AUDIO:

The following is a rough machine transcript. Click the words to skip to that point in the audio.

TOM WHEELER:

Welcome to the EcoNews Report. I'm your host this week, Tom Wheeler, Executive Director of EPIC. And joining me is my friend and colleague, Scott Greacen, Conservation Director at Friends of the Eel River. Hey, Scott. And joining us is our favorite congressperson, Jared Huffman, representing the great North Coast of California. Hey, Congressman.

REP. JARED HUFFMAN:

Great to be with you again.

WHEELER:

Well, you have a number of new bills out for improving environmental protection, things that are going to be important for the North Coast, like wildfire protection and protecting blue whales. So let's start with wildfires. You have introduced a new bipartisan bill to help promote home hardening and other sorts of wildfire resilience. Can you talk about this new legislation and what you're hoping to accomplish?

HUFFMAN:

Yes, absolutely. Thank you for bringing this up. This is a bipartisan, I would call it no regrets, piece of legislation that would put about a billion dollars a year into things that will make communities safer without sacrificing our environmental laws and making other bad policy precedents. And the reason it's important to put this into the mix is because last month back in Washington, there was a bill that used the threat of wildfire, the very real threat of wildfire, to try to do some real damage to our environmental laws needlessly in my view. And it included things like allowing a categorical exemption where there'd be no environmental review at all for projects up to 250,000 acres and not just fire resiliency projects. I mean, lik,e garden variety logging projects would get that same complete pass under the environmental laws up to 250,000 acres.

So that's just sweeping in its impact, there was an incredible shortening of the statute of limitations for challenging any projects that would happen under the bill. I mean literally down to 120 days. So my Republican friends like to complain about environmental groups suing too much under the environmental laws.

WHEELER:

Ryan Zinke once called me an eco-terrorist, so I take great pride in that.

HUFFMAN:

Right. And the irony is, by cutting out all public input, by creating this vast categorical exemption, and then setting a 120-day shot clock for legal challenges, they're forcing everybody to file lawsuits because that's the only way you have any input into these huge projects that would be trying to move forward. So it's a really wrong-headed bill, and it would have another provision that would literally dedicate the entire federal court system to expediting these challenges. You would go to the front of the line over any other piece of litigation, filling up the docket of every federal judge. And so the rest of the country probably ought to have some consideration in that. But just a bad piece of legislation, and ripping NEPA and the ESA apart has always been the agenda.

So I really wanted to put this bill forward to show that, yes, we care about wildfires. We care about resiliency and home hardening and cutting-edge fire detection systems and other things that can make us safer. But we can do it without shredding our environmental laws.

SCOTT GREACEN:

I just want to note that the premise of that attack, as you point out, Congressman, is completely false, that accelerating more logging projects is actually going to reduce wildfire risks is something we've already shown doesn't work. And I really appreciate the way this bill focuses on the science and the need to protect communities over this idea that we can actually log ourselves to wildfire security.

HUFFMAN:

Yeah, that's my sense too, Scott. Whatever you may think about logging, and I'm not biperious to think we should never cut a tree, but there are plenty of places that were heavily logged, heavily cut over, that burned in megafires in recent years in California. And I think we should just not pretend that commercial logging equates to fire resiliency and safety or anything else. But that's the conversation we have back in Washington, and it gets dumbed down to that.

WHEELER:

Well, we are thankful to have a congressman who does not dumb down forest issues between this bill, your wilderness bill, which contains both wilderness protections and boots on the ground, fire resiliency work. You've always introduced legislation that has good kind of common sense forest management behind it.

GREACEN:

I think that reflects the community you represent. I mean, the fact is that Northwestern California has the leading communities of fire recovery and fire restoration practitioners, especially along the Klamath River. And in my mind, we're all following in their lead, really.

HUFFMAN:

Yeah, and you know what, we have also still got some mills and some timber companies and many of them are operating at a very high standard and complying with the environmental laws and not saying that they need to blow huge holes in NEPA and the Endangered Species Act in order to stay in business. So I think the goal is to try to do things right and it's just a difficult conversation to have back in Washington where it's always this zero-sum attack on the ESA and NEPA.

WHEELER:

So related to forests, in September, you and a number of other congressmen sent a letter to the Biden administration concerning the proposed old growth rule. Can you tell us your, your thoughts on how we kind of balance protection of old growth together with the need for some intervention in some areas?

HUFFMAN:

Yeah, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts too, because this is a challenge. I mean, we know that old growth has really unique and critical environmental values. We know there are species that have literally evolved to live in this unique habitat. There's unique carbon sequestration value. I mean, our old growth forests are incredible photosynthesis machines that are part of our climate resilience, the lungs of the earth. So it's super important that we, number one, stop getting rid of old growth forests. And that begins with taking an inventory of it. And I'll give the Biden administration a lot of credit for finally starting us down the road toward an honest inventory of old growth.

And then the next step is to make sure we actually protect it, that we define it with integrity and make sure to protect it. So that's where I was coming from. We probably know this issue as good as anybody in Northwest California, because we've still got some fantastic old growth habitat and we're always trying hard to protect it. But you mentioned the occasional need to make difficult choices. Last chance grade is forcing us into one of those, right? There is no way to fix last chance grade without losing a few really old majestic redwood trees. And we're just gonna have to lose as few of them as possible and try to make up for it by protecting old growth habitat in other ways and in other places.

But yeah, the climate is forcing us to think about interventions. I know that in Sequoia National Park, there've been a few wildfires that threatened some of the biggest sequoias. They're doing a pretty good job of getting ahead of that threat. Last year, there was an attempt by Kevin McCarthy and some Republicans to use the giant sequoias as an excuse to blow another hole in NEPA and create a bunch of new categorical exclusions. But I think we're proving that we can actually work within the existing environmental laws and still save giant sequoias. So what do you folks think?

WHEELER:

Well, I think that you, you hit it right on the head. One thing that you didn't mention, but I think that I know that you're in supportive is that we plan for future old growth development too. We have a very limited stock of old growth left because we've logged most of it out of existence. And we're going to continue to have losses because losses naturally occur. We're going to have fire. We're going to have beetles. These are going to kill large mature trees. And so one other thing that's important in some sort of an old growth rule is that we ensure that we're recruiting that next generation of old growth forest that we don't just plan for trees to get 120 years old, then log them at that point, so that that's really critical. And that's going to be important for carbon sequestration here and elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest.

HUFFMAN:

Redwoods Rising is a great example of that way of thinking and I'm excited about that project.

GREACEN:

I just gotta say, Congressman, that back in 1987, I was a college student in Oregon, looking at how the Forest Service was systematically destroying old growth on our public lands. That project led me to a job at the Oregon Natural Resources Council, now Oregon Wild, a few years later to a job where I watched as we shut down the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management's timber programs across Oregon, Washington, and Northwestern California to protect old growth for the first time. And I guess I'm struck that it's taken so long, but I'm also deeply touched that we are collectively finally getting the message. It's taken a long time to turn this ship around, but it is deeply gratifying to see folks like you care so much to get the details right and try to keep this focused.

HUFFMAN:

Thank you. Thanks.

WHEELER:

And no one wants to ask what I'm, what I was doing in 1987 because I don't think either of you will like the answer to that.

GREACEN:

Embarrassing to be able to say.

WHEELER:

And I was born.

HUFFMAN:

Now I feel really bad.

WHEELER:

So congressman, we just had indigenous people's day. You are fortunate to have the most native American tribes, federally recognized tribes in your district out of any Congress person in the lower 48. You also have the highest concentration of indigenous members as a concentration of the total population within your district. You get to represent Indian country, which is fantastic. And one of the things that stood out to me last May was that you sent a letter to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, urging for better consultation related to offshore wind energy development. Can you, can you talk about your thoughts on, on how to ensure that we have tribes able to participate vigorously in the development of offshore wind and to ensure that we are adequately balancing protection of tribal cultural resources together with this need for development of a new large source of renewable energy.

HUFFMAN:

Sure, yeah. Happy Indigenous Peoples Week to you, and I think it's great that a growing number of us will never call that holiday Columbus Day again, that we're finally opening our eyes and our consciousness to the dark history that our country and the world really has with Indigenous Peoples. So Columbus is probably the last person we should be celebrating with a national holiday. With that said, the task of really finding equity and inclusion and justice for Native Peoples is unfinished work. And what I try to do is try to make sure that this concept of tribal consultation is not just a perfunctory thing that the federal government does to check a box because the law says they're supposed to, that it is meaningful, that it is something that's done proactively in the development of projects and policies, not just after decisions have been made, telling tribes what you're going to do and how it might affect them, or maybe asking them how you can mitigate for the impacts that the decision you've already made might have on them.

So it's a different way of thinking, and we've still got work to do, but I think we've come a long, long way on this as well. Some of the big legislation that we've passed just in the last three or four years, we've had tribal set-asides, where entire programs and funding streams are dedicated to tribes. It's not something where they've got to go compete for crumbs or force their way into other programs that didn't have them in mind. And I think that the Biden administration, certainly in its environmental justice policies and tribal policies, is saying the right things, but that hasn't always translated to the right actions on the ground. And offshore wind is a good example where we talk about tribal consultation, but we have so many meetings and such a Byzantine process for even engaging on offshore wind. And tribes don't have infinite amounts of money to pay consultants and representatives to go and attend all these things. They're trying to keep the lights on and meet the basic needs of their tribal members.

And so we've got to understand that. And if we want them to be engaged, we've got to help them at the capacity and the representation to do it. I've managed to dedicate one of my community project funding slots to providing, I think it's almost a million bucks, for the tribes of the North Coast to do just that on offshore wind. And then I'm leaning on the other side, on BOEM, to do a better job of engaging by having someone on the ground in California. They don't still. The head of BOEM is back in Washington, D.C. and is hardly ever in California and hardly ever on the ground talking to tribes about offshore wind.

So you can sort of appreciate how they feel like they're on the outside looking in. And they're part of, you know, here they go again, part of a process where other people have the resources, other people are calling the shots, making decisions without them, and then circling back to check a box by way of consultation. We've just got to do better than that. So my feeling is I continue to believe offshore wind has incredible promise. I think it's not only a really important climate solution, but wow, what it could do for the economy of the North Coast and for equity and so many other values is really impressive. And I've put a lot of time into going out to the East Coast and Rhode Island and New Bedford, Massachusetts, and seeing the projects that have either been built already or are moving forward, trying to really get my head around what this could mean for our district.

And I'm still really bullish on offshore wind, but how we do it matters. And I just want to do everything I can to make sure that tribes are brought along at every step on the front end, if possible. And I think tribes should get something meaningful out of this, not just be talked to after the fact about mitigation and impacts.

WHEELER:

You are listening to the Econews Report. We are talking with Congressman Jared Huffman. Yeah, Scott.

GREACEN:

Just want to note, everything you said is only amplified by the fact that we're talking about a lot of different tribal entities, and have different interests, and operate in different ways, and you've got to respect that. That's part of the complexity of this situation. Totally right.

HUFFMAN:

And how they are impacted, if we're just going to focus on impacts, is really different based on their proximity to the Port of Humboldt and other facilities. So, yeah, it's a lot of work for an agency like BOEM to engage with a dozen or more tribes who deserve a seat at the table in this conversation. And they just haven't staffed up and put their presence forward in a way that can do it right. So I'm going to lean on them. I'm going to keep leaning on them.

GREACEN:

I just want us all to remember that we can't assume that a given tribal member speaks for tribal interests broadly. That's a problem we've run into over and over and over again.

HUFFMAN:

Let me tell you, tribes, even on this issue, are not a monolith. We have tribes that are very excited about offshore wind and support it. We have tribes that are really scared of it and worried about it and have thrown down a gauntlet opposed to it. And we have a bunch of tribes that just want to know more and are still trying to figure out what this might mean for them and how they should engage. So we've got to meet all of them where they are. And I've provided some funding that I think will help the tribes engage, but I'm not yet where I want to be in terms of Interior and BOEM really stepping up and doing a better job on their end.

WHEELER:

Well, I'm going to make a connection to another piece of legislation that you've just put forward. The Blue Whales, Blue Skies. So a lot of folks are concerned about the impact of offshore wind on whales, and a lot of people are excited about offshore wind because of its potential to reduce greenhouse gases. You have a new piece of legislation that both protects whales and reduces greenhouse gases. Can you tell us about this? Well, I'm going to make a connection to another piece of legislation that you've just put forward. The Blue Whales, Blue Skies. So a lot of folks are concerned about the impact of offshore wind on whales, and a lot of people are excited about offshore wind because of its potential to reduce greenhouse

HUFFMAN:

Yeah, sure. I think this is about the ship strike problem with large whales. And I don't want to suggest this is the answer to save whales that are threatened, endangered because of ship strikes, but it'll help. It's a voluntary program. Some of the large shippers in California, the good ones have already done some of this, this voluntary reduction of speed. And the data suggests that it dramatically reduces whale strikes. So we need to do this. And this is a bill that will incentivize and encourage it. When they slow down, they also reduce emissions. So there's your two for right there. We save some whales and we reduce some emissions. We really need more and more of this on the East coast because vessel strikes are a problem everywhere, but it's especially bad with the North Atlantic right whale on the East coast. And so this, this is a West coast bill, but I'm working on similar policies for the right whale back East.

GREACEN:

We're talking about speed limits, here.

WHEELER:

And they're terribly effective, reduces whale strikes by 50%, a speed limit. And one thing I should point out for our listeners is with offshore wind energy development, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has already mandated a safe speed limit for all ocean going vessels associated with offshore wind. So that protection is already baked into offshore wind energy development, at least for the ships. And as a brief fact check, because fact checks are so fun these days, we do not have evidence that offshore wind has negatively impacted whales elsewhere where it has been employed. So it does not mean that there might not be impacts here, and those are going to be well studied by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, by others ahead of offshore wind energy development. It just means that we don't have a lot of data that supports that this is actually a thing that exists. So thank you.

HUFFMAN:

No, but we do have a lot of fossil fuel funded fake astroturf groups on the East Coast that have suddenly taken interest in whales and are certainly alleging that offshore wind is killing them. In some cases, in places where offshore wind doesn't even yet exist. But apparently when whales wash up on those shores, I guess just the cosmic thought of offshore wind is killing whales in some places. So there's some real cynical going on when it comes to that. And I have Republican colleagues who every time I try to actually protect whales, they're completely uninterested and hostile. But if it's a way to stop offshore wind, they suddenly get very interested.

WHEELER:

Absolutely. So congressman, you have another bipartisan bill, this to protect birds, the migratory bird protection act and the albatross and petrol conservation act. Again, bipartisan legislation. Tell us what's going on with, with that bill and your inspiration behind sponsoring it.

HUFFMAN:

Yeah, and I'm glad that I found another bipartisan sweet spot. My Republican colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fitzpatrick is my co-sponsor on this. And this is the protections that are supposed to exist under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which is up for reauthorization. So very important. We have a lot of migratory species that need our protection. And thankfully I've still got at least one Republican in this crazy Congress that has a conservation ethic and wants to partner with me and provide those protections.

GREACEN:

I'm struck that we are still trying to get the Migratory Bird Treaty Act enforced. This is like one of the most foundational wildlife protection laws we've got. Goes back to the pluming days of ladies' hats. Kudos, Congressman.

HUFFMAN:

It didn't used to be controversial, but it didn't.

GREACEN:

Yeah, I guess that's what I was trying to say.

HUFFMAN:

So, the fossil fuel industry certainly doesn't want to have to strictly comply with this. And we also have friends in the renewables industry that are businessmen. And at the end of the day, they can sometimes act like their fossil fuel counterparts and see environmental laws as hindrances and burdens. And so, we got some work to do with some of them as well to make sure that we do even renewable energy project development in a way that works for wildlife.

GREACEN:

And it's worth pointing out that Elon Musk's starship has been doing some damage to migratory bird habitat in Texas. Not in the service of renewables so much, it's just a brave new world.

HUFFMAN:

Yes, but he like caught his rocket with that weird chopstick mechanism and so it's hard to get anybody to even think, let alone talk, about all the birds he's been killing.

WHEELER:

Well, God, I want to talk about Elon Musk at length. I am obsessed with hating that man, but that's probably not this show. Congressman, you were leading the pack in talking about Project 2025. This is the Heritage Foundation-sponsored roadmap for a second Trump presidency. Tell us a little bit more about Project 2025 and your coalition or committee. Let's revisit what this is and we can talk about the kind of successes that we've had in bringing forward the threats of Project 2025 to American democracy.

HUFFMAN:

So what has happened in the last four months? Yeah, I probably explained Project 2025 in depth when we talked before. It is a dystopic authoritarian takeover plan that would gut checks and balances, tear away our democratic institutions, basically anything that could stand in the way of Donald Trump's plan to be a dictator on day one, and then methodically start taking away your individual rights, whether that is the right to choose or the right to love and marry whoever you want, or the right to not have a 2000-year-old Old Testament biblical agenda imposed on you by way of public policy. So yeah, there's a lot there.

And what's happened in recent months is it's gotten squarely into the national conversation. And I'm really pleased about that because not enough people knew what it was, not enough people understood it for the threat that it is. And so, yeah, you can't hear Kamala Harris or Tim Walz or anyone else give a speech these days without going to specific parts of Project 2025 and telling people what's at stake if Donald Trump becomes president again.

Just a few days ago, I gave one of the most difficult interviews I've ever given. The New Republic is writing a story that will only be published if Trump wins. Oh, God. And so I had to give an interview as if this is November 6th or 7th or whatever, and Donald Trump is president-elect. What does it mean? And it was tough because I had to explain all of the different ways in which Project 2025 is real and is coming and what it's gonna do to us and how hard it's gonna be to stop it. That was dark. I hope that, I really hope that article never runs. But if it does, you will see that our country is gonna be tested in ways we've never been tested before.

GREACEN:

Congressman, some of the ways we've seen Project 2025 play out in the last four months have been really interesting. On one hand, Trump himself has disavowed both the document and seemingly the Heritage Foundation, the organization that largely produced it. On the other hand, as you've pointed out, the current congressional majority seems to be operating out of Project 25 on a day-to-day basis.

HUFFMAN:

It's so obviously their playbook. And by the way, Trump's implausible denial of Project 2025 is not working for him because he has been saying or even trying to do all these things all along. Literally, the architects of Project 2025 described it as the playbook for finishing the things that Trump tried to do in his first presidency but couldn't. So you can't disavow something that is all about realizing your vision. And look at the stuff he's been saying lately. I mean, if anything, he's been becoming more reflective of Project 2025 in his extremism and authoritarianism, going after his enemies, putting Adam Schiff in prison, rolling the military into cities, the mass deportation frenzy that he's been talking about. I mean, that is all front and center in Project 2025.

WHEELER:

Congressman, I'm not sure if you have thoughts on other things on the ballot that you'd like to talk about this election before, before we wrap.

HUFFMAN:

I will confess I have been so thoroughly consumed with the top of the ticket. I just got back from Pennsylvania and I'm on my way to Arizona here in a couple days. When I have any free time right now, I am actually going to the DNC phone bank dialer on my computer and calling into Nevada and Georgia and Pennsylvania and I'm literally a phone banker without anyone even knowing I'm doing it, but like my high anxiety forces me to spend every waking minute just trying to make sure we win what seems to be setting up as a super close election. So have I looked at all the propositions that I need to fill out on my ballot? It's sitting on my kitchen table right now and my wife keeps saying, we really need to go over the ballot, honey. And I'm like, yeah, I'll get to that. And I'm not there.

WHEELER:

Okay. Well, so in, in phone banking, are you calling folks and you're saying, Hey, it's Congressman Huffman. I'm from Northern California. Or are you Jared?

HUFFMAN:

Just Jared, a volunteer for the Harris-Waltz campaign, or a volunteer for the Georgia Democratic Party, and want to know if you've decided who you're voting for for president. And anyone who's listening to your show, you're probably feeling the same angst and anxiety that compels me to do this with my free time. It is so easy to do. This dialer system that the DNC has is so slick. It connects you instantly. You don't wait. It's targeted to people that we think are likely to be Harris supporters, and it is just like, walks you right through it. It's idiot-proof. And as soon as you've clicked the right responses as you're talking, it's connecting you to the next person. And in 30 minutes, I was able to reach 14 live human beings yesterday, and I was able to confirm a bunch of them are actually voting and help them go through their voting plan, whether they're going to vote by mail or show up at the polls, texting them in real-time information about their polling place.

I mean, it's really impressive. I've never used one of those high-tech systems before, but everyone can do it. You just go to the DNC. It's all right there.

WHEELER:

Well, this is up to you. But if I were you, I would, I would lead with your title. Maybe it'd have a little bit more gravitas if you're talking to some undecided ...

HUFFMAN:

I think I'd get more hang-ups if I did that. You gotta have thick skin. You get hang-ups. You get people that say expletives and dial tone, but it's still, it's so efficient that you still get to a lot of people.

GREACEN:

I want some reporters to go find the voters who've been cold called by a representative from California to talk about their vote.

WHEELER:

Well, well, Congressman, we just have a couple of weeks before the election. Good luck. And we'll talk to you on the other side. We can talk about your legislative priorities for the next Congress and hopefully what a Harris walls ticket will mean for America.

HUFFMAN:

Let's hope so. It's a much darker conversation if it comes out the other way, but I'll talk to you then, too. Really appreciate you guys. Thanks for having me.

WHEELER:

Good luck. Thanks, Jared. And thank you listeners. Join us again next week on this time and channel for more environmental news from the North Coast of California.