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.

Ending native forest logging would help Australia’s climate goals much more than planting trees

News Feed
Friday, June 14, 2024

FiledIMAGE/ShutterstockAustralia contains some of the world’s most biologically diverse and carbon-dense native forests. Eucalypts in wet temperate forests are the tallest flowering plants in the world and home to an array of unique tree-dwelling marsupials, rare birds, insects, mosses, fungi and lichen, many of which have not even been catalogued by scientists. Yet our country remains in the top ten list globally for tree cover loss, with almost half of the original forested areas in eastern Australia cleared. This loss has been devastating for Australia’s native plants and animals and contributes to global warming through vast amounts of carbon emissions. The global biodiversity and climate change crises are inextricably linked – we cannot solve one without the other. Earth’s ecosystems, such as forests, coastal wetlands and tundra, contain enormous amounts of carbon. But deforestation and degradation by humans is likely to send global warming past 1.5°C, even if we achieve net-zero fossil fuel emissions. Protecting native forests is a critical way to prevent emissions, which must be achieved in parallel with a rapid transition to clean energy. What is being overlooked in current international climate policy under the Paris Agreement is the crucial role of biodiversity in maintaining healthy ecosystems and their integrity, which keeps carbon stored in forests, not the atmosphere. Healthy ecosystems are more stable and resilient, with a lower risk of trees dying and lower rates of carbon emissions. The way we currently count carbon stores risk creating incentives to plant new trees rather than protect existing forests. Yet old-growth forests store vastly more carbon than young saplings, which will take decades or even centuries to reach the same size. On January 1 this year, both Victoria and Western Australia ended native forest logging in state forests. This is a good start. But the rest of Australia is still logging native forests. Extensive land clearing continues for agriculture and urban development, as well as native forest harvesting on private land. Two states down, more to go The end of native timber logging in two states is a chance for new approaches to our forests, which recognise the contribution of biodiversity to healthy forest ecosystems, as well as endangered species protection and clean water supplies. Ending native forest logging isn’t entirely simple. In Victoria, consultation on the future of state forests is ongoing. The Victorian Environmental Assessment Council is due to release its final recommendations in July. The Victorian government has also put in place a Forestry Transition Program to help forest contractors find alternative work in forest and land management. Some of these transition programs are proving controversial. In Western Australia, around 2.5 million hectares of the state’s south-west forests will be protected under a new Forest Management Plan. Protection of these landscapes is critical, as they have been hit by another die-back event due to drought and record heat. These forests hold significant cultural and ecological value. Known in Noongar as “djarilmari”, they are vital habitats for diverse plants and animals, including endemic species such as the ngwayir (western ringtail possum) and the giant jarrah trees. What about other states and territories? In New South Wales, the government is looking into proposals for a Great Koala National Park, which would bring together state forests from the Clarence Valley to south of Coffs Harbour. But with no decision yet made, logging continues along both the north and south coasts, which were also hard hit by the Black Summer bushfires of 2019-20. In Tasmania, native forest logging fell sharply between 2012 and 2019. This cut emissions by around 22 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, equivalent to almost a quarter of Australia’s transport emissions. Recent policy changes protecting giant trees will help protect some patches of forests. But native forest logging is set to expand in other areas, including clear felling of old-growth rainforest and tall wet eucalypt forest. Native forest logging is slated to end in 70,000 hectares of south-east Queensland state forests at the end of this year, under a longstanding Native Timber Action Plan. But logging and widespread land clearing continues elsewhere in the state, ensuring Australia’s place in the top 10 deforestation hotspots. Old forests such as this karri forest in Western Australia hold much more carbon than newly established forests. Wirestock Creators/Shutterstock Can ending native forest logging help the climate? We’ll need to go further and ban logging in all native forests in Australia to help meet our net-zero emissions target, while meeting timber demand from better-managed and increased plantations. Stopping native forest logging avoids the emissions released when forests are cut and burned. It would also allow continued forest growth and regrowth of previously logged areas, which draws down carbon from the atmosphere and increases the amount held in the forest ecosystem. The natural biodiversity of our native forests makes them more resilient to external disturbances such as climate change. These forests have larger and more stable carbon stocks than logged areas, newly planted forests and plantations. If we compare forests protected for conservation with those harvested for commodity production in the Victorian Central Highlands, research shows conservation delivers the greatest climate benefits through continued forest growth and accumulating carbon stocks. There are growing calls to create the Great Forests National Park to the north and east of Melbourne, which would protect a further 355,000 hectares and more than double protected forests in the Central Highlands. Net zero: deep, rapid, sustained cuts needed The world’s nations are aiming to reach “net zero” by mid-century. Meeting this target will require deep and rapid cuts in carbon dioxide emissions as well as pulling carbon out of the atmosphere into land sinks, especially forests. The land sector is unique in that it can be both a source (logging, agriculture) and a sink (forest regrowth, for instance) for carbon. The natural way forests take up carbon can be increased through natural regrowth or plantations. Unfortunately, the current approach, based on IPCC guidelines, to counting this type of natural carbon storage can lead to perverse outcomes. The carbon sink from forest regrowth only counts towards the “removals” part of net zero when it results from changes we make, such as ending native forest logging. It doesn’t count if it’s regrowth after a natural event such as a bushfire. It’s important to count only human-induced changes in our climate targets. Tree planting, on the other hand, can be counted towards net-zero targets, despite the fact that newly planted trees will take centuries to sequester as much carbon as found in an old-growth forest. This type of accounting – known as flow-based accounting – can mean a premium is placed on planting and maintaining young forests with high carbon uptake rates, overlooking the substantial benefits of protecting larger trees in native forests. That is, this approach favours carbon sequestration (the process of taking carbon out of the atmosphere and storing it in wood) over carbon storage (the total carbon stocks already contained in a forest). A comprehensive approach to forest carbon accounting would recognise both flows of carbon (as sequestration) and carbon stocks (as storage) contribute to the benefits that native forests offer for reducing emissions. Replanting trees is good – but protecting existing forests is better. Janelle Lugge/Shutterstock Carbon accounting needs more clarity This becomes a problem when forests and fossil fuels are included in a net accounting framework, such as the one used in Australia’s national greenhouse gas inventory. In net accounts, emissions (from fossil fuel and land sectors) within a year are added to removals, which includes the sequestration of carbon into forests and other ecosystems. Because this type of accounting only counts the flows of carbon – not existing stocks – it omits the climate benefits of protecting existing forests, whose stored carbon dwarfs the amount Australia emits from fossil fuels each year. But if we separated out targets for the fossil fuel and land sectors, we could properly treat forest carbon stocks as an asset, giving us incentives to protect them. Another problem with net accounting is it treats all carbon as equivalent, meaning a tonne of carbon sequestered in trees compensates for a tonne of carbon from burned fossil fuels. This has no scientific basis. Carbon dioxide emissions are effectively permanent, as the buried carbon we dig up and burn stays in the atmosphere for millennia, while carbon in trees is temporary in comparison. As trees grow, their carbon storage compensates for earlier logging and clearing emissions, which is an important climate benefit. But we’re not comparing apples and apples – forest carbon doesn’t compensate for fossil fuel emissions. Logging bans are important – but no substitute for ending oil and gas While ending the clearing and logging of native vegetation is vital for both climate and biodiversity, it’s no substitute for preventing emissions from fossil fuels. To make this clearer, we must urgently set separate targets for emissions cuts for fossil fuels and increased carbon removal in the land sector. This will ensure phasing out fossil fuel use is not delayed by planting trees, and that the carbon stocks of biodiverse and carbon-dense native forests are protected. Kate Dooley receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Two states have banned native forest logging, but it’s still happening in the others.

FiledIMAGE/Shutterstock

Australia contains some of the world’s most biologically diverse and carbon-dense native forests. Eucalypts in wet temperate forests are the tallest flowering plants in the world and home to an array of unique tree-dwelling marsupials, rare birds, insects, mosses, fungi and lichen, many of which have not even been catalogued by scientists. Yet our country remains in the top ten list globally for tree cover loss, with almost half of the original forested areas in eastern Australia cleared.

This loss has been devastating for Australia’s native plants and animals and contributes to global warming through vast amounts of carbon emissions. The global biodiversity and climate change crises are inextricably linked – we cannot solve one without the other.

Earth’s ecosystems, such as forests, coastal wetlands and tundra, contain enormous amounts of carbon. But deforestation and degradation by humans is likely to send global warming past 1.5°C, even if we achieve net-zero fossil fuel emissions. Protecting native forests is a critical way to prevent emissions, which must be achieved in parallel with a rapid transition to clean energy.

What is being overlooked in current international climate policy under the Paris Agreement is the crucial role of biodiversity in maintaining healthy ecosystems and their integrity, which keeps carbon stored in forests, not the atmosphere. Healthy ecosystems are more stable and resilient, with a lower risk of trees dying and lower rates of carbon emissions.

The way we currently count carbon stores risk creating incentives to plant new trees rather than protect existing forests. Yet old-growth forests store vastly more carbon than young saplings, which will take decades or even centuries to reach the same size.

On January 1 this year, both Victoria and Western Australia ended native forest logging in state forests. This is a good start. But the rest of Australia is still logging native forests. Extensive land clearing continues for agriculture and urban development, as well as native forest harvesting on private land.

Two states down, more to go

The end of native timber logging in two states is a chance for new approaches to our forests, which recognise the contribution of biodiversity to healthy forest ecosystems, as well as endangered species protection and clean water supplies.

Ending native forest logging isn’t entirely simple. In Victoria, consultation on the future of state forests is ongoing. The Victorian Environmental Assessment Council is due to release its final recommendations in July.

The Victorian government has also put in place a Forestry Transition Program to help forest contractors find alternative work in forest and land management. Some of these transition programs are proving controversial.

In Western Australia, around 2.5 million hectares of the state’s south-west forests will be protected under a new Forest Management Plan. Protection of these landscapes is critical, as they have been hit by another die-back event due to drought and record heat.

These forests hold significant cultural and ecological value. Known in Noongar as “djarilmari”, they are vital habitats for diverse plants and animals, including endemic species such as the ngwayir (western ringtail possum) and the giant jarrah trees.

What about other states and territories?

In New South Wales, the government is looking into proposals for a Great Koala National Park, which would bring together state forests from the Clarence Valley to south of Coffs Harbour. But with no decision yet made, logging continues along both the north and south coasts, which were also hard hit by the Black Summer bushfires of 2019-20.

In Tasmania, native forest logging fell sharply between 2012 and 2019. This cut emissions by around 22 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, equivalent to almost a quarter of Australia’s transport emissions.

Recent policy changes protecting giant trees will help protect some patches of forests. But native forest logging is set to expand in other areas, including clear felling of old-growth rainforest and tall wet eucalypt forest.

Native forest logging is slated to end in 70,000 hectares of south-east Queensland state forests at the end of this year, under a longstanding Native Timber Action Plan. But logging and widespread land clearing continues elsewhere in the state, ensuring Australia’s place in the top 10 deforestation hotspots.

karri forest
Old forests such as this karri forest in Western Australia hold much more carbon than newly established forests. Wirestock Creators/Shutterstock

Can ending native forest logging help the climate?

We’ll need to go further and ban logging in all native forests in Australia to help meet our net-zero emissions target, while meeting timber demand from better-managed and increased plantations.

Stopping native forest logging avoids the emissions released when forests are cut and burned. It would also allow continued forest growth and regrowth of previously logged areas, which draws down carbon from the atmosphere and increases the amount held in the forest ecosystem.

The natural biodiversity of our native forests makes them more resilient to external disturbances such as climate change. These forests have larger and more stable carbon stocks than logged areas, newly planted forests and plantations.

If we compare forests protected for conservation with those harvested for commodity production in the Victorian Central Highlands, research shows conservation delivers the greatest climate benefits through continued forest growth and accumulating carbon stocks.

There are growing calls to create the Great Forests National Park to the north and east of Melbourne, which would protect a further 355,000 hectares and more than double protected forests in the Central Highlands.

Net zero: deep, rapid, sustained cuts needed

The world’s nations are aiming to reach “net zero” by mid-century. Meeting this target will require deep and rapid cuts in carbon dioxide emissions as well as pulling carbon out of the atmosphere into land sinks, especially forests.

The land sector is unique in that it can be both a source (logging, agriculture) and a sink (forest regrowth, for instance) for carbon. The natural way forests take up carbon can be increased through natural regrowth or plantations.

Unfortunately, the current approach, based on IPCC guidelines, to counting this type of natural carbon storage can lead to perverse outcomes.

The carbon sink from forest regrowth only counts towards the “removals” part of net zero when it results from changes we make, such as ending native forest logging. It doesn’t count if it’s regrowth after a natural event such as a bushfire. It’s important to count only human-induced changes in our climate targets.

Tree planting, on the other hand, can be counted towards net-zero targets, despite the fact that newly planted trees will take centuries to sequester as much carbon as found in an old-growth forest.

This type of accounting – known as flow-based accounting – can mean a premium is placed on planting and maintaining young forests with high carbon uptake rates, overlooking the substantial benefits of protecting larger trees in native forests.

That is, this approach favours carbon sequestration (the process of taking carbon out of the atmosphere and storing it in wood) over carbon storage (the total carbon stocks already contained in a forest).

A comprehensive approach to forest carbon accounting would recognise both flows of carbon (as sequestration) and carbon stocks (as storage) contribute to the benefits that native forests offer for reducing emissions.

Revegetation in forest
Replanting trees is good – but protecting existing forests is better. Janelle Lugge/Shutterstock

Carbon accounting needs more clarity

This becomes a problem when forests and fossil fuels are included in a net accounting framework, such as the one used in Australia’s national greenhouse gas inventory.

In net accounts, emissions (from fossil fuel and land sectors) within a year are added to removals, which includes the sequestration of carbon into forests and other ecosystems.

Because this type of accounting only counts the flows of carbon – not existing stocks – it omits the climate benefits of protecting existing forests, whose stored carbon dwarfs the amount Australia emits from fossil fuels each year.

But if we separated out targets for the fossil fuel and land sectors, we could properly treat forest carbon stocks as an asset, giving us incentives to protect them.

Another problem with net accounting is it treats all carbon as equivalent, meaning a tonne of carbon sequestered in trees compensates for a tonne of carbon from burned fossil fuels. This has no scientific basis. Carbon dioxide emissions are effectively permanent, as the buried carbon we dig up and burn stays in the atmosphere for millennia, while carbon in trees is temporary in comparison.

As trees grow, their carbon storage compensates for earlier logging and clearing emissions, which is an important climate benefit. But we’re not comparing apples and apples – forest carbon doesn’t compensate for fossil fuel emissions.

Logging bans are important – but no substitute for ending oil and gas

While ending the clearing and logging of native vegetation is vital for both climate and biodiversity, it’s no substitute for preventing emissions from fossil fuels.

To make this clearer, we must urgently set separate targets for emissions cuts for fossil fuels and increased carbon removal in the land sector. This will ensure phasing out fossil fuel use is not delayed by planting trees, and that the carbon stocks of biodiverse and carbon-dense native forests are protected.

The Conversation

Kate Dooley receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

The Major NJ Wildfire Shows Unexpected Urban Areas Are at Risk

A forest fire that erupted in New Jersey and spread overnight highlights the major wildfire risk faced by the state and other urban areas

Why New Jersey Is Actually a Place with Major Wildfire RiskA forest fire that erupted in New Jersey and spread overnight highlights the major wildfire risk faced by the state and other urban areasBy Stephanie Pappas edited by Jeanna BrynerFirefighters try to extinguish a fast-moving brush fire along on November 19, 2024 in New York City. Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesA forest fire that erupted in New Jersey yesterday morning was spurred by winds and dry weather, fulfilling a prediction by state officials that the state would see an active fire season this spring.The Jones Road Fire has burned 12,000 acres, more than the average area burned by wildfires in the state in an entire year. A drought warning has been in effect in New Jersey since November 2024, which means that many drought status indicators, such as current drinking water supplies, are below normal. And after a busy fall fire season, spring kicked off with an above-average number of fires as well. The Jones Road Fire, which forced evacuations in Ocean County, New Jersey, threatened hundreds of homes and businesses in a populated area.How Did the New Jersey Fire Spread?On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.State fire officials have not yet determined the cause of the fire, but it grew in dry, windy conditions. The blaze started at the edge of the Pinelands, a region of pine forests known for its wildfire risk. In fact, the Pinelands’ landscape has been shaped by fire—if it didn’t regularly burn, the ecosystem would transition into an oak forest, says David Robinson, New Jersey’s state climatologist and a professor at Rutgers University.“Traditionally, spring is fire season down in the Pinelands, so as far as seasonal timing to this fire, there’s nothing unusual,” Robinson says. “The fact that [the fire] spread so quickly may be a testament to the fact that it hasn’t rained in over 10 days.”Because of New Jersey’s population density, the state experiences a lot of what research ecologist Michael Gallagher of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Northern Research Station calls “interface fires,” which are fires that start where human habitation bumps up against wildland. “Fires as small as an acre frequently threaten homes,” Gallagher says.But the Jones Road fire moved quickly into an exurb-type environment with numerous buildings in its path. Wind-borne embers sped the fire along, starting spot fires that ignited new blazes, Gallagher says. His research has shown that in the spring, the sun tends to heat the south side of pine trees in the forests of the Pinelands, causing the bark to dry and curl. These curls ignite easily in a fire. Winds blowing from the north are then well poised to catch these tiny flaming brands, blowing them ahead of the main fire.How Did New Jersey’s Drought Worsen Fire Conditions?October 2024 was the driest month in the state in 130 years, Robinson says. Though fires generally peak in spring in New Jersey, it saw a busy fire season in the fall, as did much of the Northeast.Winter brought some relief. This year, however, New Jersey’s fire season, which typically starts in March, began in earnest in January, state officials said in a March 3 news conference. Between January 1 and March 3, the state saw 214 fires burn through 514 acres, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection reported. In comparison, 69 fires burned 21 acres during the same period in 2024.“We’re continuing just where we left off last year,” said state fire chief Bill Donnelly in the briefing.Precipitation improved somewhat in March and April, Robinson says, but it hasn’t recovered to the point that the state is out of the drought. “The news is all kind of good, but we still have to remember we are in a drought warning,” he says. And while the overall trend has been toward more moisture, the Pinelands area had been going through a mini dry spell before the fire began, with almost two weeks without rain, he says. The sandy soil and pine needles in the regions don’t hold on to water for long.“This area dries out very quickly,” Robinson says.That means the weather was ripe for fire, and wind gusts of up to 25 miles per hour quickly whipped the fire toward inhabited areas.“Last night [the fire] was on the eastern end of the Pinelands, near the [Garden State] Parkway, and it hopped the Parkway and headed toward the coast in a populated area. So [this was] a real worrisome situation,” Robinson says.How Will Climate Change Affect New Jersey’s Fire Risk?Wildfires are aggressively managed in New Jersey, with prescribed burns to reduce fuel and quick suppression when fires do ignite, Robinson says. These evolving actions should tamp down any climate-change-related increase in risk and make it difficult to compare the state’s fire outlook with a preindustrial “normal.” New Jersey has a history of large fires, including a multiple-fire outbreak in 1963 known as Black Saturday, which burned 183,000 acres and killed seven people.Long-term projections suggest the state will get a little wetter in a warming world, though rain is not expected to become more frequent, but rather will likely be heavier when it does fall. Warming temperatures could nudge the state’s fire risk a little bit higher as fuels dry out faster, however.“Things become volatile pretty quickly,” Robinson says.

A Sequoia Forest in Detroit? Plantings to Improve Air Quality and Mark Earth Day

Arborists are hoping to transform vacant land on Detroit’s eastside by planting giant sequoias, the world’s largest trees

DETROIT (AP) — Arborists are turning vacant land on Detroit's eastside into a small urban forest, not of elms, oaks and red maples indigenous to the city but giant sequoias, the world's largest trees that can live for thousands of years.The project on four lots will not only replace long-standing blight with majestic trees, but could also improve air quality and help preserve the trees that are native to California’s Sierra Nevada, where they are threatened by ever-hotter wildfires.Detroit is the pilot city for the Giant Sequoia Filter Forest. The nonprofit Archangel Ancient Tree Archive is donating dozens of sequoia saplings that will be planted by staff and volunteers from Arboretum Detroit, another nonprofit, to mark Earth Day on April 22.Co-founder David Milarch says Archangel also plans to plant sequoias in Los Angeles, Oakland, California, and London. The massive conifers can grow to more than 300 feet (90 meters) tall with a more than 30-foot (9-meter) circumference at the base. They can live for more than 3,000 years.“Here’s a tree that is bigger than your house when it’s mature, taller than your buildings, and lives longer than you can comprehend,” said Andrew “Birch” Kemp, Arboretum Detroit's executive director.The sequoias will eventually provide a full canopy that protects everything beneath, he said.“It may be sad to call these .5- and 1-acre treescapes forests,” Kemp said. “We are expanding on this and shading our neighborhood in the only way possible, planting lots of trees.”Giant sequoias are resilient against disease and insects, and are usually well-adapted to fire. Thick bark protects their trunks and their canopies tend to be too high for flames to reach. But climate change is making the big trees more vulnerable to wildfires out West, Kemp said.“The fires are getting so hot that its even threatening them,” he said. Descendants of Stagg and Waterfall Archangel, based in Copemish, Michigan, preserves the genetics of old-growth trees for research and reforestation. The sequoia saplings destined for Detroit are clones of two giants known as Stagg — the world's fifth-largest tree — and Waterfall, of the Alder Creek grove, about 150 miles (240 kilometers) north of Los Angeles.In 2010, Archangel began gathering cones and climbers scaled high into the trees to gather new-growth clippings from which they were able to develop and grow saplings.Sequoias need space, and metropolitan Detroit has plenty of it.In the 1950s, 1.8 million people called Detroit home, but the city's population has since shrunk to about one-third of that number. Tens of thousands of homes were left empty and neglected.“There’s not another urban area I know of that has the kind of potential that we do to reforest," he said. “We could all live in shady, fresh air beauty. It's like no reason we can’t be the greenest city in the world.”Within the last decade, 11 sequoias were planted on vacant lots owned by Arboretum Detroit and nine others were planted on private properties around the neighborhood. Each now reaches 12 to 15 feet (3.6 to 4.5 meters) tall. Arboretum Detroit has another 200 in its nursery. Kemp believes the trees will thrive in Detroit.“They’re safer here ... we don’t have wildfires like (California). The soil stays pretty moist, even in the summer,” he said. “They like to have that winter irrigation, so when the snow melts they can get a good drink.” How will the sequoias impact Detroit? Caring for the sequoias will fall to future generations, so Milarch has instigated what he calls “tree school” to teach Detroit’s youth how and why to look after the new trees.“We empower our kids to teach them how to do this and give them the materials and the way to do this themselves,” Milarch said. “They take ownership. They grow them in the classrooms and plant them around the schools. They know we’re in environmental trouble.”Some of them may never have even walked in a forest, Kemp said.“How can we expect children who have never seen a forest to care about deforestation on the other side of the world?" Kemp said. "It is our responsibility to offer them their birthright.”City residents are exposed to extreme air pollution and have high rates of asthma. The Detroit sequoias will grow near a heavily industrial area, a former incinerator and two interstates, he said.Kemp’s nonprofit has already planted about 650 trees — comprising around 80 species — in some 40 lots in the area. But he believes the sequoias will have the greatest impact.“Because these trees grow so fast, so large and they’re evergreen they’ll do amazing work filtering the air here,” Kemp said. “We live in pretty much a pollution hot spot. We’re trying to combat that. We’re trying to breathe clean air. We’re trying to create shade. We’re trying to soak up the stormwater, and I think sequoias — among all the trees we plant — may be the strongest, best candidates for that.”Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Banned DDT discovered in Canadian trout 70 years after use, research finds

Potential danger to humans and wildlife from harmful pesticide discovered in fish at 10 times safety limitResidues of the insecticide DDT have been found to persist at “alarming rates” in trout even after 70 years, potentially posing a significant danger to humans and wildlife that eat the fish, research has found.Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, known as DDT, was used on forested land in New Brunswick, Canada, from 1952 to 1968. The researchers found traces of it remained in brook trout in some lakes, often at levels 10 times higher than the recommended safety threshold for wildlife. Continue reading...

Residues of the insecticide DDT have been found to persist at “alarming rates” in trout even after 70 years, potentially posing a significant danger to humans and wildlife that eat the fish, research has found.Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, known as DDT, was used on forested land in New Brunswick, Canada, from 1952 to 1968. The researchers found traces of it remained in brook trout in some lakes, often at levels 10 times higher than the recommended safety threshold for wildlife.“DDT is a probable carcinogen that we haven’t used in 70 years here [Canada], yet it’s abundant in fish and lake mud throughout much of the province at shockingly high levels,” said Josh Kurek, an associate professor in environmental change and aquatic biomonitoring at Mount Allison University in Canada and lead author of the research.The research, published in the journal Plos One, discovered that DDT pollution covers about 50% of New Brunswick province. Brook trout is the most common wild fish caught in the region, and the research found DDT was present in its muscle tissue, in some cases 10 times above the recommended Canadian wildlife guidelines.Researchers said DDT, which is classified by health authorities as a“probable carcinogen”, can persist in lake mud for decades after treatment and that many lakes in New Brunswick retain such high levels of legacy DDT that the sediments are a key source of pollution in the food web.“The public, especially vulnerable populations to contaminants such as women of reproductive age and children, need to be aware of exposure risk to legacy DDT through consumption of wild fish,” said Kurek.Throughout the 1950s and 60s, half the province’s conifer forests were sprayed with DDT, a synthetic insecticide used to control insects carrying diseases such as malaria and typhus. Canada banned the use of the substance in the 1980s.The 2001 Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants banned DDT worldwide for mass agricultural use, although it is still permitted in small quantities for malaria control.“This mess can’t be cleaned up,” said Kurek. “DDTs can persist in lake mud for decades to centuries and then cycle in the food web. The best approach is to manage the public’s exposure of legacy DDTs by encouraging everyone to follow fish consumption guidelines and consider reducing exposure.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 promotion“Our findings are a clear wake-up call to abandon our overreliance on synthetic chemicals. Lessons need to be learned so we don’t repeat past mistakes. Our study hopefully informs on other contaminants that we apply broadly today, such as road salt and herbicides like glyphosate. We absolutely need to do things differently or our ecosystems will continue to face a lifetime of pollution.”

Portland City Council moves to reject controversial PGE Forest Park transmission project

The Portland City Council moved Thursday to reject a PGE transmission upgrade project in Forest Park that would require the utility to clearcut more than 370 trees on about 5 acres in the park.

The Portland City Council moved Thursday to reject a Portland General Electric transmission upgrade project in Forest Park that would require the utility to clearcut more than 370 trees on about 5 acres in the park. The decision Thursday night – described as “tentative” until a final vote on May 7 – came after councilors considered appeals by the Forest Park Conservancy and Forest Park Neighborhood Association to overturn a city of Portland hearings officer approval in March of PGE’s proposal. The vote followed five hours of presentations and public testimony and directs city attorneys to write an ordinance to grant the appeals and overturn the hearings officer’s decision. PGE can appeal to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. PGE wants to rewire a 1970s transmission line and add a second line in the utility’s existing right-of-way and said the upgrade will address an increase in the region’s energy demand and prevent rolling blackouts in North and Northwest Portland. A report from Portland’s Permitting and Development Office in January recommended that the hearings officer turn down PGE’s project due to non-compliance with environmental standards and the city’s Forest Park management plan. But hearings officer Marisha Childs last month went against those recommendations, agreeing with PGE about the need for the project and finding that routing through Forest Park “is the least environmentally detrimental option” of all the alternatives PGE analyzed. The two groups that filed the appeals said PGE failed to meet city approval criteria and that project would set a precedent for further development in the park. PGE’s proposal had touched off a months-long clash between the utility and opponents who seek to protect the trees in the 5,200-acre park because they provide valuable habitat for countless wildlife species and climate benefits to all city residents. More than 3,000 people filed testimony about the project, including over 1,000 who sent in comments ahead of the appeals hearing, with the vast majority against the upgrade. Several hundred protesters gathered at City Hall before the hearing. They held cardboard cutouts of trees, animals and insects and signs that read “Save Forest Park,” “No more ecocide” and “You have to be nuts to destroy Forest Park.” A protester at Portland City Hall holds a sign opposing PGE's transmission upgrade project in Forest Park ahead of a City Council appeals hearing. Beth Nakamura“It’s important to have more energy transmission infrastructure, power lines and responsive grids, yet this is one of the situations where it is very clear there is no ambiguity. PGE can build this project elsewhere in order to keep the lights on,” Damon Motz-Storey, the Sierra Club Oregon chapter’s director, told the crowd. “These trees have been standing since before we even had electricity in homes.”Motz-Storey then led the rally in a chant: “Listen to the people and the trees, not PGE.” Protesters and park advocates filled the council chambers and two overflow rooms, testifying one after another that the PGE project runs counter to the city’s plan to sustain an old-growth forest in Forest Park and asking for the council to save the trees and protect the park. Protesters at Portland City Hall listen as the City Council considers the appeals on PGE's controversial Forest Park transmission project. Beth Nakamura“This project is unacceptable to us and the community and the critters and plants that depend on us to say no to cutting trees, building roads, bulldozing, filling in wetlands and streams and saying this is good for climate resilience,” said Scott Fogarty, executive director with Forest Park Conservancy, the group that filed one of the appeals. The conservancy formed to maintain trails and restore native habitat in the park. Fogarty said PGE’s proposed plan to offset losses from the upgrade does not address cutting down 100-year-old trees and the benefits they bring. The mitigation proposal includes planting Oregon white oak seedlings near the project area, seeding the transmission corridor and access road edges with a pollinator-friendly native seed mix and paying a fee to the city to remove invasive species in the park. He also said the upgrade would pave the way for city approval of future phases of the project in Forest Park and lead to more tree removal. PGE has said those future phases could affect another 15 acres of the park. “Is 5 acres acceptable? Is 20 acres acceptable? Where do we draw the line?” Fogarty asked the council members. “One could argue losing just one 100-year-old tree is unacceptable, let alone 5 acres. In the age of climate resilience, this project flies in the face of retaining carbon suckers in a region that is seeing increased impacts from climate change, including potential fire danger.” PGE argued before the council that the project area is neither old nor ancient forest and that the maintenance of existing transmission lines is key to preserving blackout-free electricity. A proposal by Portland General Electric to cut more than 370 trees in Forest Park to upgrade transmission lines has spurred opposition. The utility and renewable energy proponents say the upgrades are needed to address transmission bottlenecks and fulfill state clean energy mandates.courtesy of Portland General Electric“Alleviating this choke point is important because our experts predict that as early as 2028 there is the risk of outages during times of peak demand,” said Randy Franks, a senior project manager for PGE. “Think about the hottest part of the day, during an ongoing heat wave, with no fans and no air conditioning.”Franks said the more than 20 alternatives PGE examined were not practical, would require the utility to take property through eminent domain, would take too much time or cost too much – and could lead to similar or even greater negative impacts to trees and wildlife outside the park. He said the city’s Forest Park management plan acknowledges the existence of utility corridors and the need to maintain and upgrade them over time and that doing so will help reduce global warming.“If we are serious about combating climate change, we simply have to improve the grid, keep it reliable and increase transmission capacity,” Franks said. Only a handful of people testified in favor of PGE’s plans. “Utilities around the country, including ours, are facing the most rapid load increases in a generation and concomitant reliability challenges. At the same time, our state is laboring to remove from the grid the coal and gas plants that are fueling climate change locally,” said Angus Duncan, the former chair of the Northwest Conservation and Power Planning Council, a group tasked with developing and maintaining a regional power plan. “We need to rebuild the power system to exclude fossil generation.” Council members Angelita Morillo and Steve Novick questioned the assertion that PGE’s proposal would help combat climate change. Novick also asked why PGE did not provide more evidence as to why the transmission upgrades are needed by 2028, not at a later date. Other councilors said they did not feel PGE had proved an alternative outside the park was unfeasible and did not present a compelling mitigation plan. And most of the 12 council members said they disagreed with PGE and the hearings officer that the proposal meets the parameters of the park’s management plan. “Ultimately, I think what has been proposed is probably the best option in the park,” said Councilor Eric Zimmerman. But, he said, nothing in PGE’s proposal showed that the council should overrule the Forest Park management plan. “I don’t think the standard has been met to not follow that plan,” Zimmerman said.Council President Elana Pirtle-Guiney agreed. “If an alternative (to the project) exists, we should not be granting an exception,” she said. Councilor Dan Ryan said the decision will likely be one of many to pit the needs for clean electricity against those of protecting the environment. “Portland will be having more and more tough decisions that include extremely difficult trade-offs. This is just where we are in managing the climate crisis,” Ryan said. “I think PGE worked really hard to find the best option and yet we all want a different option.” That’s because, he added, he – like other Portlanders – loves the park and its trees. “Forest Park is a cathedral,” Ryan said. “And maybe it’s Holy Week and I’m just treating this in a very spiritual way, but it’s just really difficult for me to think I could take a vote that would on the appearance be about deforesting Forest Park during this sacred week.” — Gosia Wozniacka covers environmental justice, climate change, the clean energy transition and other environmental issues. Reach her at gwozniacka@oregonian.com or 971-421-3154.Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today to OregonLive.com.

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.