old growth trees in the US, has also largely declined to conduct required reviews of multiple logging projects amid a stampede of tree cutting that threatens the oldest, richest trees before any new curtailments are imposed.“The largest logging projects I’ve ever seen are targeting the last, best remaining old growth trees left in the country,” said Chad Hanson, a forest ecologist and co-founder of the John Muir Project.Hanson said the Forest Service had failed to properly follow the president’s directive, instead allowing logging that imperils the remaining trove of the US’s long-lived, untouched trees.“We have a rogue agency in the Forest Service that is trying to benefit the logging industry before reforms take place,” he said. “The situation is rampant as far as I can tell and it risks squandering a once-in-a-generation opportunity to protect these incredible forests.”The Forest Service – which has defended its approach – approved 31 logging projects covering 116,460 acres of old growth forests just between December and April, a recent agency report states. A further 18 planned cutting projects within old growth forests are being considered.In all, dozens of major logging projects are being advanced across the US, including the felling of 130,000 acres of old growth forest, an area roughly equivalent to the size of Chicago, in Plumas national forest in California; a plan to cut 95,000 acres in the Yaak River Valley in Montana that contains 600-year-old larch trees; and a program called the Telephone Gap project that aims to hack away a portion of ancient forest in Vermont that is 90% old growth and mature trees.Many of these plans have been granted approval since Biden’s executive order in April 2022 that demanded his agencies take action to protect the most storied, grandest trees in the US. The overall amount of logging in national forests has surged 24% during Biden’s term, despite him committing, along with 144 other world leaders, to reverse deforestation by 2030.The Forest Service has rejected the suggestion that it is allowing the timber industry to plunder older trees, pointing to reduced cutting rates compared with previous decades and a service policy to “protect, maintain and improve old growth forest conditions”. It also defended its policy on reviewing, saying all projects that fell under the scope of the mature and old growth requirement were looked at.Critics, though, see an agency pushing through a rush of logging before outdated practices are overturned. “It’s insane, there’s just no justification for this,” said Hanson, who is part of a legal effort to prevent logging amid giant sequoias, a project ostensibly to protect a species that only grows in a 60-mile band along California’s Sierra Nevada. “Why would we log giant sequoias of any size? It’s just crazy.”A red sequoia tree reaches for the sky alongside other trees. Photograph: Edu Borja/Getty ImagesIn response, environmentalists have launched legal action to stymie logging from New Hampshire to California, while tree-sitting protesters have occupied targeted woodland in Oregon. Scores of scientists have written to Biden warning that the outgoing president’s climate legacy is at risk and lamenting that “we have lost too many of those living witnesses of the past.” The “timber wars”, a fierce 1970s struggle over the future of forests that helped preserve the last fragments of old growth, appear to be rekindling, 50 years on.“If the Biden administration wants this process to be something more than a greenwashing exercise, then it must put stronger pressure on the Forest Service,” said Zack Porter, executive director of Standing Trees, a Vermont conservation group. “Biden needs to intervene to live up to his climate goals, because at the moment this process is going off the rails.”There are trees standing in America far older than the country itself. Perhaps the most famous of these, the gargantuan giant sequoias of California, can surpass the grizzled age of 3,000 years as they grow to a towering 300ft tall and slowly layer a bulk of several hundred tons, making them one of the oldest, as well as largest, organisms on Earth.A bristlecone pine, also in California, is thought to be even more ancient, clocking in at around 4,800 years old. Other species in the US range in the hundreds of years old, having survived in plunging ravines or remote mountaintops from the ravages of axe and chainsaw.Such timeworn trees were long seen as worthless. “They were viewed as old and decrepit and valuable for logging, not much else,” said Jim Furnish, a former deputy chief of the Forest Service, which was established in 1905 and has long had strong ties to the timber industry.“If you cut down the older trees, you then get younger forests that can provide timber quickly,” Furnish said. “That was the rationale, which has left us with very little old growth.”In recent decades, however, scientists have amassed evidence that older trees are treasure troves of life. They draw up and then expel moisture into the surrounding air like a sort of biotic pump, essentially creating their own weather systems, filtering water (national forests provide a fifth of the US’s clean water supply) and offering homes in craggy hollows to a panoply of wildlife.As they grow, the trees’ bark thickens, making them and the surrounding forest more resistant to fire. A network of fungi helps spread a bounty of water and nutrients to the forest community. When these trees, having mopped up huge doses of carbon dioxide, eventually die, the toppled trunks regenerate soil, nourishing trees and animals around them.“Their value is just off the charts,” said Dominick DellaSala, a veteran forest researcher. “You cut down a tree like that and you destroy habitat and lose 80% of that stored carbon into the atmosphere, more carbon than is lost from a fire. There’s just no reason to do it.”A rethink on old growth followed a bitter battle over the imperiled northern spotted owl in the Pacific north-west, with millions of acres of the bird’s favored aged forest habitat ultimately set aside from cutting in 1994. The Forest Service points to a nationwide decline in logging since this time, with the agency considering wildfires, insect infestations and the climate crisis to now be the greatest threats to US forests.Still, there has been an uptick in logging since Biden became president in 2021, with the Forest Service removing 2.94bn board ft (7.27m cubic metres)of timber from national forests last year, enough to fill more than 1.25m logging trucks, according to advocacy group calculations on agency data. The Forest Service still works towards “timber targets” that, it recently told Congress, it could increase with more resources and speedier environmental reviews.The agency has a deep-rooted mindset of muscular “management” of forests rather than just letting them grow, according to DellaSala. “They will always argue for chainsaws and bulldozers, no matter what the issue is,” he said. There is plenty that could still be cut, too – just a quarter of the 112m acres of old growth and mature forests on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land is protected, DellaSala’s research has calculated.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionForests had long been selectively cut or burned by Native Americans but the arrival of European settlers kickstarted the widespread razing of trees for timber and farmland, to the extent that a mere 5% of original forest, scattered in small patches of trees, is left across the country. In the eastern US, barely 1% remains.The Biden effort to stem losses of old growth trees, therefore, ignited optimism that a major turning point had arrived. “We have lost so much, there is such a deficit that we are recovering from,” said Sarah Adloo, executive director of the Old Growth Forest Network. “So just hearing the words ‘old growth’ from the president’s mouth was really wonderful.”Biden ordered the Forest Service and the BLM, which collectively manage forests spanning about 250m acres, an estate about double the size of Spain, to conduct the first inventories of remaining old growth and mature forest and set about updating individual forest plans to curb their loss. “These forests are an essential partner in tackling climate change,” insisted Ali Zaidi, a senior White House climate adviser.The timber industry, long used to procuring valuable wood from some of the largest, and therefore usually oldest, trees on public land, reacted with dismay. “We are extremely concerned about the disruption this unprecedented approach will have on urgently needed management efforts,” said Bill Imbergamo, head of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition, an industry group, citing the imperative, disputed by many scientists outside industry or government, to actively cut or “thin” forests to prevent insect outbreaks, or to reduce wildfire risk.But environmentalists also saw flaws. There is no universal definition of old growth – some scientists class it as trees that have reached about 120 years in age – but there is agreement that mature trees, of about 80 years in age, must be protected to ensure more old growth in the future. The Forest Service plan, presented in December and recently updated with a draft environmental assessment, does not include mature trees, however, despite them covering more than double the area, about 68m acres, of old growth, according to the agency’s inventory of its managed land.“If you allow mature trees to be cut, you get no additional old growth,” Porter said. The Forest Service plan, which is on track to be finalized in January, also allows the felling of old growth trees for purported environmental reasons, which could be used to justify further logging that many scientists say actually worsens fire and pests.“It’s clear to me that the Forest Service is intent on promoting a new era of destructive commercial logging in old growth forests on public lands, while trying to deceptively spin it as wildfire management, forest health and community protection,” said Hanson. “Why isn’t President Biden telling the Forest Service no, and insisting that mature and old growth forests be fully protected from logging, as hundreds of scientists have urged?”In December, Chris French, the deputy head of the Forest Service, did send an agency-wide memo requiring all logging projects that include old growth forests to be reviewed and approved by service leadership before proceeding.However, when the Guardian asked the Forest Service about the status of 29 contentious logging projects across the US, the agency confirmed only five had been reviewed, with many rejected for assessment because of a supposed lack of old growth, or because the projects had started before the memo, even though such a constraint was not stipulated in the original edict.A Forest Service spokesperson said mature forests were not included in the plan because climate change “introduces a lot of uncertainty” as to where older forests can survive. “The goal is not to manage all mature forest as future old-growth forest,” he said. “In some cases, places that are currently forests will no longer be forests. In others, the plants and animals will change dramatically. So, a strict preservation approach might not work.”The spokesperson added that the service was “clearly harvesting much less timber” than it was in the period up to around 1990, when policies started to shift towards ecological needs and logging focused more on younger, plantation-based, trees.He also denied that reviews of old growth logging projects were being overlooked by service leadership, or sidestepped by local forest managers. “All projects that fall within the scope of the mature and old growth requirement are reviewed,” the spokesperson said. “Forest projects are reviewed by both the regional and national offices, so it is unlikely that forests could ignore the direction.”On a recent, steamy late-spring day, Porter led a small group through a section of the Green Mountain national forest, a 400,000-acre slice of rich northern hardwood forest in Vermont, a rare splash of older trees in a region denuded of original forest. Black bears, moose and beavers are found in this place, which has a touch of the prehistoric about it, with its gurgling streams, ferns and moss-covered boulders.“These are big, big trees for the eastern US, there’s nothing much like this left,” said John Roe, a retired forest ecologist, as he surveyed the soaring stands of maple, ash and birch. “This sort of forest is of global importance.” The trees have rebounded since the US civil war era, when farmers abandoned the area. Give these trees another 160 years, Roe said, and you will see the sort of complex, intact forest there was before European arrival.Many of these trees won’t get the chance to do so – the Forest Service is considering a logging program, called Telephone Gap, that will hew about 12,000 acres, an area slightly smaller than Manhattan, containing mostly mature trees with some old growth. “My worry is we foolishly sacrifice more than a century of recovery here,” said Porter.If you trudge deeper into the heart of this national forest you get to a lake called the North Pond, an idyllic spot favored by beavers and fringed by slopes of trees, many that have never been cleaved. Clamber over some rocks and slippery moss into these stands and you can find sentinels that have stood amid this scene for timescales that leave the modern world behind.Roe holds a tape measure to the bark of a grand yellow birch – 39in in diameter, probably 300 or so years old. A tree that was overlooking this lake, passing the seasons, before George Washington was born. “This is a monster,” Roe said, gawping up at the tree.In March, Porter got an email from the district ranger overseeing the planned logging project, stating that there was “no need” for the plan to be sent to Forest Service leadership for a review as it would not disturb what the forest managers define to be true old growth, which is this tiny amount of pre-colonial woodland left behind.

Biden’s efforts to save mature trees are not getting enough Forest Service support, according to some conservationistsThey are the ancient giants of America – towering trunks of sequoias or beech or ash that started to sprout in some cases before the age of the Roman empire, with the few survivors of a frenzy of settler logging now appreciated as crucial allies in an era of climate and biodiversity crises.Joe Biden has vowed to protect these “cherished” remnants of old growth forest, as well as the next generation of mature forests, directing his government to draw up new plans to conserve the ecological powerhouses that enable US forests to soak up about 10% of the country’s carbon emissions, as well as provide a vital crucible for clean water and wildlife. Continue reading...

They are the ancient giants of America – towering trunks of sequoias or beech or ash that started to sprout in some cases before the age of the Roman empire, with the few survivors of a frenzy of settler logging now appreciated as crucial allies in an era of climate and biodiversity crises.

Joe Biden has vowed to protect these “cherished” remnants of old growth forest, as well as the next generation of mature forests, directing his government to draw up new plans to conserve the ecological powerhouses that enable US forests to soak up about 10% of the country’s carbon emissions, as well as provide a vital crucible for clean water and wildlife.

Little Rock Pond Shelter in Green Mountain national forest, Vermont. Photograph: Leon Werdinger/Alamy

Yet, the US Forest Service has not included mature trees in this new plan, which also includes loopholes conservationists say allow ongoing felling of trees that are hundreds of years old. The Forest Service, responsible for 154 national forests and nearly 25m acres (10m hectares) of old growth trees in the US, has also largely declined to conduct required reviews of multiple logging projects amid a stampede of tree cutting that threatens the oldest, richest trees before any new curtailments are imposed.

“The largest logging projects I’ve ever seen are targeting the last, best remaining old growth trees left in the country,” said Chad Hanson, a forest ecologist and co-founder of the John Muir Project.

Hanson said the Forest Service had failed to properly follow the president’s directive, instead allowing logging that imperils the remaining trove of the US’s long-lived, untouched trees.

“We have a rogue agency in the Forest Service that is trying to benefit the logging industry before reforms take place,” he said. “The situation is rampant as far as I can tell and it risks squandering a once-in-a-generation opportunity to protect these incredible forests.”

The Forest Service – which has defended its approach – approved 31 logging projects covering 116,460 acres of old growth forests just between December and April, a recent agency report states. A further 18 planned cutting projects within old growth forests are being considered.

In all, dozens of major logging projects are being advanced across the US, including the felling of 130,000 acres of old growth forest, an area roughly equivalent to the size of Chicago, in Plumas national forest in California; a plan to cut 95,000 acres in the Yaak River Valley in Montana that contains 600-year-old larch trees; and a program called the Telephone Gap project that aims to hack away a portion of ancient forest in Vermont that is 90% old growth and mature trees.

Many of these plans have been granted approval since Biden’s executive order in April 2022 that demanded his agencies take action to protect the most storied, grandest trees in the US. The overall amount of logging in national forests has surged 24% during Biden’s term, despite him committing, along with 144 other world leaders, to reverse deforestation by 2030.

The Forest Service has rejected the suggestion that it is allowing the timber industry to plunder older trees, pointing to reduced cutting rates compared with previous decades and a service policy to “protect, maintain and improve old growth forest conditions”. It also defended its policy on reviewing, saying all projects that fell under the scope of the mature and old growth requirement were looked at.

Critics, though, see an agency pushing through a rush of logging before outdated practices are overturned. “It’s insane, there’s just no justification for this,” said Hanson, who is part of a legal effort to prevent logging amid giant sequoias, a project ostensibly to protect a species that only grows in a 60-mile band along California’s Sierra Nevada. “Why would we log giant sequoias of any size? It’s just crazy.”

A red sequoia tree reaches for the sky alongside other trees. Photograph: Edu Borja/Getty Images

In response, environmentalists have launched legal action to stymie logging from New Hampshire to California, while tree-sitting protesters have occupied targeted woodland in Oregon. Scores of scientists have written to Biden warning that the outgoing president’s climate legacy is at risk and lamenting that “we have lost too many of those living witnesses of the past.” The “timber wars”, a fierce 1970s struggle over the future of forests that helped preserve the last fragments of old growth, appear to be rekindling, 50 years on.

“If the Biden administration wants this process to be something more than a greenwashing exercise, then it must put stronger pressure on the Forest Service,” said Zack Porter, executive director of Standing Trees, a Vermont conservation group. “Biden needs to intervene to live up to his climate goals, because at the moment this process is going off the rails.”

There are trees standing in America far older than the country itself. Perhaps the most famous of these, the gargantuan giant sequoias of California, can surpass the grizzled age of 3,000 years as they grow to a towering 300ft tall and slowly layer a bulk of several hundred tons, making them one of the oldest, as well as largest, organisms on Earth.

A bristlecone pine, also in California, is thought to be even more ancient, clocking in at around 4,800 years old. Other species in the US range in the hundreds of years old, having survived in plunging ravines or remote mountaintops from the ravages of axe and chainsaw.

Such timeworn trees were long seen as worthless. “They were viewed as old and decrepit and valuable for logging, not much else,” said Jim Furnish, a former deputy chief of the Forest Service, which was established in 1905 and has long had strong ties to the timber industry.

“If you cut down the older trees, you then get younger forests that can provide timber quickly,” Furnish said. “That was the rationale, which has left us with very little old growth.”

In recent decades, however, scientists have amassed evidence that older trees are treasure troves of life. They draw up and then expel moisture into the surrounding air like a sort of biotic pump, essentially creating their own weather systems, filtering water (national forests provide a fifth of the US’s clean water supply) and offering homes in craggy hollows to a panoply of wildlife.

As they grow, the trees’ bark thickens, making them and the surrounding forest more resistant to fire. A network of fungi helps spread a bounty of water and nutrients to the forest community. When these trees, having mopped up huge doses of carbon dioxide, eventually die, the toppled trunks regenerate soil, nourishing trees and animals around them.

“Their value is just off the charts,” said Dominick DellaSala, a veteran forest researcher. “You cut down a tree like that and you destroy habitat and lose 80% of that stored carbon into the atmosphere, more carbon than is lost from a fire. There’s just no reason to do it.”

A rethink on old growth followed a bitter battle over the imperiled northern spotted owl in the Pacific north-west, with millions of acres of the bird’s favored aged forest habitat ultimately set aside from cutting in 1994. The Forest Service points to a nationwide decline in logging since this time, with the agency considering wildfires, insect infestations and the climate crisis to now be the greatest threats to US forests.

Still, there has been an uptick in logging since Biden became president in 2021, with the Forest Service removing 2.94bn board ft (7.27m cubic metres)of timber from national forests last year, enough to fill more than 1.25m logging trucks, according to advocacy group calculations on agency data. The Forest Service still works towards “timber targets” that, it recently told Congress, it could increase with more resources and speedier environmental reviews.

The agency has a deep-rooted mindset of muscular “management” of forests rather than just letting them grow, according to DellaSala. “They will always argue for chainsaws and bulldozers, no matter what the issue is,” he said. There is plenty that could still be cut, too – just a quarter of the 112m acres of old growth and mature forests on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land is protected, DellaSala’s research has calculated.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

Forests had long been selectively cut or burned by Native Americans but the arrival of European settlers kickstarted the widespread razing of trees for timber and farmland, to the extent that a mere 5% of original forest, scattered in small patches of trees, is left across the country. In the eastern US, barely 1% remains.

The Biden effort to stem losses of old growth trees, therefore, ignited optimism that a major turning point had arrived. “We have lost so much, there is such a deficit that we are recovering from,” said Sarah Adloo, executive director of the Old Growth Forest Network. “So just hearing the words ‘old growth’ from the president’s mouth was really wonderful.”

Biden ordered the Forest Service and the BLM, which collectively manage forests spanning about 250m acres, an estate about double the size of Spain, to conduct the first inventories of remaining old growth and mature forest and set about updating individual forest plans to curb their loss. “These forests are an essential partner in tackling climate change,” insisted Ali Zaidi, a senior White House climate adviser.

The timber industry, long used to procuring valuable wood from some of the largest, and therefore usually oldest, trees on public land, reacted with dismay. “We are extremely concerned about the disruption this unprecedented approach will have on urgently needed management efforts,” said Bill Imbergamo, head of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition, an industry group, citing the imperative, disputed by many scientists outside industry or government, to actively cut or “thin” forests to prevent insect outbreaks, or to reduce wildfire risk.

But environmentalists also saw flaws. There is no universal definition of old growth – some scientists class it as trees that have reached about 120 years in age – but there is agreement that mature trees, of about 80 years in age, must be protected to ensure more old growth in the future. The Forest Service plan, presented in December and recently updated with a draft environmental assessment, does not include mature trees, however, despite them covering more than double the area, about 68m acres, of old growth, according to the agency’s inventory of its managed land.

“If you allow mature trees to be cut, you get no additional old growth,” Porter said. The Forest Service plan, which is on track to be finalized in January, also allows the felling of old growth trees for purported environmental reasons, which could be used to justify further logging that many scientists say actually worsens fire and pests.

“It’s clear to me that the Forest Service is intent on promoting a new era of destructive commercial logging in old growth forests on public lands, while trying to deceptively spin it as wildfire management, forest health and community protection,” said Hanson. “Why isn’t President Biden telling the Forest Service no, and insisting that mature and old growth forests be fully protected from logging, as hundreds of scientists have urged?”

In December, Chris French, the deputy head of the Forest Service, did send an agency-wide memo requiring all logging projects that include old growth forests to be reviewed and approved by service leadership before proceeding.

However, when the Guardian asked the Forest Service about the status of 29 contentious logging projects across the US, the agency confirmed only five had been reviewed, with many rejected for assessment because of a supposed lack of old growth, or because the projects had started before the memo, even though such a constraint was not stipulated in the original edict.

A Forest Service spokesperson said mature forests were not included in the plan because climate change “introduces a lot of uncertainty” as to where older forests can survive. “The goal is not to manage all mature forest as future old-growth forest,” he said. “In some cases, places that are currently forests will no longer be forests. In others, the plants and animals will change dramatically. So, a strict preservation approach might not work.”

The spokesperson added that the service was “clearly harvesting much less timber” than it was in the period up to around 1990, when policies started to shift towards ecological needs and logging focused more on younger, plantation-based, trees.

He also denied that reviews of old growth logging projects were being overlooked by service leadership, or sidestepped by local forest managers. “All projects that fall within the scope of the mature and old growth requirement are reviewed,” the spokesperson said. “Forest projects are reviewed by both the regional and national offices, so it is unlikely that forests could ignore the direction.”

On a recent, steamy late-spring day, Porter led a small group through a section of the Green Mountain national forest, a 400,000-acre slice of rich northern hardwood forest in Vermont, a rare splash of older trees in a region denuded of original forest. Black bears, moose and beavers are found in this place, which has a touch of the prehistoric about it, with its gurgling streams, ferns and moss-covered boulders.

“These are big, big trees for the eastern US, there’s nothing much like this left,” said John Roe, a retired forest ecologist, as he surveyed the soaring stands of maple, ash and birch. “This sort of forest is of global importance.” The trees have rebounded since the US civil war era, when farmers abandoned the area. Give these trees another 160 years, Roe said, and you will see the sort of complex, intact forest there was before European arrival.

Many of these trees won’t get the chance to do so – the Forest Service is considering a logging program, called Telephone Gap, that will hew about 12,000 acres, an area slightly smaller than Manhattan, containing mostly mature trees with some old growth. “My worry is we foolishly sacrifice more than a century of recovery here,” said Porter.

If you trudge deeper into the heart of this national forest you get to a lake called the North Pond, an idyllic spot favored by beavers and fringed by slopes of trees, many that have never been cleaved. Clamber over some rocks and slippery moss into these stands and you can find sentinels that have stood amid this scene for timescales that leave the modern world behind.

Roe holds a tape measure to the bark of a grand yellow birch – 39in in diameter, probably 300 or so years old. A tree that was overlooking this lake, passing the seasons, before George Washington was born. “This is a monster,” Roe said, gawping up at the tree.

In March, Porter got an email from the district ranger overseeing the planned logging project, stating that there was “no need” for the plan to be sent to Forest Service leadership for a review as it would not disturb what the forest managers define to be true old growth, which is this tiny amount of pre-colonial woodland left behind.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

In 2025, let’s make it game on – not game over – for our precious natural world

Amidst habitat destruction and ecological grief, let’s make a New Year’s resolution for nature — to care for beetles and butterflies, rainforests and reefs, ourselves, and future generations.

Jakub Maculewicz/ShutterstockIt’s just past midnight in the cool, ancient forests of Tasmania. We’ve spent a long day and night surveying endangered Tasmanian devils. All around, small animals scurry through bushes. A devil calls in the darkness. Microbats swoop and swirl as a spotted-tailed quoll slips through the shadows. Working here is spine-tingling and electric. Weeks later, we’re in a moonlit forest in Victoria. It was logged a few years earlier and burnt by bushfire a few decades before that. The old trees are gone. So too are the quolls, bats and moths that once dwelled in their hollows. Invasive blackberry chokes what remains. The silence is deafening, and devastating. In our work as field biologists, we often desperately wish we saw a place before it was cleared, logged, burnt or overtaken by invasive species. Other times, we hold back tears as we read about the latest environmental catastrophe, overwhelmed by anger and frustration. Perhaps you know this feeling of grief? The new year is a chance to reflect on the past and consider future possibilities. Perhaps we’ll sign up to the gym, spend more time with family, or – perish the thought – finally get to the dentist. But let us also set a New Year’s resolution for nature. Let’s make a personal pledge to care for beetles and butterflies, rainforests and reefs, for ourselves, and for future generations. Because now, more than ever — when the natural world seems to be on the precipice — it’s not too late to be a catalyst for positive change. A trail of destruction Our work brings us up close to the beauty of nature. We trek through deserts, stumble through forests and trudge over snowy mountains to study and conserve Australia’s unique wildlife. But we must also confront devastating destruction. The underlying purpose of our work – trying to save species before it is too late – is almost always heartbreaking. It is a race we cannot always win. Since Europeans arrived in Australia, much of the country has become severely degraded. Around 40% of our forests and 99% of grasslands have been cut down and cleared, and much of what remains is under threat. Thousands of ecological communities, plants and animal species are threatened with extinction. And it seems the news only gets worse. The global average temperature for the past decade is the warmest on record, about 1.2°C above the pre-industrial average. Severe bushfires are more and more likely. Yet Australia’s federal government recently approved four coalmine expansions. Australia remains a global logging and deforestation hotspot. We have the world’s worst record for mammal extinctions and lead the world in arresting climate and environment protesters. To top it off, a recent study estimated more than 9,000 native Australian animals, mostly invertebrates, have gone extinct since European arrival. That’s between one and three species every week. Many will never be formally listed, named or known. Is this how the world ends – not with a bang, but with a silent invertebrate apocalypse? More than 9,000 native Australian animals, mostly invertebrates, have gone extinct since European arrival. Pictured: the Kangaroo Island forester moth, which was badly affected by the Black Summer fires. David A. Young This destruction provokes ecological grief The degradation of our environment affects more than distant plants and animals. It resonates deeply with many humans, too. Ecological grief is an emotional response to environmental degradation and climate change, damaging our mental health and wellbeing. It can manifest as sadness, anxiety, despair or helplessness. Or it might bring a profound sense of guilt that we all, directly or indirectly, contribute to the problems facing the natural world. Academic research on ecological grief is growing rapidly, but the concept has been around for decades. In 1949, American writer and philosopher Aldo Leopold – widely considered the father of wildlife ecology and modern conservation – eloquently wrote in his book A Sand County Almanac that: One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise. Ecological grief is certainly a heavy burden. But it can also be a catalyst for change. Turning grief into action So how do we unlock the transformative potential of ecological grief? In our experience, it first helps to share our experience with colleagues, friends and family. It’s important to know others have similar feelings and that we are not alone. Next, remember that it is not too late to act – passivity is the enemy of positive change. It’s vital to value and protect what remains, and restore what we can. Taking action doesn’t just help nature, it’s also a powerful way to combat feelings of helplessness and grief. It might involve helping local wildlife, supporting environmental causes, reducing meat consumption, or – perhaps most importantly – lobbying political representatives to demand change. Lastly, for environmental professionals such as us, celebrating wins – no matter how small – can help buoy us to fight another day. We are encouraged by our proud memories of helping return the mainland eastern barred bandicoot to the wild. The species was declared extinct on mainland Australia in 2013. After more than three decades of conservation action, it was taken off the “extinct in the wild list” in 2021, a first for an Australian threatened species. Our work to support mountain pygmy-possum populations after the Black Summer fires helped to ease our grief at the loss of so many forests, as did seeing the end of native forest logging in Victoria a year ago. So, for our New Year’s resolution, let’s harness our ecological grief to bring about positive change. Let’s renew the fight to return those lost voices, and protect our remaining ancient ecosystems. We can, and must, do better – because so much depends on it. And maybe, just maybe, we’ll finally get to the dentist. Darcy Watchorn works for Zoos Victoria, a not-for-profit zoo-based conservation organisation. He is a member of the Ecological Society of Australia, the Australian Mammal Society, and the Society for Conservation Biology.Marissa Parrott works for Zoos Victoria, a not-for-profit zoo-based conservation organisation. She is the Vice President of the Australian Mammal Society and is a member of multiple national and state threatened species Recovery Teams, and IUCN Specialist Groups. She receives no additional payment or funding from outside Zoos Victoria for any work related to threatened species.

Drought, Fires and Deforestation Battered Amazon Rainforest in 2024

The Amazon rainforest staggered through another difficult year in 2024

BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — 2024 was a brutal year for the Amazon rainforest, with rampant wildfires and extreme drought ravaging large parts of a biome that’s a critical counterweight to climate change.A warming climate fed drought that in turn fed the worst year for fires since 2005. And those fires contributed to deforestation, with authorities suspecting some fires were set to more easily clear land to run cattle. The Amazon is twice the size of India and sprawls across eight countries and one territory, storing vast amounts of carbon dioxide that would otherwise warm the planet. It has about 20% of the world’s fresh water and astounding biodiversity, including 16,000 known tree species. But governments have historically viewed it as an area to be exploited, with little regard for sustainability or the rights of its Indigenous peoples, and experts say exploitation by individuals and organized crime is rising at alarming rates.“The fires and drought experienced in 2024 across the Amazon rainforest could be ominous indicators that we are reaching the long-feared ecological tipping point,” said Andrew Miller, advocacy director at Amazon Watch, an organization that works to protect the rainforest. “Humanity’s window of opportunity to reverse this trend is shrinking, but still open.” There were some bright spots. The level of Amazonian forest loss fell in both Brazil and Colombia. And nations gathered for the annual United Nations conference on biodiversity agreed to give Indigenous peoples more say in nature conservation decisions.“If the Amazon rainforest is to avoid the tipping point, Indigenous people will have been a determinant factor," Miller said. Wildfires and extreme drought Forest loss in Brazil’s Amazon — home to the largest swath of this rainforest — dropped 30.6% compared to the previous year, the lowest level of destruction in nine years. The improvement under leftist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva contrasted with deforestation that hit a 15-year high under Lula's predecessor, far-right leader Jair Bolsonaro, who prioritized agribusiness expansion over forest protection and weakened environmental agencies.In July, Colombia reported historic lows in deforestation in 2023, driven by a drop in environmental destruction. The country's environment minister Susana Muhamad warned that 2024's figures may not be as promising as a significant rise in deforestation had already been recorded by July due to dry weather caused by El Nino, a weather phenomenon that warms the central Pacific. Illegal economies continue to drive deforestation in the Andean nation. “It’s impossible to overlook the threat posed by organized crime and the economies they control to Amazon conservation,” said Bram Ebus, a consultant for Crisis Group in Latin America. “Illegal gold mining is expanding rapidly, driven by soaring global prices, and the revenues of illicit economies often surpass state budgets allocated to combat them.” In Brazil, large swaths of the rainforest were draped in smoke in August from fires raging across the Amazon, Cerrado savannah, Pantanal wetland and the state of Sao Paulo. Fires are traditionally used for deforestation and for managing pastures, and those man-made blazes were largely responsible for igniting the wildfires.Cesar Ipenza, an environmental lawyer who lives in the heart of the Peruvian Amazon, said he believes people are becoming increasingly aware of the Amazon's fundamental role “for the survival of society as a whole." But, like Miller, he worries about a “point of no return of Amazon destruction.”It was the worst year for Amazon fires since 2005, according to nonprofit Rainforest Foundation US. Between January and October, an area larger than the state of Iowa — 37.42 million acres, or about 15.1 million hectares of Brazil’s Amazon — burned. Bolivia had a record number of fires in the first ten months of the year. “Forest fires have become a constant, especially in the summer months and require particular attention from the authorities who don't how to deal with or respond to them,” Ipenza said. Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, and Guyana also saw a surge in fires this year. Indigenous voices and rights made headway in 2024 The United Nations conference on biodiversity — this year known as COP16 — was hosted by Colombia. The meetings put the Amazon in the spotlight and a historic agreement was made to give Indigenous groups more of a voice on nature conservation decisions, a development that builds on a growing movement to recognize Indigenous people's role in protecting land and combating climate change.Both Ebus and Miller saw promise in the appointment of Martin von Hildebrand as the new secretary general for the Amazon Treaty Cooperation Organization, announced during COP16.“As an expert on Amazon communities, he will need to align governments for joint conservation efforts. If the political will is there, international backers will step forward to finance new strategies to protect the world’s largest tropical rainforest,” Ebus said. Ebus said Amazon countries need to cooperate more, whether in law enforcement, deploying joint emergency teams to combat forest fires, or providing health care in remote Amazon borderlands. But they need help from the wider world, he said.“The well-being of the Amazon is a shared global responsibility, as consumer demand worldwide fuels the trade in commodities that finance violence and environmental destruction,” he said. Next year marks a critical moment for the Amazon, as Belém do Pará in northern Brazil hosts the first United Nations COP in the region that will focus on climate.“Leaders from Amazon countries have a chance to showcase strategies and demand tangible support," Ebus said.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

‘Bad deal for taxpayers’: huge losses from NSW forest logging, reports reveal

Former MP astonished that taxpayers are ‘literally paying’ to cut down forests sustaining koalas and greater gliders and providing clean drinking waterGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastTwo reports revealing the extent of financial losses from native forest logging in New South Wales raise questions about the economic viability of the industry.The state government’s forestry corporation “consistently made a loss” by paying contractors more for harvesting and haulage than it earned from delivery of timber to sawmills, a NSW Independent Pricing and Review Tribunal (Ipart) report found.Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email Continue reading...

Two reports revealing the extent of financial losses from native forest logging in New South Wales raise questions about the economic viability of the industry.The state government’s forestry corporation “consistently made a loss” by paying contractors more for harvesting and haulage than it earned from delivery of timber to sawmills, a NSW Independent Pricing and Review Tribunal (Ipart) report found.“[Forestry Corporation of NSW’s] delivery charge does not fully recover its native timber harvesting and haulage costs, including contract and administration costs, and has not done so for at least the last 10 years,” the report said.The tribunal recommended the state government review the long-term feasibility of native timber harvesting, noting the majority of wood supply agreements were due for renewal in 2028. It also suggested ways to improve cost recovery.Ipart’s findings followed the release of the state forestry corporation’s 2023-24 annual report, which disclosed a $29m loss for its native hardwood forest division in the past year, and losses totalling $72m since 2020-21.The corporation’s annual report said poor financial returns were linked to “operational challenges” and external factors such as extreme weather, regulatory changes such as protections for koalas and greater gliders, and legal injunctions by community groups.Graham Phelan, an economist with Frontier Economics who analysed NSW forestry’s financial status in 2023, said the Ipart report was a timely and valuable contribution in the context of nature policy and forestry reform in NSW which would encourage evidence-based decision-making.Phelan said public native forestry struggled financially, offering “poor returns to taxpayers at best”. “The government should look at the economic costs and benefits of the native forestry business in NSW and consider whether community welfare is served by continuing this practice.”Poor financial performance and environmental costs were among a “myriad of reasons” why governments in Victoria and Western Australia had decided to end native timber harvesting in their states, he said.There were also benefits associated with leaving native forests standing, such as carbon sequestration, erosion control, flood mitigation and tourism, Phelan added. For example, a Victorian government report valued those benefits at up to $12bn, compared with about $89m if harvested for timber and firewood.Public native forestry was a small segment of the NSW forestry sector, he said, alongside a much larger non-native softwood plantation business that served construction and cardboard markets.According to Ipart’s report, about 9% of timber harvested in Australia was native hardwood, and NSW was the second-largest producer of native timber logs after Tasmania.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Breaking News AustraliaGet the most important news as it breaksPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionA forestry corporation spokesperson said the organisation managed nearly 2m hectares of public native forests on behalf of the NSW government, harvesting about 1% annually. Timber revenue “subsidised” management activities such as firefighting, pests, weeds, conservation and road access, which were only partly government funded.The corporation would undertake Ipart’s recommendations that related to managing prices and costs, the spokesperson said.Ipart’s review of native timber harvesting and haulage costs from 2019 to 2022 was yet to be published but has been provided to the NSW treasurer, Daniel Mookhey, and was released to the ABC under freedom of information laws.Guardian Australia has asked the NSW government for a response to Ipart’s findings.Justin Field from Forest Alliance NSW, a coalition of environmental and conservation groups, said native forestry was a “bad deal for taxpayers”.Field, formerly a member of the NSW legislative council, said it was astonishing that taxpayers were “literally paying” to cut down forests that sustained koalas and greater gliders and provided clean water for drinking.“This is just another piece of evidence to show that native forest logging in New South Wales is economically unviable. We know that it’s ecologically unsustainable, and we know that the forestry corporation has been losing money on its hardwood division for the last decade.”The report provided an opportunity for the state government to end native forest logging and shift towards an industry based on 100% sustainable plantations, he said.

LA tree enthusiast shares her love for the city’s canopy: ‘Something we took for granted’

Stephanie Carrie gives tours and educates Angelenos on the importance of the urban forest – and how to improve itOn a recent Sunday morning, 25 Angelenos gathered under a large rusty leaf fig tree for a walking tree tour in a local Culver City park that was also playing host to an outdoor tai chi class as well as a group of yogis.As we walked past Chinese elm trees, coast live oaks and Brazilian pepper trees, Stephanie Carrie shared the history of the city’s celebrated palm trees with a rapt audience. Many of today’s trees, planted in the 1930s, are approaching the end of their lives – and while they have become symbols of the city, they also guzzle water, fueling calls to replace them with drought-resistant trees. Continue reading...

On a recent Sunday morning, 25 Angelenos gathered under a large rusty leaf fig tree for a walking tree tour in a local Culver City park that was also playing host to an outdoor tai chi class as well as a group of yogis.As we walked past Chinese elm trees, coast live oaks and Brazilian pepper trees, Stephanie Carrie shared the history of the city’s celebrated palm trees with a rapt audience. Many of today’s trees, planted in the 1930s, are approaching the end of their lives – and while they have become symbols of the city, they also guzzle water, fueling calls to replace them with drought-resistant trees.“The most important thing about LA is our natural environment and our community, and the best way to provide for that community is different types of trees that will give back and protect us moving into the future,” said Carrie.She’s not a professional photographer or an arborist, but Carrie and her popular Instagram account, Trees of LA (@treesofla), help people identify some of the 700,000 street trees that make up the world’s most diverse urban forest. Offline, the New Zealand-born, southern California-raised creator hosts a variety of city tree tours that educate attendees about environmental sustainability, canopy inequality and the countless benefits of paying attention to the trees around us.Trees featured on the Trees of LA Instagram account. Photograph: Instagram account, Trees of LA“It’s so joyful to take something that started on a screen and bring it into the real world,” said Carrie, who uses her storytelling background as an actor and screenwriter to engage followers. “Living in urban environments isn’t a natural situation for human beings, so we’re kind of reconnecting to something we took for granted when we did not live in urban environments.”There are nearly 1,000 kinds of street trees in Los Angeles. Some local favorites include the flowering jacaranda, which turn places like Pasadena, Beverly Hills and Santa Monica into seas of purple in the late spring. Saucer magnolia trees in West Los Angeles and Westwood produce large pink and white blossoms in the winter, while gold medallion trees bloom vivid clusters of yellow flowers that are seen throughout the city in late spring and into summer.The trees most associated with LA are, of course, its palms. They were first brought to California in the 18th century by Spanish missionaries who wanted to use the fronds in religious services. Real estate developers later imported more to help sell the city as an exotic tropical paradise. Then, before the 1932 Olympics, 25,000 were planted to beautify streets and an additional 40,000 were added as part of the New Deal’s Works Progress Administration project.The palm trees planted in the 1930s are now considered “senior citizens”; an invasive insect, the red palm weevil, has already killed others. Along with using vast amounts of groundwater, the palms are prone to disease and don’t offer shade. As they die off, environmentalists say other species should take their place, though it would alter the image of a city known for caring deeply about its appearance.While Carrie supports diversifying LA’s canopy – the trees that offer shade across a city – she believes it would be ideal to keep palms in a few locations to celebrate their place in the city’s history.For years, Carrie, like numerous other city residents, suffered from a phenomenon known as “tree blindness”, and hadn’t paid much attention to the urban forest around her. It wasn’t until 2016, when she took maternity leave with her first child, that she started taking regular walks in a local park and had an epiphany.Stephanie Carrie looking up in a canyon live oak in Idyllwild, California. Photograph: Matt Wyatt“When I started to notice and focus my attention on a tree and the details of that tree, my brain was just filled with what felt like incredibly positive chemicals,” said Carrie. “It really felt like a meditation. My anxiety went away and I was truly in the moment.”It’s proven that spending time around trees helps us reduce stress, lower blood pressure and screen out noise pollution. Experts say that looking at trees, or simply watching leaves blow in the wind, helps replenish our cognitive reserve, the brain’s ability to solve problems and deal with challenges (especially important for those of us who stare at screens all day.) Studies have found that hospital patients who can see trees from their beds recover faster than those who can’t see them.Trees are not only good for our mental and physical health, but they often serve as a first line of defense against air pollution and combating heat, making them key to fighting the climate crisis around the globe.City trees reduce energy usage, shade our streets and homes, and minimize the “heat island effect”, common in cities where roads, buildings and other infrastructure absorb and re-emit heat at higher levels compared to forests and bodies of water. Trees clean our air, store carbon, serve as a wildlife habitat and soak up storm water, which reduces runoff and soil erosion.Stephanie Carrie during a tree tour in Carlson Park in Culver City, California. Photograph: Matt WyattBut decades of environmental injustice means that while Los Angeles’ average canopy cover is 21%, South Los Angeles’ is 13% – and only 5% in some parts of the region. The city of Los Angeles’ Green New Deal was designed to increase trees primarily in low-income communities disproportionately affected by the climate crisis. It set out to plant 90,000 trees by the end of 2021, but the pandemic and other challenges slowed planting rates; by 2022, only 65,000 trees had been planted.TreePeople, an environmental non-profit, has identified 28 climate-resilient tree species for Los Angeles’ urban forest and advocates for increasing their presence in the canopy. Trees such as weeping bottle brush, silverleaf oak and rosewood offer serious cooling benefits, use little water, are resistant to major pests and diseases, and reduce air pollution – all key attributes for an environment facing increased heat and long-term drought.A new study authored by the University of Southern California and the South LA Tree Coalition found that while people were aware of the real harms caused by tree inequity and the role trees play in cooling neighborhoods, they were also concerned about the ways tree planting intersects with homelessness and gentrification, since the arrival of new trees can be associated with rising rents. “It’s important to work with communities rather than just coming in and having strangers planting a bunch of trees,” said Carrie.Experts say that messaging about trees being critical infrastructure for communities needs to be clearer, and that people must also plant trees on their own property since residences make up a large majority of plantable space in the city (the narrow planter strips that run along streets are typically occupied by utility lines both above and below ground).By sharing their love of trees, Carrie and other like-minded tree content creators are helping to spread that message to people all over the world, and connecting with one another.When she traveled to Mexico City in 2022, Carrie spent the day looking at trees with Francisco Arjona of Árboles de la CDMX. She’s also met up in real life with Paul Wood, author of London Is a Forest, who runs the Street Tree account, to gaze at trees in London, and is friendly with the creators of Trees of Delhi, Trees of Barcelona and Trees of Cambridge, among many others.“There’s a special bond between people who are trying to photograph trees during the perfect time of day so we can bring the majesty of that day to a tiny square on Instagram and share with people,” said Carrie. “It’s almost like a beautiful language of love.”

Protect This Place: Latin America’s Gran Chaco Forest

Beef and soybean agriculture are carving up this massive forest, which spans four countries and has some of the world’s highest deforestation rates. The post Protect This Place: Latin America’s Gran Chaco Forest appeared first on The Revelator.

The Place: The Gran Chaco covers 303,782 square miles spanning Paraguay, Bolivia, Argentina, and Brazil. It is the second-largest natural forest in Latin America and has experienced some of the highest levels of deforestation on Earth. Why it matters: The Gran Chaco is home to 25 different Indigenous communities at risk of displacement from their ancestral lands by deforestation and land conversion, leaving them with nowhere else to go. Its great variety of ecosystems are also home to endemic, endangered, and threatened plants and wildlife, including around 3,400 species of plants, 150 mammals, and 500 bird species. Several IUCN Red List species, such as jaguars, peccaries, solitary eagles, giant anteaters, and lowland tapirs, are facing habitat loss within the Paraguayan Chaco, as land use change poses an increased threat to their survival. A Gran Chaco resident. Photo: Quadriz The threat: The rapid forest loss within the Gran Chaco is primarily driven by the expansion of commercial agriculture, particularly beef and soybean production, with Paraguay emerging as a top 10 exporter of these commodities. Contributing to this trend are the largely private ownership of the majority of the Paraguayan Chaco and a legal framework that allows up to 75% of privately owned forest land to be deforested for agricultural purposes. Agricultural fields seen from the air, carving up the Gran Chaco. Photo: Quadriz My place in this place: I have been working as country manager of Quadriz Paraguay since February 2021. As a nature lover, I have a particular fascination with the Chaco, as a wildly unique haven of biodiversity and a vital carbon sink that is often overlooked internationally. I have experienced the joy of conservation work. Seeing the beauty of my country and the animals we share it with has been a privilege that has fueled my dedication to the protection of the forest for generations to come. Who’s protecting it now: In response to this crisis, initiatives like the Corazón Verde del Chaco (Green Heart of the Chaco) project, developed by my organization Quadriz, are working to protect native forests and provide safe havens for wildlife. This project safeguards 124 square miles (32,000 hectares) of Gran Chaco forest and offers landowners an economic alternative to commercial agriculture through carbon credits. What this place needs: To conserve the Gran Chaco for future generations and prevent further biodiversity loss, we need to support a constructive dialogue between landowners and impact investors. By raising awareness and increasing understanding of the environmental, ecological and economic value of the Chaco, we can boost conservation efforts. Formal recognition of the very real threat facing the unique ecology of the Gran Chaco has provided the foundations for research and pilot programs. Now ongoing collaboration and awareness are required. Lessons from the fight: My work with Quadriz has taught me that both public policy and carbon policy frameworks are effective instruments to prevent deforestation and biodiversity loss. But speed and scale are limiting factors. To overcome these we need partnerships that channel climate finance to ensure immediate forest conservation actions that generate multiple benefits for the community. Another important lesson is to celebrate and share the images we have been able to capture of jaguars, snakes, birds, and the landscape’s natural beauty to convey what a truly spectacular place the Paraguayan Chaco is and underscore the importance of our work to protect it. Follow the fight: We regularly share news and updates on our project’s progress, conservation updates and snapshots of our work on our website, LinkedIn, and Instagram. Scroll down to find our “Republish” button Previously in The Revelator: Protect This Place: Saving India’s Shola Sky Islands The post Protect This Place: Latin America’s Gran Chaco Forest appeared first on The Revelator.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.