News roundup, 30 July 2026

- A tornado watch was issued for the city of Thompson yesterday, meaning that conditions created the potential for tornadoes to develop. While tornadoes are not uncommon in southern Manitoba, it's quite unusual that far north.

- The US has launched a new wave of attacks on Iran following Iranian strikes on American bases in Jordan and ships in the Strait of Hormuz. This likely reduces the chance of Trump being able to get fuel prices down in time for the midterms; how that will impact the elections remains to be seen.

- The union representing WestJet flight attendants has issued a 72 hour strike notice, meaning a walkout could occur as soon as Sunday if a deal isn't reached. The airline responded by issuing a 72 hour lockout notice.

- A number of "centrist" Democrats (who would be considered moderate rightwingers in most functioning democracies) are questioning their commitment to the party as leftwing candidates keep winning primaries. Longtime Democratic consultant James Carville even brought up the possibility of a split in the party.

- A man who tried to help a woman suffering from an apparent drug overdose in a Winnipeg park was stabbed by her companion for his trouble. The woman and her would-be rescuer were taken to hospital; a suspect is in custody.

- A man charged in a spree of theft and vandalism in Winnipeg's Crescentwood neighbourhood has been denied bail. The judge issuing the decision says this is because of his lengthy criminal history; while I think it's reasonable to deny bail under the circumstances, one can't help but wonder if the affluence of the neighbourhood where he ran amok had something to do with the decision.

- Research at McGill University has found that large stands of aspen can make a forest more resistant to wildfires. They tend to have higher moisture content, and their leaves tend to be higher off the ground, reducing the risk of a crown fire. Unfortunately the forestry industry hates aspen due to it competing with more commercially valuable species, and sprays forests with herbicides to control it.

B.C. forests now a polluter, thanks to pine beetle

Not a good situation:

A government report says B.C. forests, often hailed as a giant sponge soaking up harmful air pollution, have become a net producer of carbon dioxide.

The report says the mountain pine beetle, which has killed millions of trees, and massive forest fires in recent years, have transformed the forests from a carbon sink into a polluter.

From the Star. The thing is, the beetles have become much more lethal to forests due to milder winters, so this is an example of a positive feedback with regards to climate change. Dealing with the problem may involve some hard choices, because the best way to mitigate the damage done might well be to harvest all those dead trees before they burn or rot (since either process will release an unacceptable amount of CO₂). The idea of clearcutting huge areas is far from appealing from a biodiversity point of view, since a forest that is clearcut will not return to its natural state for a long time, if ever. However, it is far from normal for such a wide area of forest to die off like this; I suspect it won't return to its natural state regardless. In effect, the forest has already been clearcut; it's just that the trees haven't fallen down yet. Whatever replaces those trees, whether they're removed or not, will be different from what's there now, so maybe they should be harvested and made into furniture, building materials, or biochar.

Just to make things more difficult, this comes at a very awkward time, since with the crash in housing in the US and elsewhere (including here to some extent) the market for timber is way down, and isn't likely to recover in time to use all that material. Perhaps the BC government should be actively harvesting it and making it into biochar, returning much of that material to the soil so as to keep the nutrients in the ecosystem. After all, they just brought in a carbon tax; maybe they should be devoting that money to trying to actually mitigate climate change. But maybe that would make too much sense...

Conservation group accused of failing to see the forest for the trees

A British conservation organization, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, wants to clearcut woodlands composed of non-native tree species, in order to create the open heaths favoured by many declining species. The problem is, this may not be good for the country's carbon balance:

It is an all-too familiar scene of environmental destruction. Deep in a forest, heavy machinery has felled a giant swath of trees to leave bare scrubland and a handful of stumps as forlorn memorials. The timber has long gone and cattle now pick their way across the clearing.

But the scene of this environmental vandalism is not Indonesia or the Amazon; it is affluent Surrey. And those responsible are not illegal loggers, but one of Britain's largest and most influential conservation groups. If it has its way, a forest near you could be next for the chop.

"Scots pine, Corsican pine, Japanese larch. There are clues in the names. These trees are not native to southern England," says Mike Coates, a project manager with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

In a controversial move, the RSPB has set its sights on England's non-native woodlands, which it wants to demolish to find space to restore a different type of English habitat, the open and rugged heathland immortalised in the novels of Thomas Hardy. Dominated by heather and scrubby plants, such heathland is an increasingly rare sight in England, and so is the wildlife that relies upon it.

Coates says: "Woodland is very common compared with heathland. But re-creating heathland is so much better for wildlife than a conifer plantation. Lots of the birds that live in the conifer forests are common and can survive elsewhere. Heathland stuff needs heathland, and much of it is very rare."

From the Guardian. So who's right? I lean towards the critics; the fight against climate change is a matter of damage control at this point. Biodiversity isn't going to fare well if global temperatures increase too much, and the RSPB's efforts will be insignificant compared to the damage that could result. Certainly, efforts should be made to preserve existing heathland, though.