9th Circuit allows Willow project to proceed but gives the agency homework
In a 2-1 decision, a panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found Interior's Bureau of Land Management failed to fully explain its rationale for selecting a scaled-back project design that included three drilling areas in the remote Arctic region.
'BLM's lone error is at heart a procedural, not a substantive violation,' said Judge Ryan Nelson, a Trump appointee, writing the majority opinion for the court in the consolidated case.
Advertisement
'And while some procedural errors could be 'serious,'' Nelson continued, 'this one is not.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
22 minutes ago
- USA Today
Alaska Airlines adds new Europe routes, debuts 787 plane makeover
Alaska Airlines announced two new transatlantic routes on Tuesday, with service set to begin this spring. The airline will begin daily service from Seattle to London, though the carrier did not specify a date, and tickets are not yet on sale. And will fly seasonally from Seattle to Reykjavik starting this spring. The airline previously announced it would begin flights from Seattle to Rome in the spring, with tickets expected to go on sale this fall. Alaska will soon start new transpacific routes as well, with service from Seattle to Seoul-Incheon beginning Sept. 12, and flights from Seattle to Tokyo-Narita beginning Jan. 7. 'With these bold moves, we are accelerating our vision to connect our guests to the world. We are seizing this moment to redefine the international experience and level up. And we're doing it with the same relentless focus on safety, care and performance that's always defined us," Ben Minicucci, Alaska Airlines' CEO, said in a statement. "I'm so proud of how our people continue to step up and deliver as we push ahead on these initiatives, with even more to come.' A new 787 experience As the new long-haul routes launch, Alaska is also updating its Boeing 787 aircraft with a new paint job and plans for new interior finishes. The airline said there are no changes planned to the exterior of Hawaiian Airlines-branded aircraft, which are now part of Alaska Airlines following a merger. By this spring, all Alaska Airlines-branded 787s in the combined carrier's fleet will feature a new northern lights-inspired paint scheme. 'Our new 787 exterior embodies Alaska's transition to a global airline with beauty, grace and a nod to our heritage. As we significantly expand to new destinations around the globe, we're eager for more and more travelers to recognize our new livery as being Alaska Airlines and appreciate the outstanding service we've long been known for," Andrew Harrison, Alaska Airlines' Chief Commercial Officer, said in a statement. Cruising Altitude: Can you recognize an airline by its colors? There's a reason why. The airline was quick to add that its well-known tail personas are not going away across the fleet. "The Alaska Native on Alaska narrowbody aircraft and Pualani on all Hawaiian Airlines' aircraft flying to, from and within the Hawaiian Islands are not going away," the company's press release said. "They will remain unchanged as essential elements of our brands' legacies and history." The statement also teased that the combined carriers were preparing to introduce new business class cabins and interior finishes across the long-haul fleet, but did not provide specifics on what form those changes would take.
Newsweek
23 minutes ago
- Newsweek
US Military Holds Arctic Defense Drills With Eye on Russia Threat
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The United States is conducting its annual Arctic-themed military drill in Alaska to bolster its ability to defend North America amid the persistent threat posed by neighboring Russia. Newsweek has contacted the Russian defense and foreign ministries for comment via email. Why It Matters Moscow maintains a strong presence in the Arctic—a rising geopolitical frontier between Russia and the West—through the construction of military outposts, the deployment of military aircraft near Alaska's airspace and cooperative activities with its quasi-ally China. Last summer, the U.S. military released its updated Arctic strategy, calling for an increased presence in the region, which is now more accessible because of climate change. More recently, U.S. and Canadian fighter jets staged a show of force over an Alaskan island near the Russian border. What To Know A joint and combined field training exercise, code-named Arctic Edge 2025, commenced on Friday and took place at multiple locations across Alaska. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the U.S. Northern Command are conducting the drill. Besides U.S. forces, the exercise—scheduled to conclude at the end of this month—involves participation from the United Kingdom, Denmark and U.S. interagency partners, including the FBI and Alaskan state and local law enforcement. A United States F-16 fighter jet, left, intercepts a Russian Tu-95 bomber, right, over the Bering Sea near Alaska on July 22. A United States F-16 fighter jet, left, intercepts a Russian Tu-95 bomber, right, over the Bering Sea near Alaska on July 22. U.S. Department of Defense The defensive war game seeks to improve readiness and demonstrate capabilities in the Arctic, according to the U.S. Northern Command. Its key objectives include detecting, tracking and engaging "advanced cruise missile threats" in the northern approaches. The Tu-95MS bomber—one of the Russian aircraft that approached Alaska—is capable of carrying six to 16 cruise missiles, according to the Federation of American Scientists. Russian submarines stationed in the Far East are also capable of launching cruise missiles. Meanwhile, the Ted Stevens Center for Arctic Security Studies—the Pentagon's regional center at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska—announced on July 30 that it had hosted the Arctic Operational Risk Course for U.S. and Canadian forces for the first time. The course—organized from July 14 to 18—sought to deepen operational preparedness in the Arctic while advancing U.S. homeland defense objectives by providing new tools to anticipate and mitigate risks in "one of the world's most complex operating environments," the center said. What People Are Saying The U.S. Northern Command said in a news release on July 28: "ARCTIC EDGE is an annual defense exercise designed to demonstrate engaged forces that are postured and ready to assure, deter, and defend North America in an increasingly complex Arctic security environment." The Ted Stevens Center for Arctic Security Studies said in a news release on July 30: "The [Arctic Operational Risk Course] is built around applied learning: expert-led panels, case studies, and breakout sessions centered on real-world scenarios drawn from Alaska and the broader Arctic region." What Happens Next It remains to be seen whether the Russian military will deploy aircraft or vessels near Alaska during Exercise Arctic Edge 2025 to demonstrate its ability to operate in the frigid region.
Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
The case for eating the wild horses out West
Why is it that Americans eat cows and pigs but not horses and dogs? There's only one reason: custom. We're used to it, that's all. There's certainly nothing about horses and dogs that renders them inedible; people in other places happily eat them. There's no moral argument that doesn't also apply to the cows and the pigs. The only difference is that we think of cows and pigs as 'food' and horses and dogs as 'pets.' And not only do we not eat pets, but we also bristle at the very suggestion that they can be eaten. Well, start bristling, because we should absolutely, positively, eat the wild horses that are wreaking havoc in the American West. The horses are a problem and have been for decades. Many come under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which oversees some 25 million acres where the horses live. The goal, according to the BLM, is healthy horses and healthy rangeland. The problem, though, is that horse herds reproduce quickly (per the BLM, they can double in four or five years), and that's bad for the land and the animals, as the land gets overgrazed and the horses struggle to find enough to eat. In the past four years, the BLM has rounded up just over 46,000 horses. (It also does burros.) Less than half of them found adoptive homes, and the rest live out their lives in BLM holding facilities. Right now, there are about 60,000 horses in those facilities — and they cost about $100 million per year to maintain. There is, predictably, disagreement about whether we should have herds of wild horses roaming public lands and what constitutes a healthy population of them. There's also debate about whether it's horses or livestock that are causing the overgrazing damage (the BLM denies that the horses are removed to make more room for cattle) and whether you could manage the horse herds using contraception (the BLM does use some contraceptive methods on a relatively small percent of the herd, but shooting contraceptive darts and rounding up animals for vaccines is difficult with far-flung herds). I'm not here to adjudicate these issues. Everyone agrees that rangelands can support only so many horses, and the herds need to be managed to stay within those limits. What do you do with the excess? To have the government pay $100 million a year to maintain wild horses is a waste of money — but also a source of methane. Horses aren't ruminants (cows, goats and sheep are), but their digestive systems nevertheless emit methane. A back-of-the-envelope calculation, based on estimates of 58.8 million global horses emitting 1.1 megatonnes of methane per year, gets us to about 19 kilograms of methane per horse, per year, about 20 percent of cattle's emissions. Horses' manure also emits, but it's hard to find reliable data on just how much. Let's just say some. The idea that we should eat overpopulated animals that are doing environmental damage is mostly noncontroversial for animals that aren't horses. If there's a Lionfish Protection Society, I sure haven't heard of it. Asian carp, wild pigs and Canada geese on menus likewise don't get people bristling. And although deer, arguably more charismatic than any of those, have their defenders, hunting them is a perfectly well-accepted part of life here. If you're going to eat an animal, an overpopulated, wild one is the way to go; you get dinner and your environmental protection merit badge in one fell swoop. I've argued that the most responsible meat you can eat is wild venison. But lionfish, wild pigs — and horses — are right up there with it. The only thing standing between us and a climate-friendly piece of the meat-eating puzzle is our visceral aversion to killing this one particular kind of animal. I blame 'Black Beauty,' and also John Wayne, for getting us to internalize the idea that horses are to be ridden, nurtured and admired as symbols of the American West, and not to be eaten. If we think about other things that stand between us and feeding humans without destroying the planet, the obstacles are a little more concrete. There's competition for land use. Climate change is making farming harder. Insects and fungi are developing resistance to pesticides. We still have trouble getting food to the world's poorest. There's a long, long list of really hard problems. So if your only objection here is that you don't want to kill a horse, I think you should just get over it. If it helps you to get over it, humans can, with care, give that horse a more humane death than it's likely to get in the wild. And doing all this humanely is critical. I think the way we raise livestock in this country has, for the most part, lost its moral compass, and we've become inured to keeping animals in small cages or overpopulated barns. Horror-show slaughterhouse videos of animal cruelty populate our media feeds. Horses we're going to eat — like any animal we're going to eat — deserve a good life and as painless a death as we can give them. If we could accept horses as food, it's a win on two fronts: We solve the problem of overpopulation, but we also potentially open up a new source of farmed meat. Most people who have eaten both (I haven't) report that horsemeat and beef taste very similar. (And when horse found its way into Irish and British burgers in 2013, nobody noticed until Ireland's food safety regulatory agency ordered DNA testing.) Horses, like ruminants, can turn food humans can't eat — grass — into high-quality protein, but they don't have nearly the level of methane emissions. If we could find our way to substitute horses for cows, it could be a piece of the meat-eating puzzle. And, if Americans just can't bring themselves to eat horsemeat, we could at the very least send it to other places, where people do it as a matter of course. First, though, we would have to solve the pesky problem of law. The same 1971 law that put the BLM in charge of wild horses specifies that you can't kill them. And the fact that the Trump administration wants to reverse that may not help win hearts and minds in the community of people fighting for animal welfare and environmental protection. So I'm not expecting instant consensus here. But if you're thinking about ways to reduce the impact of your diet, and your only objection here is visceral, maybe it's time to reconsider. If that seems like a big ask, I've got some vegans who would like a word.
