Everyone, welcome to this material characterization course. In the last class, we discussed about the x-ray diffraction intensity and the factors which are influencing this intensity and its consequences. And one of the factors which we talked about is about two kinds of intensity that is I max that maximum intensity as well as the integrated intensity. So most of the time we are interested in the integrated intensity and we try to interpret this integrated intensity to arrive at the possible crystal structure determination or the estimate the residual stress or the crystal orientation and so on. So in order to understand the factors which cause the peak broadening which is also very important aspect of understanding this intensity of the x-ray diffraction. So we will continue our discussion in this lecture also about the same thing and we will try to derive some of the expressions which will relate the peak broadening with the crystal structure and crystal size and so on. So I will continue this discussion from there and if you recall I just talked about two kind of theta effect. One is the x-rays exactly obeying the Bragg's law that means they the theta being Bragg angle that is they diffract exactly at the Bragg theta or a slightly away from this Bragg angle the diffraction takes place slightly away from Bragg angle. So these two things are going to give lot more effect on the final I mean expression or even the amount of intensity which we are going to get. So when we talk about exact Bragg angle and then slightly away from the Bragg angle so what is the meaning of this we have already discussed. So when you say that the crystal planes if you consider a polycrystalline material the crystal planes which are going to diffract slightly away from the theta B then their path difference also will be slightly different from the integral multiple of lambda. So what Bragg law states if the path differences in the range of integral multiple of lambda then the diffraction takes place and then we also talk about the destructive interference where you have this path differences exactly one half of the wavelength then they will cancel out each other. So this also has some influence I mean because of the slightly different from the theta B the diffraction will also have a significant influence on the amount of out of faceness and its relation to the crystal structure. So we will look at these concepts once again with a simple schematic and then we will get into this derivation of intensity with the effect of crystallite size and so on. So let me draw the schematic let us assume this spacing between the planes is d and this is the total crystal we are interested with the thickness t which is equal to md and this is mth plane. So this diagram we have already though we have already seen for the sake of completion let me start describing this. So now what we understand is that the scattered beam A prime will have the I mean will have the path difference from this d prime by one wavelength that is what we have seen. If you assume that lambda is equal to 2d sin theta and that is what we said. So that means what these two scattered beam will have fall in the same phase all of them will be in the same phase. So similarly when you have this ray m prime will have will be m wavelength out of phase because it is coming from the m plane so this is one wavelength out of plane this is m wavelength out of plane. Again m prime d prime and d prime will all have the same phase that means they all will contribute to the diffraction intensity so that is very clear that is Bragg glass states. So now the question is suppose if I have a beam which is slightly away from the Bragg angle like this let us call it as B, B prime and C, C prime and similarly here we can have here L, L prime, N, N prime this is incident beam and this is a scattered beam or a diffracted beam. So why we do this? This is for m case this is for a particular given case that is why we are comparing this these two. So now if you apply the similar rule suppose since these theta is slightly different from theta B it could be slightly excess or slightly lower. In this case it is slightly excess theta 1 and in this case it is slightly lower theta 2. Since it is slightly different from the theta B as I mentioned the path difference also will be very small fraction of integral multiple of lambda not exactly integral multiple of lambda the consequences is this is not going to cause the destructive interference. So the plane which is going to have the atoms which are scattered the scattered beam will have exactly half the wavelength out of phase will be somewhere inside the deep of the crystal which we are not seeing because this theta is only fractionally varying only the atoms which is scattered from the plane which is at least have half the wavelength only will cancel the scattered beam from this A prime. So that plane will somewhere lying in between we do not know but if you talk about this beam B and B prime it will have the phase difference between L and L prime m plus 1 wavelength and similarly your C and C prime will have a phase difference of m minus 1 wavelength with respect to n and n prime. So these are the wavelengths at which the I mean the intensity of the diffraction will be 0. So what are we trying to say here since you have the crystal planes which exist or which diffracts slightly away from the theta B there exist at two limiting angles because we are talking about 2 theta here because that is what we measure 2 theta 1 and 2 theta 2. So we are talking about a range of angles which define this that means at these two within the range only your intensity will be varying and then these are two limiting theta where the diffraction intensity will become 0 that we will see. So that is the idea of doing all this. So let us now try to write few points. So the width of the diffraction curve increases as the thickness of the crystal decreases because the angular range 2 theta 1 minus 2 theta 2 increases as m decreases. As the m decreases and your range is going to increase that means it is going to cause peak broadening. So one more point you have to recall we have already discussed in the last class the as the crystal size becomes smaller and smaller and if you consider this theta 1 and theta 2 that is they are slightly away from the theta B then there is that the plane which is going to diffract half a length of phase difference may not exist. So that is another reason why we will see the peak broadening. So that is the bottom line that is the bottom line. So there is a connection between the amount of out of phaseness and the crystals size exist. So this you have to keep in mind before I mean when we talk about the peak broadening and one of the primary reason the physical basis for the peak broadening is this. There may not be a plane which will completely make the path difference out of phase. So now let us write the rough measure of angular width. So which is nothing but the B is equal to half 2 theta 1 minus 2 theta 2. So your B is measured in the angular range in the diffracted peak. So now you write the path difference of these two extreme angles with respect to the schematic what we have drawn. So the path difference for the two limiting angles related to the entire thickness of the crystal is 2t sin theta 1 equal to m plus 1 lambda. So that means we are talking about this ray B B prime with respect to L L prime they will differ in their path by m plus 1 lambda wavelength or m plus 1 lambda and in the second ray which is a less than theta B C C prime will have the path difference with respect to n n prime 2t sin theta 2 is equal to m minus 1 lambda. So now we will manipulate this by subtraction. So we can use some trigonometric relations to replace this. So we can write 2t cos theta 1 plus theta 2 by 2 which is equal to lambda. So what we have done is we are subtracting these two equations and we are replacing this with this expression trigonometric relation and now we say that some assumption theta 1 and theta 2 are very small or very nearly equal to theta B then we can assume this theta 1 plus theta 2 is equal to 2 theta B. This is an approximation to arrive at some relations and we can also assume one more thing that is sin theta 1 by theta 2 is nothing but theta 1 minus theta 2 by 2. This is also an assumption from this therefore so we can substitute all this assumption here. So what you get is 2t theta 1 minus theta 2 by 2 cos theta B is equal to lambda t is equal to lambda by B cos theta B and more exact treatment, treatment gives this as t is equal to 0.9 lambda divided by B cos theta B. So which is known as a sharers formula we will write it here which is known as popularly known as sharers formula and most of our scholars use this especially when we are interested in the fine grained material to find out the crystallite size they use this relation quite often. So we will see what all the precautions we have to take before we explicitly use this but this is a basic relationship between a crystallite size and the peak broadening effect in the x-ray diffraction. This is one of the fundamental aspects of x-ray diffraction. So now we will just illustrate this relation with some numerical example. Of course you have lambda is equal to 1.5 angstrom is equal to 1 angstrom theta equal to 49 degree for a crystal 1 mm in diameter. So what I am trying to say is what is that crystal size effect which will be having some visible effect on this peak broadening. Suppose if you assume that lambda is equal to 1.5 angstrom d is that is 1 angstrom and theta is 49 degree then for a crystal 1 mm in diameter the B due to the small crystal effect alone would be about 2 into 10 to the power minus 7 radians. It is going to be extremely small. So what is the size we will be able to see appreciably. There is some example for example we can say that suppose if the crystal size is about 500 angstrom thick then it would contain it would contain. So if you have a crystal size in the order of 500 angstrom thick then it would contain only 500 planes and the diffraction curve would be relatively broad namely about 4 into 10 to the power minus 3 radians which is easily measurable. So that is one simple example how to realize the effect of this relation and now we will move on to the strain effect whatever we have now seen is a size effect. Now we will talk about a strain effect on the peak broadening. So before we talk about the effect of strain on the peak broadening you have to bring certain things in mind especially when we talk about crystal and crystal size and grain size and so on. Suppose if you are suppose if you take any polycrystalline material which will have I mean which will contain a small units called grains multiple grains of single crystals. So each grain or a single crystal will orient with respect to the neighboring grain with some degree. It could be a low angle boundary or a high angle boundary. So whatever we discussed just previously about the Bragg theta here also it will come into the effect because if your neighboring grain is oriented with respect to a given single crystal the angle is if it is very extremely small. So that orientation also is going to contribute to the x-ray diffraction. So suppose if you say that an x grain or an x single crystal in a polycrystalline material diffracts with theta B if the neighboring grain is oriented for example theta 1 then the diffraction is going to be from theta B plus theta. So that effect we are going to consider similar to what we have seen before. So you have to visualize that we are now talking about a diffraction coming from a polycrystalline material where it contains units of single crystals or grains and then we are now considering a diffraction being coming from two three different grains together all together. So this is with this background we can discuss the effect of strain also. So first we will define type of stresses because what we measure is actually a stress and then we convert that into strain or vice versa. If you measure if you are able to measure strain and then we can convert that into stress we will see that. There are two types so there are two types of stresses which can be identified through x-ray diffraction. One is micro stress which will vary from one grain to another or from one part of the grain to another part on the macroscopic scale. On the other hand the macroscopic stress which may be quite uniform over a lot distances. So these are the two types of stresses which we are talking about here. So similarly we will talk about the strain also a uniform strain and as well as a non-uniform strain. To illustrate that again I have to draw one schematic then we will talk about it. So what I have drawn here is three schematic. Suppose this is a crystal lattice with the deep planes distance from D0 that is an equilibrium distance and then this is the incoming x-ray and this is the diffracted x-ray. So what we are now seeing is that D0 is equally spaced so we describe this as a no strain and then if you assume that this plane is being pulled in this direction and then we say that all the D is stretching into a distance away from D0 that is more than D0 then it is called uniform strain and in the third case what we do is we try to bend the crystal like this towards this direction. So in that case what happens is with respect to the equilibrium position the D0 is going to increase on the top and the which is going to get compressed in the bottom and somewhere in between it will be equal to D0. So there are three situations one is under tension where the D is more than D0 and at the bottom it is D is less than D0 and somewhere in between it will be equal to D0 then we say that the specimen is subjected to or the crystal lattice is subjected to non-uniform strain. So we will now see what is the corresponding peak diffraction peak line. So you see that a typical x-ray diffraction line this is for the node strain state you will have the peak like this and if it is a uniform stretching then your peak is shifted to the left hand side and when you have the non-uniform state you have a bit of broadening with little bit of complexity inside you will see why it is so. So the first point to note down here is so the shifting of the line is the basis of the x-ray method for the measurement of macro stress that is the fundamental information one you should keep in mind because of this x-ray methods are used for measuring the macro stress and then like I said this particular case where you have D is more than D0 and here the D is less than D0 and somewhere in between it is equal to D0 because of that you will have a region in a grain where the D spacing is constant for some region with respect to the neighboring region within the grain itself. So because of that kind of a situation each one of this peak will produce a small, small sharp peak inside and which eventually we observe or record as a broad intensity peak that is why you see this as a very broad intensity spectrum and we will now see that how do we measure this. So we can say that typefracting or I would say that let me write that equation directly if we can directly differentiating yields the relation between the broadening and non-uniformity. So how to differentiate the Bragg law you will get a relation like this. So you differentiate n lambda, I mean lambda is equal to 2D sin theta, uv dash is equal to uv dash plus vu dash kind of formula can apply and then you will be able to derive a relation between delta theta is equal to 2D, I mean 2 delta D by D tan theta but what we measure is 2 theta not theta so delta theta can be written like delta 2 theta is equal to minus 2 delta D by D tan theta. So this is the expression where V is extra broadening over and above the instrumental broadening. So now the question is we are talking about peak broadening because of crystal size. Now we talk about broadening because of the instrument error and also broadening due to the strain. So how to separate these two, how do we know that a particular amount of broadening is because of the strain or because of the crystal size. So that aspects we will discuss in the next class. Thank you.


Oh good, oh good. Should be out tomorrow. Oh she will? Yes. But not tonight? No. Is that a shame? Who's going to be here today? I will be there in six minutes. Rex. Happy birthday. That's very nice. Have a good day. Best of luck to you too. Room Carol. Not Carol. Hi Mr. Reagan. How are you? Nice to meet you. Hi, nice to see you. This is my doctor and my tennis partner. Thirty years. This is Reverend Baum and my pastor for thirty years. How do you do sir? How do you do sir? Nice to see you. Thank you. Bob Letter. Bob actually gave you a tree that you planted out of here. I'm the grandfather of a little girl that told you that her uncle Rob had an animal. Mr. President, nice to meet you. Mr. President, nice to meet you. Pleasure to meet you. And Mr. Ted Gray. What we're here for really is the President's Award for Distinguished Federals and Administrators with profound appreciation, highest esteem, and great personal satisfaction. During more than thirty-seven years of distinguished federal service, the last sixteen is Chief Usher at the Executive Mansion of Rex Scotland who has consistently demonstrated resourcefulness, good taste, sound judgment, and tireless devotion to duty. From supervising and construction and operation of improved facilities for the Executive Mansion, its eighteen acres of grounds and its magnificent collection of art and craftsmanship, to organizing major ceremonies of state and informal manifestations of first family hospitality, Chief Usher Scotland's paramount concern always has been the comfort and safety of the nation's chief executive of his family. Rex Scotland has been a model civil servant, a living paradesian with a high ideals and devotion to duty of all unsung heroes who dedicate their lives to serving their country with humility and unfailing zeal, honor, and fidelity. On behalf of all Americans, I am proud to commend his life of public service and to salute him as a wise guardian and custodian of one of this republic's great pleasures. Oh, that's a lot, isn't it? Thank you so much. Yes, and all other kindnesses in this situation. I don't know how to thank you. I don't well say. Oh, sure. Of course. Thank you very much. You walk by. I'm going to be going that way. You can all right. Come with us. So I'll go with you. Thank you very much. You may regulate. Goodbye honey. I appreciate that. I'll see you later. Bye bye. I don't have anything. Oh, perfect. Thank you all for being here. Thank you very much.


Well, good old Jeffrey Grubb is at it again. Well, okay, maybe we shouldn't start that way, although that is where this rumor is coming from. You're gonna have to strap in. He's just talking about how confident he is in Metroid Prime 4 coming this year. We're gonna get into that because look, we obviously have the Nintendo Direct Partner showcase today and this isn't gonna be a video going over all the announcements. I'm not one of those people that likes to do recap videos on Direct, so we're already live reacting to and look, honestly, by the time the recap video would come out, you guys could just watch the Direct. It's 25 minutes long, so it's not even that long and just go watch it yourselves, right? Or go watch our reaction to it. That being said, what I wanna focus on today is actually something that happened during the Direct because as all of us content creators and news outlets and everything are out there live reacting to these Directs, sometimes things are said and things are said in interesting ways. Now, one game that was a complete surprise that P.R.O. did not leak for this same Direct is Epic Mickey ReBrushed. Now, look, I really enjoyed Epic Mickey back in the day. I realized it's only a game that scored down in the 70s and some people had some issues with the controls. They were a little wonky back then. Of course, we're talking Wii era stuff here, so I totally understand, but honestly, I really enjoyed the game. I love the concept of it. I felt there was some really good level designs. The boss fights were really engaging. Yeah, I could have used some polish around the edges and obviously we're hoping that Epic Mickey ReBrush has that polish around the edges today. But this isn't really about that game, but this game needs to be brought up because Jeff Grubbs said this on their live reaction on Giant Bomb. You're right, I just could see the pixels and stuff because it's a Switch game. I'm being unfair. It's no looks though. It's no looks though. It's no Marley is a remaster of a week in here. Like I will say that this being confirmed gives me more confidence that we'll get Metroid Prime for this year. Look at this. Yeah, that's related. Yes, it is because that's why I got the rumor from the same place. So there you have it. Really short and sweet. Jeff Grubbs said he has source or sources. He doesn't really clarify, but he had heard about Epic Mickey ReBrush and just kind of forgot to say anything about it maybe because he wasn't that excited. And all of a sudden that particular source has apparently told him about Metroid Prime 4 coming out this year, which is quite fascinating because if you pair this in with all the Switch 2 delays that would make it sound like maybe this holiday season or some point this year, we have Metroid Prime 4 coming along with some sort of thing from Pokemon. Now we have Pokemon Presents next week on February 27th. So we'll speculate about that stuff tonight on the Nintendo Prime podcast. But what I really want to focus on right now is this idea of Metroid Prime 4 coming this year. Look, Metroid Prime 4 was announced all the way back in 2017, which is awesome. I actually, you know, it was really neat announcement. It was something that made a lot of Metroid fans really excited coming off of the Metroid Samus Return stuff and well, Prime Federation Force, let's be honest. It really made people get kind of mad at Nintendo. So here we are with, Hey, here's Metroid Prime 4 and it's coming. And then you fast forward, you know, into spring or really not even spring, super early in 2019. And all of a sudden, hey, we're delaying this game because we have Switch development partners and Retro Studios is not gonna be making the game. That's really cool. We've heard a lot of rumors and reports around how that happened and maybe it was Bandai Namco and I don't really understand all of the ins and outs because this is all behind the scenes stuff that we can't confirm. Or what I do find fascinating is obviously that that was all the way back in 2019 and we're in 2024. And this, again, that means that this game is being developed primarily during the heart of the Nintendo Switch era. But at the timing of its release, it might make more sense to actually delay the game and put it on Nintendo Switch too. Now we've had other things crop up over time, including the fact that we know the games at least been in testing and polishing phases since March of last year, because they hired somebody who literally in their profile said they were working on polishing Metroid Prime 4 at Retro Studios on LinkedIn. So we already have evidence that, hey, look, this is the thing that's been happening. It's been in game testing, yada, yada. So look, the game's probably done, right? Metroid Prime 4 is at least, if not done, it's in a state where it's probably much more polished than most AAA games that come out, to be honest. And a lot of us just figured maybe this will be a dual release at this point for Switch and Switch 2. So you get it at the same time on both platforms. They've done this before with Twilight Princess, did it before Breath of the Wild and others. So yeah, maybe this will just be a cross-generation title, but then Switch 2 gets delayed out of this year and then people start to wonder, well, could Metroid Prime 4 actually still come this year? Now they gave us Metroid Prime remastered last year. It's a great-looking remaster and really sets the bar pretty high for what Metroid Prime 4 is gonna bring from a visual and gameplay perspective. Metroid Prime 4 is widely considered one of, if not the best Metroid game ever made. So I find all of this just to be fascinating when you throw it all together and think about, could Metroid Prime 4 come this year? Again, this is just a rumor. I don't know if Jeff Grubbs is correct. Look, Jeff Grubbs obviously was correct that Metroid Prime remastered existed and that Metroid Prime remaster was like a big deal remaster. Like it wasn't just a fresh coat of paint. They actually put some real work into it. And while he was wrong on it coming out in 2022, it literally came out two months into 2023 as a shadow drop. So look, we can give him some flak for getting it wrong on when it was gonna come out, but also gotta give him some credit on what he said about the game and the kind of remaster it was going to be and that it even existed at all and was ready because clearly two months into 2023, it didn't suddenly get more ready.  Look, they usually announced games before shadow dropping. So I was obviously ready to go. Nintendo just for some reason wanted to shadow drop it after the holidays. And when we look at Metroid Prime 4 situation where we haven't even seen the game, right? We have a logo. There's a piece of art floating around with Retro Studios that they put out years ago. But look, we don't have any real new information. The information we do get is a lot of speculation based on hiring posts, based on companies they're working with. Like I know, Super Metal Day 64 dropped a new video recently with some news and stuff around Metroid Prime 4, all the stuff we're talking about with Metroid Prime 4 is still all hypothetical. Like yes, it comes from hiring posts. Yes, it comes from employee profiles. But that's what we're resorting to because we haven't seen this damn thing. We don't know anything about Metroid Prime 4 truly. Like now, like Super Metal Day floated out there that it might be on Unreal Engine and that's really cool if it is but I just don't understand why we haven't seen this game yet. So I find it fascinating that if they're going to show it this year, maybe it's at the next Nintendo Direct, which is, again, we have one rumored for April from the same person who started all the stuff about it being delayed to 2025. And I understand some people hate the word delay. It was never publicly announced. It was never publicly announced. It's going to really be delayed. Internal delays are a thing. I know this because I've had internal content delays myself. So without you guys even knowing anything publicly, so if I'm having internal delays at times as a content creator, what do you think a game development studio is doing? They always have targets and miss those targets and internally delay things. Anyways, the point is, whether or not Switch 2 comes out this year or next year, he seems to be saying that, hey, my source on this was 100% correct and seems like a more recent source since Jeff Grubb is saying that he really does believe that Metroid Prime 4 is going to come out this year. So why does this leave me go to Nintendo Prime? Well, it leaves me much in the same place I was before the video started. I wanted Metroid Prime 4 to come this year. Then I was like, man, maybe they should hold off for Switch 2 because it should be a cross-gen release but then man, Switch as a really light lineup so far even after the partner direct as awesome as it is, endless ocean and everything else, it's still not like a super exciting lineup, right? It feels like a lot of filler games which is mostly what a lot of reports that we're gonna be getting this year are a bunch of filler kind of titles and Metroid Prime 4 is not a filler title. At least I'll never view it as a filler title even if it only goes on to sell 3 million copies like Metroid Dread did. I still can't feel like that's a filler title to me. I don't know, I understand sales-wise it can feel like a filler title. Metroid have never been like mega sellers. I just, you know, a game has been in development this long. I just can't find that to be a filler title and that's why I think it might be best served to do a dual release on Switch 2. But again, you know, at some point you just gotta release games that are ready and Switch could use some games this year. So Metroid Prime 4, maybe they're just gonna launch it now get an enhanced version later on Switch 2 and call it a day. Maybe Switch 2 will even be announced before they announced Metroid Prime 4 for this year. That's entirely possible. And then they're already letting us know that like, hey, if you buy this on Switch, don't worry. Backwards compatibility upgrade with Switch 2. You get the enhanced version for free. I don't know, I'm just throwing ideas out there. I don't know what's gonna happen. You let me know what you think about this down in the comments below and I'll catch you in the next video.


So let me introduce Dana. She is co-founder and executive director of the Dogwood Alliance, which has been working to advance climate action and environmental justice, mobilizing diverse voices to protect forests and communities in the Southern US from destructive logging for 25 years. She's been at the forefront of forest protection movement in the US and has led hard-hitting grassroots campaigns, negotiated groundbreaking forest protection commitments from some of the largest companies in the world. She helped to launch an international campaign focusing on halting the burning of trees as renewable energy biomass and been leading edge of elevating forest protection as a national climate justice priority. Then as a leading voice connecting the dots between climate change, forest destruction and social justice. Prior to founding Dogwood, she worked as a campaigner for Greenpeace US and she also has a law degree from Emory University. Welcome, Dana. So nice to have you. Thank you so much. And I just wanna take a minute to honor the land that I'm on since I'm in a different part of the world, the unceded territory of the Cherokee Nation. It's such a pleasure to be with you all today. And I'm gonna spend about 30 minutes just kind of talking about some of the work that we do, the importance of it. And then I'm really hoping to spend most of our time together in discussion, talking a little bit more about how we're going about our work and some of the challenges we have or any other questions that you guys have. So I have a few slides to show here because I find that on Zoom, it's usually helpful to have some visuals because we're seeing talking heads so much all the time when we're on Zoom these days. So yeah, I have a couple of slides. I'm just gonna start them here. I wanted to start off just talking a little bit about myself and my background. I grew up in the world's largest wood producing region. This is a picture of me with my parent walking down a dirt road. This was a pretty typical weekend afternoon for me as a child. And as I said, I grew up in the world's largest wood producing region. And just for the record, that wasn't Brazil or Indonesia. It was a coastal plain of the US South. I grew up in coastal South Carolina. And I was blessed to be able to grow up a place where I had free range access to nature. I was always out in the woods. If I wasn't in a boat, a creek or swimming in the salt water, creeks, I was hiking through the woods and building forts. And when I look back on my life, it's such a something in my life that I really, really appreciate that I had that deep immersion in nature as such a young child. And I had this deep connection that I made to nature as a young child. And the other thing about the time that I grew up was I was born in the middle of the process of South Carolina de-segregating the school system. And being in rural South Carolina, I was very keenly aware of the manner in which white people talked about people of color. I was really keenly aware of the sort of segregation, the message that we don't mix. And as a child, it was a really painful part of my childhood. As I look back on it, it was a really sad part of my childhood because I knew back then that that wasn't right. Even as a child, I knew that that was not right. That didn't feel right. So fast forward to today, and it's just been really amazing for me to be able to put these two things that were so profoundly impactful in my life, the immersion of nature that created such love in my heart and such appreciation.  And to realize that the two were really interconnected and that protecting forests is actually a really big part of advancing justice in the southeastern U.S. So we all know that forests are critical. I mean, I know y'all have standing forests for months. So you know, I don't need to tell you this, but just to kind of level set the context here before we get into it in order to achieve the goal of being temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we know what we need to do. We need to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And that includes but is not limited to phasing out fossil fuels. And we also need to actively remove carbon from the atmosphere. And the active removal of carbon from the atmosphere is an area that is new. And there's a lot of debate about the best way to go about doing that. And there's a lot of dangerous sort of propositions out there for how we might capture carbon out of the atmosphere. We know all of us on this call that the best technology we have that is tried and true for pulling carbon out of the atmosphere is forest. And we all know that the only way that they can do that to the degree that we need them to and to the scale is to leave as much in the ground as possible to grow. So I was fortunate enough in 2017, I don't know how many of you guys were at the climate march in DC in 2017, but it was a huge march. There were, you know, 50,000, I don't know, hundreds of thousands of people there. I can't remember the exact number. And it was a really, really hot day.  We had our signs with, you know, forests and no creatures on them and like protect forests, save the climate. And we found ourselves in this ocean, literally, of activists that were, you know, anti-fossil fuels, which of course we love and we know that we need to get off of fossil fuels. But as a forest activist at that point, it felt like we were such little fish in this big ocean and it felt like we were having to sort of like fight for our voices to be heard about how important forests were. And then I saw a guy run through the crowd and he was carrying this sign that looked like this. It said 410 PPM, time to re-wild America. And I remember I just wanted to like go and like tackle him, run down and like tackle him and give him a hug and be like, I know what your sign means because so many people probably had no idea what that guy signed meant. But, you know, all of us forest activists, we know that, you know, in 2017, there was 410 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere. And we know from the whole organization that Bill McKibbin started 350.org that scientists have pretty much agreed that 350 is the safe level of carbon in the atmosphere to have a stable climate that's conducive to human life on the planet. So we know we need to reduce that. And we're sitting here today and we're at 418 parts per million. And in order to get carbon to a level that is safe again, we do need to re-wild America. We do need to address the devastating impacts that the forest industry has had on our forests across this country.  And while technology can help in some ways, we're not looking enough to nature and how years and years of abuse of nature have created a condition where our climate is also conditions that are contributing dramatically to climate change. And that redefining our relationship with nature and giving nature a break is a cool part of our ability to get out of climate change. So we also know that our forests play a face many, many different threats, whether it's from wildfires or droughts, insects, urbanization, but the data is pretty clear on this, that the leading cause of tree mortality across North America is none of those things. It's industrial logging. And we also know that the leading driver of forest carbon loss, therefore, from our forests is not insects or climate change, mortality or drought. It's not conversion to urban development. It's not even wildfire. It's industrial logging. And we know that the largest sources of carbon loss in US forests are coming from the Southeast, which is the largest wood producing region. Large-scale clear-cutting across the South is rampant. Studies that have looked at satellite imagery analysis around the world have shown that the rate and scale of forest destruction from logging in the Southeastern US is four times that of South American rainforest. The Southeastern US is our nation's sacrifice zone for our wood production and consumption. And the US is the world's largest consumer and producer of wood products, at least on par with the next largest, which is China. We've seen in the wake of all this clear-cutting over decades and decades the steady replacement of some of the world's most biologically diverse forested ecosystems turned into monoculture tree plantations. There are over 10 million acres of tree plantations across the South. And they have come at the expense of ecosystems to the brink of extinction. For example, the long-leaf pine ecosystem, which used to dominate across the Southeastern US is now one of the world's largest, one of the world's most endangered ecosystem. And we're talking about an entire ecosystem that used to be dominant across the coastal plain, which has now been reduced to about 3% of its original range. These plantations are sprayed routinely with chemical herbicides and fertilizers. And a study done by the US Forest Service years ago found that the US South sprays more chemicals on its forests than the rest of the world combined. So our forests are the most diverse in the Southeastern US for biologically diverse forests in all of North America, but they are also our nation's least protected. So there are very little regulations. Most of the land is privately owned. We have very little relative public lands in the Southeastern US. And what's happening on private lands is largely unregulated. And that's where most of the industrial logging is taking place. So this is somebody's vaccine that you'll see in the coastal plain of the South, just driving down the road, large clearcuts and pine plantations everywhere, logging trucks all over the roads going to mills, paper mills, wood pellet mills, all kinds of wood processing mills. And where all of this is really hits the road and where it's really concentrated is in a region of the South that's known as the Black Belt. The Black Belt of the South is highlighted on this map. It is the highest percentages of African Americans in the country live in the Black Belt. And it's also the area of the country that tends to have the highest rates of poverty and unemployment and other indicators of socioeconomic stress. So in some of these counties, you'll see the population of blacks in the area of anywhere from 65% to 90%. Most of the private land, however, 99% of the private land is owned by white people. There's been a very long history of discriminatory practices that have prevented and restricted ownership of black people. It restricted their ownership of land. And that's very well documented. And of course, all this land used to be Native American land. So it was colonized, one of the first regions to be colonized and deforested in the country. So these same communities are now under increased threat by the expansion of the wood pellet industry. You guys have probably already, y'all are already dealing with biomass up there. In the South, we become ground zero for the production of wood pellets that are being burned overseas in power stations in Europe and increasingly in Asia as a so-called renewable alternative to coal and gas. And y'all probably know, because I think you've had other speakers speak to this, this is not a climate solution. It's worse than coal at the smokestack in terms of CO2 emissions. We're also learning now that the pollution coming from burning biomass is as bad or worse as coal and gas. And these wood pellet mills are adding pollution and forest destruction in communities that are already overburdened with both. A lot of the communities that we work in, where these wood pellet mills are coming in and the black belt of the South, already have paper mills, already have other wood processing mills, already have hog farms and chicken farms. They have coal ash ponds. They have gas pipelines proposed going through. It's just these communities have become a real dumping ground and a sacrifice zone for a lot of the extractive economy that drives our nation at this point. So this is a picture of the Drax pellet mill in Louisiana. It was just fine, two and a half million dollars this year. I'm sorry, in Mississippi, it was just fine, two and a half million dollars for continuous exceeding of air permit restrictions. And the largest fine levied on a wood pellet mill so far. But we've seen a pattern of this kind of like, they come in under these minor source permits, but they have a really difficult time meeting the permit limits. So we see patterns of violations at these facilities consistently. And you see right in the shadows of this polluting facility, you see this low income black community with children playing. And nobody even bothered to notify the people living next to this mill that this facility was violating its air permits. So you've literally got people living in the shadows of this polluting industry. And then we've done investigations following logging trucks to see where they're getting the wood. And we documented over and over and over again the clearing of wetland forests along the rivers. And this is really critical because these wetland forests are some of the most biological forests that we have left in our region. They're some of the more intact forest natural forests that we have in the coastal plain. And they provide vital natural protection against flooding. And what's happening right now in the southeastern coastal plain, especially in the Black Belt, is they're getting hit really, really hard over recent years by the extreme flooding that's been going on, that's been directly linked to climate change. This particular picture is in Robeson County. We worked with a local community there last year to try to stop a woodpillot mill, another one from being permitted in North Carolina. This community is mostly Native American and Black, representing well more than 67, 70% of the population. The poverty rate here is three times the national average. And one of the things to consider that we like to lift up all the time is that, OK, if the wood products industry were such a good provider of jobs and such a benefit to the rural economy, why do the communities in the Black Belt, where all of this is concentrated, why are they continuously suffering from high poverty rates and unemployment rates and other indicators of socioeconomic stress? There is simply no evidence that the forest industry is a good strategy for developing rural economies. Otherwise, these communities would be looking way different than they currently do. And this is a map of the woodpillot industry is just continuing to expand unabated across the region. We've had some success. We're gaining some traction. But nonetheless, the permit after permit after permit is being issued despite massive public and local opposition. This is a map of the operating woodpillot mills currently in the South. And the red dots are the proposed mills that have yet to be built. So you can see that this is a widespread problem across the South. But communities are really fighting back. And this is, I think, one of the more inspiring moments in the Southern Forest movement is that we are seeing these rural communities, African-American and Native American communities, really pushing back. This is a picture of Belinda Joyner on the left. She lives in Northampton, North Carolina, where Enviva has two big mills in close proximity of her home. There are also three big paper mills within close proximity of her home. And there also happens to be a dominion power biomass burning facility within a short distance from her home. So that's just another example of the cumulative impact of all of the wood processing facilities and how they're combining to create this massive pollution, massive forest destruction. And this is on the right as a reporter from Politico One of the things that we do is we connect reporters to these folks on the front lines to make sure that their voices are heard. For too long, our movement, our forest movement, and I'll say including Dogwood Alliance, has not really engaged with the people who are on the front lines bearing the worst of the impacts of this industry. And it's only been about a decade or so for us that we've really embraced the need to do this because if we don't have people at the local level fighting these facilities and speaking out against what's going on, we're not going to get the kind of political change that we need to have happen in order to protect these forests. And the other thing to remember is that this is their forest. This is their community. And so they're the ones who are going to fight the most for it. And that's been true. That's been absolutely what we've discovered is that they've become some of the best advocates against the biomass industry, against the forest industry and for forest protection that we've had in our 25 years of history of working on these issues. Another example right here is my good friend on the left, Reverend Leah Woodbury, who's a climate justice organizer in South Carolina. And the chief of the Indian tribe also in South Carolina. The PD Watershed is actually named after the PD Indian tribe. And the PD tribe is doing some amazing work right now in terms of the cultural center pretty wetland for us and creating a different model on the ground for landowners to think about how they can create jobs through outdoor recreation and being in good relationship with nature versus tearing down those wetland for us and putting everybody at risk. So it's really inspiring to see even a native community who over 400 years of genocide and oppression still retains this really strong sense of a positive the need for a positive relationship with nature. So it's been inspiring to work with the PD tribe and also with Reverend Leah Woodbury. So obviously with federal and international forest climate policy is just an absolute mess. We have got to work hard and work smart to change the dominant policies that are enabling forest destruction and ongoing industrial logging. So we're in the EU and we're working to change the flawed policies that we've worked for years with Rachel on that that are driving the use of forest as fuel. And we're beginning to see some success in Europe and we can talk about that in the Q&A if people want to talk more. In the US, our forest policies around climate are largely focused on tree planting, on wildfire management via logging, which we don't really work out west, but we trust the folks on the ground who do work out west and who have some real problems with the way that the US government is framing up wildfire, claiming that logging is a way of preventing wildfire. And ecologists up in the Pacific Northwest fundamentally disagree with that. And then there's this whole group that is promoting, and this includes Democrats as well and climate champions and some of our own supposed allies in the forest protection movement who are promoting the expansion of wood products as a renewable, as renewable. And as a climate solution versus advocating for the protection of forests from logging. And this is a real problem. This is the dominant narrative right now is that forests are renewable, they grow back, and therefore we just need to make everything out of wood. We need to stop using plastic bags and make paper bags. We need to stop using steel and skyscrapers and make it out of wood. We need to stop using coal and start burning trees instead. You name it. And forest products seem to be the answer to everything. And it couldn't be further from the truth. So we've really got our work cut out for us right now in terms of trying to disrupt that paradigm. And one of the things is that it's absolutely essential that we as activists ensure that forest protection is elevated at the national level as a climate priority. Because the stuff we're dealing with in the South is not unique to the South. I mean, it's happening all over the place. It's just happening at a rate scale. It is perhaps bigger and it's impacting people. The people that it's impacting may be slightly different. So on the solution side, one of the things that we're doing is really linking up with others who are working on climate change in our region and who are working on climate justice and working to align around a vision for the future so that we're not inadvertently advocating, they're not inadvertently advocating to get off fossil fuels and incomes in its place, the burning of wood. And on our end, as forest activists, we're not advocating for fault solutions like carbon markets, that are just gonna, might keep some trees standing, but are just gonna perpetuate ongoing carbon pollution. So together we worked centering the voices of frontline communities to create the Southern communities for a Green New Deal platform. We really put forward a strong vision for the South for how we need to transform the economy away from one that is polluting and extracting is something that is regenerative and just. And so within, we've really centered the voices of communities. And I think this was one of the things on a policy level that needs to change. And even within our own movement that needs to change is that people on the ground need to be really defining the policies here because they know the forest, they know their community, they know what they need. And it's when we get into a situation where policies are being defined overseas that impact some community somewhere else or policies are being developed up in some Washington DC office, they're not really taking into consideration what's needed on the ground. So it's really important for us to start developing policy in a much more democratic way. And that's one of the things that we're really focused on. So with the Southern communities for a Green New Deal, we're calling for no new wood pellets. No, I mean, no biomass, no wood pellets, shouldn't be renewable, no more expansion in environmental justice communities of any type of wood processing polluting facilities or any kind of polluting facilities for that matter. Frontline communities wanna see our wetland forest protected from the law. They do in restoration of ecosystems but not monoculture, tree, land, which is what the trillion trees ID or the billion trees campaign or whatever that is. They also believe that we should be holding forest industry accountable for its carbon emissions. Right now they're getting a complete free pass. The carbon emissions associated with industrial logging are going completely under the radar in our accounting and are not transparent. And we need them to be held accountable for the climate impacts. We wanna see a redirection of subsidies away from the forest industry and toward forest protection and investment in nature-based jobs in frontline communities. We wanna see land reparations for black Americans and indigenous people. And that includes both expanded public lands that are owned by everybody in the community but also an expansion in community-owned forests that are targeted in areas that have been hit hardest by industrial logging. And then finally, we just need to reduce wood product consumption and waste. We've got to start dealing with the fact that we're just consuming way too much. So on the flip side of industrial logging is a regenerative economy. And we just like to lift up outdoor recreation as the equivalent to solar or wind power in terms of energy solutions. Outdoor recreation is an awesome opportunity for building rural economies in a way that leaves for a standing, creates more jobs. Actually, more jobs are created in the southeastern US by outdoor recreation than the forest industry. But these communities where commercial forestry is out of control and concentrated have essentially been shut out of developing outdoor recreation economy because the land is all in private ownership and it's all in commercial production. And nobody wants to hike or camp in a pine plantation or a clear cut, right? So when we think about equity in the big scheme of our country and we think about lack of access to nature and the ability to develop an outdoor recreation economy we have to center what greater protection for forests in the coastal plain of the southeastern US. So I'm gonna leave it there. And our vision is that we collectively stand for forest and in doing so, we also stand for justice and in doing so we heal our planet and we heal our relationships with each other at the same time. So I'm gonna stop and open it up for discussion and questions. Anna Hyde, this is Mark. Thank you for a great presentation and discussion. We are really honored to have you come and talk to us about the work that you've done with Dogwood Alliance. The chat is now being opened up and if folks have questions, put it into the chat and myself and Lindsay will be reviewing them and pose those to Dana. Dana, I'd like to start off. I have a question. Before we started, you mentioned that this is the 25th year for Dogwood Alliance which is quite an accomplishment but in Standing Trees Vermont we're a brand new organization. We're literally in our infancy. So could you share with us a little bit about how you started some of the challenges you had at the beginning, how you stayed focused and really became activists the way you are. So there's probably four questions in my one question there. So pick the ones you'd like to talk to us about but just help us understand your beginning and maybe from that some suggestions for us. Yeah. Well, we started because there was in 1996 a major expansion underway in the paper industry. And so it, that threat that we were seeing to the forest that really sparked a fire. If you will, across the region of people who saw a lot more logging trucks, a lot more clear cutting going on and really started to notice the loss of natural forest to plantations. And so that really sparked the, that was the spark. And it seems like you guys have a similar spark, that you feel that your forests are under threat, that they're really important, that there are some efforts underway to expand the destruction of the forests in the Northeast like there are in other places. And I think that spark of feeling inspired to wanna defend and protect forests is the essential thing that really lit the fuse for Dogwood. And it's the thing that continues to motivate us over time. So we started out as literally an alliance of lots of different organizations across the South, everywhere from literally like garden clubs in Chattanooga, Tennessee to Earth First chapters.   Were we going to, you know, were we gonna lean in on the activist side of things? And I think just naturally we ended up just leaning in on the activist side of things because that's where the momentum and the heart and the passion of the organization really fell. And I would say that, you know, at the beginning, the reason why we were able to maintain garden clubs even while we had, you know, Earth First groups was because we were addressing an issue that I think a lot of people were seeing and recognizing was a problem in the South, you know? Up to this point, there hadn't really been any conversation about the rate and scale of logging going on in our region. And so I think that it opened up a conversation that people really wanted to have and were ready for. Somebody had asked about direct action, is that? Yeah, there was a question in a chat. Has Dogwood Alliance done on violent direct action? If so, what has worked and any tips you have on that? Yes, you know, we have, we've run campaigns for years and, you know, we haven't as an organization felt the need to put our brand on a direct action, but we have supported activists who were compelled to do direct action on our campaigns. And I think direct action is a lost art in the movement right now. And I do think that there is a place and time for it if it's strategically, you know, timed and it fits into a bigger arc of a campaign. So I will say that. And then the other thing about our beginnings, I would say, and this is still true with Dogwood, is that our plans and our programs and how we approach things has been a democratic process. You know, it's been like engaging people in the planning of what we wanna do and what we wanna focus on. It hasn't been just a couple of people in a room defining, you know, the direction of the organization. It's a democratic process that involves lots of people and includes partners and folks who are impacted on the ground and activists. So, and I think that's been a key part of our success because when people are a part of developing something and they feel like it's theirs, that it's also theirs. It's not just some organization over here who has all the answers, but I actually have something to contribute to this. So I think that's also been a really critical part of our success over the years has been just grassroots organizing and a strong commitment to a democratic process. Lindsay, I've got a couple of questions. I see it here. I'm gonna combine together. And also I see some folks have their hands up. What we're doing folks is if you have a question, put it into the chat and we'll try to get to everyone we can. So Dana, one is, are you aware of any federal legislators or members of the current administration that really understand the issues that we're talking about as far as protecting forests, you know, letting forestry wild, et cetera. And then along with that, do you see any opportunities under the new administration or do you foresee more problems? You mentioned earlier, we see the same thing that, you know, comments coming out of Washington and other areas that, you know, logging is good for forests, the whole issue of wood products, storing carbon, et cetera. So I guess, are you aware of anybody in the current administration that gets it, right? That we could lean on to help and do you see any opportunities in the new administration? So I'm combining two questions there. Yeah, I mean, I think in terms of gets it at the bigger picture of the importance of forests and the importance of leaving trees standing and transforming the forest industry, I would say no. I think there are a few folks in Congress now who are on side with the fact that burning trees is not, you know, renewable energy. My understanding is that Senators Markey and Warren have come out against biomass in Massachusetts, for example. And that that was helpful in a victory that happened there recently on biomass. But in terms of the bigger picture of the bigger, you know, context for us on logging, right now, there isn't. But I, and let me just say, Biden's choices in a lot of other areas have been hopeful. Biden's choices in USDA are really disturbing and concerning. So Secretary Bilsack and under him, the deputy of climate change within the US department, Rob Bonney are both very aligned with industry. And we saw that come out recently in the USDA comment period that they had, right? Now that president Biden has got us back on the climate agreement and has signed a bunch of executive orders on climate change, one of which includes protecting 30% of US forests by 2030 and one of which includes environmental justice in which they have demanded that all agencies take into consideration environmental justice and developing their plans pursuant to the administration's executive orders on climate change. And that executive order on environmental justice, I think gives us some incredible new leverage that we've never had before in the forest movement at a national level because now all of a sudden Bilsack and Bonney have to hear from communities that are directly impacted by the wood products industry. They have to take that into consideration. And this is not a space that they know how to play in, right? So I think we have a really unique opportunity here to really kind of shape things up in a way that we haven't had in the past where we've had to kind of argue about their science and our science and like trees growing back and whether or not the carbon sinks are growing or shrinking or, and there's all these ways that they manipulate the data and the science and do deflection and gaslighting, around the truth in order to protect the forest industry. But when we're talking about environmental justice issues and people coming into the USDA saying this industry is causing harm, it's disarming for them. So, and we do have some real allies now in the administration on environmental justice. Some of the folks that we work with in the South are really long time friends with some of the people who are in the highest positions in the Biden administration working on environmental justice right now. So there is, I think, a really unique opportunity right now if we can seize it. It's great to hear. Somebody's asking if you can name the environmental groups that are promoting wood pellet industry as environmentally friendly.  But what we do see are organizations like the Nature Conservancy and Environmental Defense Fund who have partnered up with this thing called the Forest Climate Working Group, which consists of companies including in Viva, who's the world's biggest wood pellet manufacturer. And they're coming up with these sort of agreements about forestry practices for helping climate change. And in that communication, they're listing every threat to forests, pests, conversion, wildfire, except for industrial logging. And we do see like the Nature Conservancy announcing partnerships, for example, with like Bain and Company saying that we need to, you know, we're going to invest in expanding the demand for wood products by 1% a year and the establishment of plantations as a climate solution, right? Like so, the Nature Conservancy, I think, is one of the biggest that we see that are out there providing cover for this destructive industry at a time when we really need to be dialing back on the logging. There's a question out here, Dana, about ways of researching ownership and control of pellet manufacturing and distribution when it's hidden in private equity companies and the like. So a question is, how can you research and learn about these companies? Yeah, we usually contract out some of that research. So there's an entity that we've used barely consistently. I think they're an arm of stand now. They used to be called the Borealis, Borealis. But anyway, they do a lot of supply chain tracking and that kind of financial tracking. And I don't know, Rachel, you may have some more intel on that, but in terms of really diving in and looking at the investors of these things, we usually contract that workout. It's not something we do on our own. Though some of it you can find on your own just through Googling, just through your own ability to research. Thank you. This is a bit of a longer question. This person is a member of the Wendell State Forest Alliance in Western Massachusetts. They operate on many levels from direct action to legal and legislative activities. Do you have guidance on strategy development? One of the biggest challenges in waking up legislators is showing them that keeping forests as forests and as working lands is not good enough. We have the science, but could use help with the argument. Do you have resources or suggestions for our education campaign on forest density? Yeah, actually, I should point you to our website. We have a fact sheet on this about markets keeping forests healthy. So www.dogwoodalliance, if you go to about us and go to reports, it's in the front sort of line. But we get the same thing down here.  And the reality is that we're not talking about, first of all, there's not really data that supports that in the Southeastern U.S. I don't know if the same is true of where you are, but in these rural communities where they're doing all this logging, there's not a lot of development pressure. I mean, these are rural areas and they're not gonna slap a super Walmart down in these communities. Like that's just, it's just not happening. The other thing we see is that, even like where I grew up on the coast, on the mainland side of Hilton Head Island, massive paper mill right across the Vanna River about 30 minutes away, lots of pine plantations, plenty of market wood down there. And we've seen development go right into pine plantations. Like when the cost of the land just becomes more valuable for development, the price of wood is not going to be able to compete with that.  So the idea that somehow wood markets are helping to keep forests from being converted, there's not a lot of actual data that supports that that's the case. And the thing that we like to say is even if that were true, right? Even if the wood markets were kind of helping to keep forests and forests, we've reached a point right now where we know that the help and integrity of the forest matters. So it's not just a matter of keeping a forest and forest, it's a matter of maximizing the ecological value of that forest versus maximizing the monetary value of that forest. And so when we're talking about markets, if we wanna talk about markets that actually keep trees standing and not markets that just keep forests in a degraded state, we should be talking about things like outdoor recreation, which create way more jobs, contribute way more to the tax base, don't pollute communities and create a more diversified economy that isn't hinging on these large corporations that are getting hinging on huge government subsidies. So... Diana, there's a question speaking of markets, stating how the price of softwood lumber has gone up a lot and it's impacting if people wanna do home improvement projects or the cost of building new houses, et cetera. So the question is related to if we were successful in reducing industrial logging, and in the Northeast, we're trying to work on reducing it on public lands, you don't have any public lands down there, but how might that impact this cost of lumber? Don't know if you have a thought on that or not, but just it was a question in the chat, so I wanted to fill it out there. Well, right now it's just like gasoline, right? The cost doesn't really reflect it's true ecological costs. And so, yeah, the cost of lumber probably should be higher than it is right now anyway. And we should be really, really thoughtful about when we're using it and what we're using it for. And I would say the more important thing that we need to focus on right now is eliminating unnecessary uses of wood. If we're talking about prioritization and ways that we can take some of the pressure off for us and allow them to grow older, we need to stop producing wasteful materials and so that's like one time use paper products, we don't need biomass, we don't need wood pellets, right? There's some things right off the bat that we could just like eliminate in order to leave more trees in the ground. And that's the first step that we need to take is to focus on that, where that waste is. And this is related to the commercial logging on public lands. So this person didn't see a mention of ending commercial logging on public lands in your chart. They've been trying in vain to get the concept of proforestation into the Green New Deal. Will Dogwood and others help do that? Yeah, absolutely. And we do actually support ending commercial logging on federal lands at a federal level. We absolutely do. The Southern communities for a Green New Deal platform was really driven by communities in the coastal plain of the US South where there's not a lot of public lands at all. There's almost no federal lands. So that's why it didn't end up on their top list of things. But absolutely, we stand in the soft total solidarity around ending commercial logging on public lands. We wanna make sure, however, that we were just sort of faced with this dilemma where a few groups had put a letter together to John Kerry in the Biden administration, put forward a proposal around what the US should do in its national contribution to climate change under the Paris Agreement, now that we're back in the Paris Agreement. And the ask was to protect old growth on public federal lands in the US. And we were asked to sign on to that letter and we did not sign on to it because we didn't feel like it was broad enough. We didn't feel that it was impactful enough at the end of the day. And we felt that, yes, if we support protecting old growth on public lands, but if that's all we do, we know from past that that demand for that wood is just gonna shift somewhere. And it's more than likely gonna shift in the Southeastern US. And an ask that only centers, you know, the old growth in the public lands is completely missing the equity piece of this, which is that we need more protected land in places like the Southeastern US where there's hardly any federal lands at all. And so from an equity standpoint, you know, while we supported that concept, we felt that the ask wasn't big enough to the administration at this point and perpetuated inequity. So when at a federal level, I think we've got to have a bigger agenda than just public lands, but I can understand where you guys are in the Northeast that public land seems to be, you know, like the place that y'all wanna focus. But I would hope at a national level that we would all be in solidarity with the pro-forestation agenda that wasn't just focused on public lands, but was also created some equity and some protection for forests on private lands in the Southeastern US. We're definitely with you there, Deanna. Yeah. We just, as they said, we're new and we're kind of trying to pick where we're gonna, what we're gonna work on and where we're gonna work. It's so important.  I think one of the things that, you know, we've come to realize too is that we need to articulate the big bold vision and we need to align and have solidarity around the big bold vision because when we're afraid to say what really needs to happen because we're worried that it's not politically feasible or politically palatable at the moment, then we get into a situation where we might have a win and then everybody thinks, you know, like problem solved. And we've certainly had that experience at Dogwood in the past. So keep the big bold vision in the forefront and don't be afraid to say what needs to happen. And don't, but that doesn't mean you can't have a strategic short-term focus, you know, for your campaigns. But the bigger vision and being able to articulate the problem in a way that helps the people to understand that this is one important step in a bigger process of transformation in the way that we relate to forests that needs to happen. You know, that's just vitally important from my perspective. We've got a couple of people into, oh, go ahead, Mark. Well, we may be saying the same thing. So go ahead, Lindsay. Okay, so there's one that a couple of people are interested in about the environmental costs of using steel and concrete in building as opposed to wood. Do you have any research or numbers on that? Yeah, I don't have any specific research that I do, but there has been a lot of research in this space. And it's not as clear as people, you know, think it is.  But so does wood. And the analyses that I've seen that really miss the mark that make it seem like, you know, wood is a good substitute because it's renewable, you know, fail to really fully embrace the need for forest to pull carbon and maximum amount of carbon out of the atmosphere, you know, in the shortest amount of time. So they're only looking at the trade-off of the carbon footprint and they're not really addressing the need for pro-forestation. And so I think, you know, everywhere we're turning right now, we're realizing the human impact of our consumption and our overbuilding and our overgrowth mentality. And whether it's concrete or steel or wood, you know, we're running into the same issues around the impacts that it's having on climate change and on communities. So we've got to really dial it significantly back and we've got to have some real different types of thinking going on right now, thinking way out of the box and substituting wood for steel is just more of the same old single. So substituting wood for coal, it's just more of the same old industrial logging. It's more of the same old extractive polluting economy. It's not green. It's not renewable, you know, and the forest industry has been one of the most successful greenwashing industries. I think probably the single most successful greenwashing industry on the planet because they have this narrative about how they take care of trees, you know, how they need trees and how trees grow back. Lindsey, to follow up on those two questions, and there's another question that someone put out there early on about understanding the pollution that results from biomass and from the mills that create the pellets. I would direct people, we had two other events. One was the showing of an abbreviated version of burned where you can learn a whole lot more about what's happening in the Southeast but more specifically about the pollution impacts of the mills and the biomass plants in Europe. And then also in the event we had about proforestation, Dr. Moomow spoke to the issue of the environmental impacts of lumber products versus carbon and steel. And also on our standingtrees.org website we've got some links to information to help people understand that. So I'll just throw that out there that there is research out there, we can help you find that. But it does to Dana's point when you take in the total impact of lumber, right? Including reducing its ability to absorb carbon, it's not as environmentally friendly as it's being posed as opposed to concrete or steel. I think somebody had asked or said they didn't really understand are not signing on to the letter to John Kerry. Again, we support the protection of old growth forests on public lands. That is not an issue for us.   And that if we got everything that we wanted around protecting old growth, we would still not be addressing the inequity that exists in forest protection lack thereof in places that are communities that are being really harmed right now by this industry. And so we've just made an organizational priority commitment that anything that we sign on to has to have equity and justice at its center and has to include protection at a federal level has to include when you're talking about that level of ask at the government has to include something that is inclusive of the impacts that are happening in our region. Well, we're at, we're a little over an hour. So there are some questions we didn't get to. We are capturing all of this. We will attempt to do everything we can to provide some answers to folks and follow-up emails. Dana, thank you so much for being with us tonight and sharing your story and sharing with us what's happening in the Southeast. Thank you for the work of Dogwood Alliance. And I hope that everybody found this event to be educational and a motivating event to become an activist to protect our forests. I'm gonna close with just talking a little bit about Standing Trees Vermont. For those of us, those of you on the Zoom meeting that don't know, it's a relatively new coalition of individuals and organizations that want to protect, preserve and restore forests on Vermont's federal and state lands. And what we've been doing a lot of work to do so far is education. We've had three Zoom events, one, as I said, about biomass and what's happening in the Southeast burned. Another one about pro-forestation and now we've had Dana today help us. We wanna raise people's awareness about what's happening to the forests on our public lands and specifically the Green Mount National Forest. There's plans out there right now where there's gonna be over 40,000 acres logged heavily. In many cases, it's gonna be clear-cut. They don't call it clear-cut, but if you look at pictures like the one behind me, that's what they're doing. 40,000 acres may not sound a lot by Southeast standards and by Western standards, but it's about 10% of the Green Mount National Forest and there's more plans coming down the pike. So if you go to our website, StandingTreesVermont.org or watch our Facebook page, there's lots of information there to help you learn more about what's happening, to help you understand more about the benefits of pro-forestation or the detriment of logging. And you can watch our Facebook page to learn more about upcoming events. So again, Dana, thank you for your time tonight. Thank you for your work and your commitment. We appreciate it greatly. And I'd like to close by saying take care to everybody, stay healthy and enjoy our forests.


Welcome to our second video for week four of the authority control test. In this video, it will be a little bit different from the rest of the ones so far in this course. I'm not going to show you a PowerPoint slide. I'm going to just do some real-time navigation of how to search and how in the Library of Congress authority file and how to interpret the authority records that you find. This is what you'll be doing in your quiz for this week, and so I would like to just give you some practice going through with some of these things. To get started, remember that the authority file is found at authorities.loc.gov and to get started you click on this big search authorities button here. Now I have to choose what kind of authority record you're searching for. We're going to start with a search for the author JD Salinger, and so that is a personal name and it will be found in name authority headings. You do need to remember this is an alphabetical browse, so you do need to search with the last name first and then click on begin search. You'll get a list of results here, and remember that one with a red button next to it says authorize heading, that's a good sign that that is the access point you want to use. I think the interface is kind of clunky. You had to do a lot of clicking to get to the actual authority record, but keep going, and when you see mark, that's when you find the authority record. You can look at the mark display and see the tags or click this little display tab and you will get a display without the mark tags. We'll just have labeled headings. And so we see that the authorize access point is Salinger JD and then his full name is Jerome David in parentheses and then his birth and death date. So there's a lot of information here to distinguish him from anybody else with the same name. There are a number of variants here, mainly words in different languages, but again there's one that has his full name but not the initials JD. I'm going to go back to the mark view for a second to show you some things about this. You'll notice again that these variants are all in 400 fields, and I mean don't use these, use what's in the 100 field. And you'll notice that in particular I wanted to draw your attention to the one that says Salinger comma Jerome David and it just has the birth date without the closed date. That was an older version of the heading, you can tell that by the subfield W and NAA, that's the code that means this is an older version. So that's just something to notice about personal name headings. I'm going to start a new search and we're going to look for a corporate heading in this case. Corporate name headings are still name authorities so we're going to stay with that. Remember corporate name is basically an organization, a company, a governing body, things like that. Anything that not just an individual person or family. Let's say we have an item that we want to make an access point for the American Library Association and we see that there is a heading that says it does have an authorized heading. We'll click on the red button and click on the authority record and then one more time like I said this is kind of a funky interface but it's free. So once you finally get through to the authority record itself, which could take a while. Here we go. You'll see that in the 110 field, remember everything's grand in 10 because it's a corporate name, so 110 field we have American Library Association. In your 410s you're used for references, there's ALA, both with and without periods. There's American Library Association in some different languages and American Libraries Association, which people might mistakenly use instead. So they all mean don't use this, use what's in the 110 field. So that's a search for a corporate name access point. Now what if we had something that just said it was published by ALA and it didn't say American Library Association. We could still do a name authority search or browse for ALA and you'll notice that the red button here doesn't say authorized heading, it just has references, so that means it's not going to be authorized heading probably, so we'll want to know what to use instead. And you can see there are a number of options of things that have ALA as a cross reference. We find the one that we want, American Library Association, and then we're back where we started with that one, then we go ahead and click through to the authority record again. Now what about a series title? That's another thing we talked about that needs authority control. In this case you would be looking for a title authority heading, so you wouldn't choose that option from the search type menu. One of the things I catalog here is applications from the University of Nebraska Press, and they have a series about food-related literature called At Table, and generally on the item it appears as At Table, so that is what I will search for for my series. But I want to find what the authorized access point form is to make sure that I'm using the same terminology that somebody else cataloging a different book in this series is using, regardless of how it appears on the item itself. And we want to choose the one that is a series title, so we'll choose the second one down here, and click through to the authority record. And we'll see that just At Table by itself is not the correct form to use, because that is in a 430 field, or anything that starts with 4 means don't use that. So At Table series with the word series in there, that is in the 130 field, so that is our authorized access point for the series. And that will go in an 830 field in our bibliographic record in our catalog. And our last search I'm going to do is for a geographic heading, we haven't done one of those yet. In this authority file interface geographic headings are considered name authority headings, so I'm going to search for Nebraska, or Browse, I'm sorry, for Nebraska. And the first result we see has an authorized heading, and it's in a 151 field, because that is a geographic heading. Notice that the use for reverence here is in a 451, that anything that refers to Nebraska when it was a territory before it was a state that should also just fall under the geographic subject heading Nebraska. So this one just has one cross reference here. So those are a few examples of how to do searches in the library powers authority file, and how to interpret the authority records once you find them.