Using Wood from Our Forests: Why or Why Not?

2012 Fisker KARMA EcoSport Sedan

A couple of months ago, a world atlas from the 40’s. was circulating around our office. One of the categories about each country was “natural resources”. In the past, I remember it used to be a good thing for a country to have natural resources, but it seems like now they are to be protected and if a country needs to use them, they should be imported from other countries. Since it seems like people not using resources at all (at least in this astral plane ;)) is fairly impossible.

Bruce Ward, in an op-ed in today’s Denver Post, asks the same question, but just about trees and wood.
Here’s the link.


Guest Commentary: Harvesting, replanting best way to a healthy forest

Posted: 04/28/2012 01:00:00 AM MDT

By Bruce Ward

The smoke is gone, but the fear remains.

We have lived in Denver’s “wildland urban interface” for decades because of our love of Colorado’s beauty, but now the yearly “fire watch” causes us pause as we hold our breath, hoping the forest around us doesn’t burn.

The most recent fire — the Lower North Fork — claimed three lives, destroyed or damaged 23 homes and charred more than 1,400 acres.

The obvious question is: “Who is to blame?” Yet we should also ask: “Why are we suffering such fire catastrophes?”

The good news: We reduce or prevent future fires by promoting forest health. The bad news: We may have to give up the easy answers of either blaming one person for “setting” each fire; and there is nothing we can do to prevent these fires. Understanding the cause and addressing it give us the ability to stop tragic fires.

We need to stop thinking trees live forever. Like all living things, they have finite life spans. This radical idea of recognizing the cycle of life means forest health is contingent on new trees. This requires us to challenge our belief that cutting trees is not “environmental” or “green.” The old ethos of “let nature take its course” and “in 500 years, the Earth will have healed itself” must be seen as flawed.

The problem has roots from when the West was being settled and clear- cutting was considered expedient and necessary. We were more focused on creating a civilized West. The unintended consequence of endless fire suppression is now manifesting itself.

Native Americans commonly set fires every spring, knowing it kept the trees and animals within the areas stronger. They saw fire as a tool used extensively before the white man’s encroachment and restrictions.

The documented excesses of tree harvesting without environmental limits in the 19th and 20th centuries created a culture that reacted by believing that cutting any tree was sacrilege, using products made from trees wasteful and uneducated.

People then believed that tree-killers should feel guilty about their role in hastening the destruction of our planet.

We know many trees in nature would have life spans not much longer than the longest living human, yet we protect geriatric trees whose very nature is turning them toward fire and replacement. We can see the effects all around us as nature pushes to return to a balance allowing new trees to replace the old.

The time has come to dispel that well-intentioned but wrong environmentalist mantra that forbids killing trees and realize that interfering with nature is what creates the problem.

Now is the time to embrace a new environmentalist culture that embraces planting new trees; that enjoys wood products from local sources because they come from renewable resources; provide jobs to rural economies; and most important brings our environment back into balance.

Undersecretary of Agriculture Harris Sherman asked me to help increase awareness of the mountain pine beetle epidemic and engage the private sector in finding solutions to deal with millions of acres of pine trees dying and turning brown — our own potential “Katrina of the West.”

I reached out to stakeholders who shared views on the complexity and unprecedented magnitude of the epidemic. I found caring citizens who were using Rocky Mountain Blue Stain wood, a community of environmentalists, lumbermen, builders, lumber yards, pellet mills, and furniture-makers, all working together to take our blue wood and turn it into products that would help the forest heal.

But even these efforts struggle against the mistaken belief that using wood is somehow bad.

The time is now to change decades of outmoded public perception that the only good forestry goal is to let our forests age, and realize how sustainable forestry is married to utilizing wood products in order to plant and grow new trees.

Bruce Ward is the founder of Choose Outdoors and a White House Champion of Change for Rural America. He lives in Pine.

Meanwhile, a colleague ran across this highly green (and expensive) car which advertises that it uses “, and rescued wood trim retrieved from the 2007 firestorm in Orange County, California.” I guess one person’s “rescue” is another person’s “salvage.” The whole question of “when it’s OK to use wood” seems to be worthy of further exploration; it has a variety of social, philosophical and environmental implications that we could potentially parse out.

18 thoughts on “Using Wood from Our Forests: Why or Why Not?”

  1. Sharon, there’s plenty of resource use going on in this country, from mining to water development to commercial fishing … I think for most reasonable people, the question is more about how to develop the resources responsibly, whether there are some areas where we shouldn’t develop resources because other values are more important … Bruce’s column hearkens back to the very heritage that he refers to by making the argument that we should use a resource just because it’s there. To me, that’s not a good enough reason.

    Reply
  2. I’m with Bob (#1) on this one. And I’ll add that the either/or frame used here is highly inflammatory, for example:

    The documented excesses of tree harvesting without environmental limits in the 19th and 20th centuries created a culture that reacted by believing that cutting any tree was sacrilege, using products made from trees wasteful and uneducated.

    People then believed that tree-killers should feel guilty about their role in hastening the destruction of our planet.

    We know many trees in nature would have life spans not much longer than the longest living human, yet we protect geriatric trees whose very nature is turning them toward fire and replacement. We can see the effects all around us as nature pushes to return to a balance allowing new trees to replace the old.

    The time has come to dispel that well-intentioned but wrong environmentalist mantra that forbids killing trees and realize that interfering with nature is what creates the problem.

    This is a “strawman.” The environmental movement in this country grew up not from this notion that cutting trees was sacrilege (even though there is a bit of that in the minds of some people now) but rather, in part, from within the US Forest Service, as insiders saw government foresters and engineers siding with industry types in the destruction of our forests. This is not because using wood is evil, but rather because people (both within government and outsiders looking in) saw agencies, like the Forest Service and the BLM, not acting as good stewards of our natural resources. See, e.g. Richard W Behan’s, Plundered Promise: Capitalism, Politics and the Fate of the Federal Lands, and Paul Hirt’s A Conspiracy of Optimism: Management of the National Forests Since World War Two.

    Finally, what is the remedy in for forests in Colorado? Yes, we can replant them, but can we afford to maintain these forests in some sort of fire resistant way?

    Reply
  3. Bruce’s piece reminded me of something that I had been thinking about and perhaps my thinking has been broadened by considerations of energy resources as well.

    So when I meet with green entrepreneurs around Denver, they see dead trees that would otherwise be burned, and think (framing I) “can we use this unneeded biomass to offset the use of other resources?”. These people don’t have the frame of the “timber wars.” They see themselves as solely white-hat kinds of folks.

    That’s a different question from (framing II) “what should we do to manage forests (if anything) in places where fire is part of what would have happened in the past, but for various reasons, including public safety, fire needs to be controlled and managed?”

    Or (framing III) “is using wood a legitimate local business that should be supported and encouraged to the extent the supply is produced sustainably”?

    As in, (framing IV) “if I’m at my local lumberyard, should I preferentially choose local wood or that imported from New Zealand or Canada?”

    I think to start with we should think about different framings of the key questions. What concerns me about this for wood as well as energy is that “not that kind, not here” begs the question “what kind, where?”

    If folks who say “no” to a particular use in a particular place had alternative visions, we might all be able to buy into those and all move forward. Anyway, I think it’s worth exploring.

    Reply
  4. Maybe we’re going at this wrong. How about a new “law of the land” that mandates the use of sustainable American wood, in all new buildings that use wood? After all, shipping imported wood already has “eco-taxes”, in the form of both real and ecological costs, due to how and where they were harvested. Continue with a mandated certification program to ensure compliance with sustainable forestry requirements. Thinking globally and acting locally??

    Reply
  5. This is quite full of unstated assumptions and flawed logic:

    “We need to stop thinking trees live forever. Like all living things, they have finite life spans. This radical idea of recognizing the cycle of life means forest health is contingent on new trees. This requires us to challenge our belief that cutting trees is not “environmental” or “green.” The old ethos of “let nature take its course” and “in 500 years, the Earth will have healed itself” must be seen as flawed.”

    The author seems think that modern humans, with our near ubiquitous chainsaws and bulldozers and livestock and fire retardant, arrived just in time to save the planet from self-destruction.

    The author also seems to think that dead trees, after their finite lives, just go to waste if they are left in the forest, and not exported from the forest for the use of the least endangered species on earth – failing to recognize the importance of dead wood to ecosystem services and to meet the needs of species that wood more than humans.

    I guess I don’t think the author is adding much to the discussion.

    Reply
  6. I agree with “Tree” that the author seems not to be adding much to any intelligent conversation regarding American forests for whom and for what. The frame is too narrow, the bias too apparent. Still, I’m glad Sharon posted it up if only to get us talking about what might “add” in terms of the conversation.

    That said, I think that Sharon in #3 hits on some of the complexities that face US government managers as they try to address questions about American forests for whom and for what? Among those questions are: (I) How do resources interrelate in terms of being compliments or substitutes for other resources, (II) Where ought we to attempt to manage fire in the national forests? (III) If produced sustainably, should timber (or any other renewable resource) be encouraged as a locally produced resource? And related (IV) What is traded off in the process of producing that timber (or other renewable resource) including but not limited to environmental damage in other parts of the world from extraction that might not be up to US standards?.

    I’m sure we could append many other questions derived from viewing forest management problems through different lenses or “frames.” Among those questions would be, off the top of my head: (1) Where ought we to attempt to manage wildlife in the national forests? (including just setting stages where wildlife might thrive), (2) Where ought we to attempt to set aside reserves (Wilderness, wild places outside formally designated Wilderness, scientific study areas, recreation reserves, etc.) where commodity production is not the object?
    (3) How ought corridors (river systems, road systems, utility systems, etc) to interface with other objective for the national forests? (4)….

    Speaking of which, do forest managers have such a checklist of questions to serve as a starting point when attempting to address the questions of “for whom and for what”? If they do, has anyone attempted to begin to question how to properly scale planning efforts to address them? I remember big questions that have welled-up that could not be appropriately addressed in contexts less small than say, the Columbia River Basin, the Great Basin, Yellowstone to Yukon, etc. Yet I see no one these days talking about addressing such at these large scales, even to serve as a reference to begin to scale-down decision making processes. Am I just not seeing it, or does it not exist? If the latter, then why was I seemingly the only one addressing such in the recent NFMA rule-making effort? On that latter point, see, e.g: http://ncfp.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/opportunity-and-context-lost-2012-nfma-planning-rule/

    Reply
    • Dave, perhaps I’m misinterpreting:

      Yet I see no one these days talking about addressing such at these large scales, even to serve as a reference to begin to scale-down decision making processes. Am I just not seeing it, or does it not exist? If the latter, then why was I seemingly the only one addressing such in the recent NFMA rule-making effort?

      , but I know we suggested a nested, multi-scale approach to assessments for the revised planning rule. Here’s a snippet from our comments in February 2010, where we went on to provide examples of each of these scales and what they would be appropriate for: “The Nature Conservancy believes that a nested, multi-scale framework is a necessary planning platform to assess and understand how National Forest System lands fit within the larger context of U.S. and global forests and grasslands, and how individual national forests and grasslands–and the species, habitat types, and functional systems of which they are comprised–are influenced by and support their surrounding landscapes, as well as future opportunities for adaptation. A multi-scale framework is necessary to assess and measure changes caused by large-scale threats and responses to management actions, and how those affect local and regional scale goals and objectives. Additionally, this framework is critical in supporting adaptive management in that it allows managers to “roll up” impacts and determine the success or failure of management actions to better assess when adaptive action will be necessary.”

      Also, there seems to be a lot of folks “talking about addressing such at these large scales.” See: http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/climateadaptation/documents/resilient-sites-for-terrestrial-conservation-in for example from Central Appalachians, which by the way was used by the George Washington National Forest in their current plan revision for helping to address the very questions (1,2,3) that you propose above (albeit, perhaps not in checklist format nor in the same frame “for whom and for what” as you propose). Also links to climate change resiliency and adaptation work in Southwest, US Coasts, and other large-scale systems from that same site.

      Reply
      • Thanks Marek,

        I framed my comment too narrowly in suggesting the “no one” was talking about it. What I really meant to say, was that no one in the planning/policy realm at the Forest Service was talking about multi-scale assessment/decision-making, and certainly NOT in the recent NFMA planning rule workup. In my last years with the Forest Service I used to champion the good work the Nature Conservancy was doing in that realm. See, e.g. here: http://forestpolicy.typepad.com/am/2005/10/bringing_adapti.html

        PS.. I noticed that the specific hyperlinks I referenced in that referenced post (e.g. for adaptive management, monitoring and evaluation and collaborative learning) no longer work. I’ll have to update them later today.

        Reply
  7. I couldn’t agree more with all the points raised by Bob, Dave, and Tree.

    I would only add that Sharon has missed the most important framing: That we can no longer pretend small tweaks to business as usual (BAU) is a rational goal for a host of reasons including the fact that BAU has delivered us to this precipice of catastrophic climate change.

    The issue goes far beyond meeting consumer needs which are based upon unethical, unsustainable, and ultimately suicidal macroeconomic policies. Nor is there an iota of solace to be realized in the absurd notions proposed by the likes of TNC’s Peter Kareiva, whose remedy would have us ally with our “corporate partners”, yet by any standard of reform are just as hell-bent on personal gain at public expense as they ever were.

    Kareiva’s message reflects Larry’s advice that “a new law of the land” is needed which will solve our problems by “(Continuing) with a mandated certification program to ensure compliance with sustainable forestry requirements.”

    I couldn’t agree any less.

    FSC certification has long-since been exposed as a ruse and a sham as has been painstakingly documented on the international level at http://www.fsc-watch.org/ , and as the following video reveals.

    Such is the case with virtually all the “win-win” green washed corporate promises to “do better next time.”

    http://youtu.be/FKBht7IINj0

    Reply
    • Yes, David, your kneejerk response against all sustainable forestry is well known here, and exactly the kind of mindset that the author argues against. For every “Bruce Ward” (of Batman fame?), there are oppositely-ignorant people wanting to preserve forests currently out of balance. Yes, the idea of passive restoration has long been exposed as being equally disastrous and preposterous for managing our public forests. Above all, the man-less forest concept is the most ridiculous of all. With “global warming”, is there ANY forest not impacted by man’s hand, these days? Which forests need man’s intervention and which ones don’t? Notice I didn’t specifically mention any one certification process. Surely, there are standards that most reasonable people would agree to, eh? (Of course, I wouldn’t expect unreasonable people to agree, though.)

      Reply
    • David- you state that “consumer needs” are “based on unsustainable macroeconomic policies” but I am thinking that people’s needs (like food, building material, and energy) are based on something different from that- basic human needs for food, clothing, and shelter. I am not clear on how macroeconomic policies change that.

      Reply
  8. Larry,
    As usual, your amusing knack for resorting to degrading people with a different point of view than your own provides us with a splendid example of your own demeaning descriptions, hyperbole, and false accusations.

    Back to the point, the difference between what you and the corporate world call “sustainable”, and what is actually sustainable is at issue here. I noticed you didn’t specifically provide any one certification process so I used FSC, the most universally applied example which has long since been exposed as a sham, and which, in fact, is making socio-economic and environmental conditions far worse for the planet and its peoples who once lived in former old growth forests.

    Please provide then, an example of a forest certification program that actually exists. One which will somehow displace and replace the international FSC scams being pushed by corporatized groups (like Ecotrust,TNC, WWF, EDF, CI, WRI, etc.) and yet somehow operates in a manner that won’t accelerate global warming, destroy biodiversity, expand the suffocating influence of multinational corporate plantations, and impoverish the indigenous peoples who have actually lived sustainably in their tribal old growth forests for thousands of years.

    Again, at issue here is understanding how we got here. We need to reverse the course of planetary peril we are on, not further enable the multinational perpetrators with greenwashing “certification” scams.

    Reply
    • In short, David, I am open to MANY different compromises, while you seem closed-minded to ANY compromise, claiming all collaboration is “fixed” and corrupt. When I say sustainable, I mean just that. It is not “code” for anything otherwise. Certification involves the three C-words you intensely dislike.

      Collaboration

      Consensus

      Compromise

      You have amply demonstrated your disgust for those three concepts. My initial comment explored the possibility of eliminating log imports, from places that have little to no environmental controls, in favor of cutting excess trees on our own public lands, in a sensible manner. Of course, correcting tree densities is, by “nature”, unsustainable. After the correction is made, a truly sustainable program of maintenance can be enabled, to restore forests.

      Reply
      • Larry, now that you’ve declined to provide, “an example of a forest certification program that actually exists…which will somehow displace and replace the international FSC scams being pushed by corporatized groups.” my point is demonstrated by your silence.

        Larry, now please provide evidence that I’m, “claiming all collaboration is “fixed” and corrupt.” (I’m completely confident you will be similarly unresponsive to that request because I never said this.) Collabration is best achieved when it is inclusive and participants share similar value systems and end goals. Compromise must differentiate between half a loaf of bread, and half a baby. (Half a baby is a dead baby.)

        I look forward to future conversations with you which don’t rely on baseless personal attacks to make your point. For the points you do raise, please provide evidence upon which to stake your claims.

        As far as, your “initial comment” which was couched in exploring the possibility of eliminating log imports,” I appreciate the clarification of your intent.

        Beyond the fact that those imports cannot be trusted as sustainably managed — even with FSC certifications — I appreciate and share your concern for “shipping imported wood (which) already has “eco-taxes”, in the form of both real and ecological costs.” (these “eco-taxes” of course, do not show up on a balance sheet, but as externalities of grim reality instead.) The real substance of this issue is what economists refer to as “market failure”, for which there is no shortage of examples:

        A good place to start eliminating imports, would be by challenging the USFS export policies of Region 10, (excerpts of the export policy follow):

        “In an effort to boost appraised values, provide purchasers economic sale opportunities, and provide additional processing options, a Limited Interstate Shipment Policy for hemlock and Sitka spruce was established in 2007.

        In 2008, the policy was continued with modifications that provided additional options for purchasers and in 2009, the policy was further expanded and extended allowing log exports on approved permits to occur until the contract termination date.

        Following 2010 policy review, a minor change was made allowing applications to be submitted by purchasers of new Timber Settlement sales.

        During the 2011 calendar year, national lumber markets continued to struggle with limited domestic opportunities available to the Alaska Timber Industry. It is therefore my decision to continue allowing limited timber export in the Alaska Region in 2012.

        The R10 Limited Timber Export Policy will remain unchanged for calendar year 2012.

        The R10 Limited Export Policy provides the following allowances upon Regional Office approval:
        Limited export of unprocessed hemlock and Sitka spruce logs, up to 50% of the total sale sawtimber volume, pursuant to direction contained in Regional contract provisions C(T) 8.661#, C(T) 8.662#, and C(T) 4.134.

        (signed, Beth G. Pendleton, Regional Forester)

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        So, as we can see, there is a long record by which the frequency of market failures gets matched by USFS justifications for continued old growth exports which ultimately EXAGGERATE the predicament of rural communities in proximity to national forest socio-economic and environmental (mis)management, because it justifies exporting a finite resource of round logs to support mill jobs in far away places.

        Sharon, these market failures requiring export of unprocessed old growth timber removed from what remains of America’s last vestiges of temperate rainforest’s productive old growth are the result of (mis)applied macroeconomic ideologies and policies. These are implemented via free trade agreements, deregulation of governmental oversight, corporate outsourcing, “offshoring” job opportunities, deregulation of commerce, financial, energy, and environmental sectors, and steadily defunding resource management agency budgets undermining their capacity to function in the public’s best interest. This is not even mentioning the issues of campaign finance and captured agencies.)

        You may be aware that 75% of our economy has been historically based upon consumer spending which is driven by unsustainable resource extraction, planned obsolescence, fashion markets, resource dependent, single-use, heavily packaged, disposable products, (bottled water, fast food, and Christmas junk comes to mind here). This is widely recognized as unsustainable and requiring the equivalent of 4 planet’s-worth of resources in order to allow the remaining citizens of the planet to enjoy the same luxuries we have taken for granted as the “richest nation on earth”.

        This, of course, must change abruptly if we are to avert certain planetary catastrophe.

        (Thanks for the the headsup on “Local Dollars, Local Sense…”, I’ll check it out.)

        Reply
    • David, I ran across a book recently Local Dollars, Local Sense: How to Shift Your Money from Wall Street to Main Street by Michael Shuman. From the introduction ” these actors have worked to reduce consumption, produce local food (why not wood?- SF) and energy, invest in local economies and preserve local ecosystems.”
      You can find more on his work here.

      Reply
  9. Sticking to Colorado, since I know that best, it feels like more money has been spent on building up a mini-industry of consultants and “blue-stain” marketers, forest health think tanks and workshops, than what the dead lodgepole is actually worth. I have no problem using local wood for local energy. Maybe all the money instead could go toward buying new woodstoves with catalytic converters for people who live near where the dead trees are.

    Realistically, how much of that beetle-kill will actually ever be processed/used in an economically viable way? You can only make so many lodgepole beds, fences, chairs and carved wooden bears. Even if you start making siding, shingles and paneling for interior finishes, the quantity used is minute compared to the wood that’s out there.

    What about when the current crop of beetle-kill is gone? Lodgepole doesn’t grow in a big hurry in Colorado. What businessman, despite the urging of the blue-stain marketers, wants to make a long-term investment in a business where the source of raw materials is uncertain?

    I understand the yearning to “use” the wood rather than letting it recycle back into the Earth, but by the time the consultants and think tanks finish talking, that recycling process will be well under way.

    It seems like nobody is willing to just say that using the beetle-killed lodgepole in Colorado probably isn’t economically viable on a large scale. At this point, too much political and social capital has been vested in trying to find some value in the beetle-kill.

    Perhaps the best and highest value really is to let it build up the thin, rocky soil here. Maybe the beetle-kill epidemic is part of a natural cycle that is intended to replenish the soils.

    Thanks for letting me rant on this one, Sharon 🙂

    Reply
  10. Bob, that’s an interesting comment about woodstoves. You can imagine volunteer high school students cutting wood for the elderly poor and a subsidy for them to buy woodstoves, perhaps from energy companies who are currently raising their rates, as in this Denver Post story.http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_20511166/xcel-customers-must-band-together-fight-hike

    Because I think the technology of renewables will likely be much more affordable in the next 10-15 years, so that gives folks a window to use bb wood.

    As to “intended to replenish the soils”, I don’t think that there is Anyone to do the intending. If trees break down over time (in dry cold areas, a long time) they will certainly release nutrients that other creatures could take up.

    And there will still be many millions of acres with that goin’ on. The question to me is “IF you are removing the trees for safety reasons (trees falling on roads or structures) OR providing fire breaks around communities, is it better to use it for something or to burn it in piles?

    If we use biomimicry, I have argued that we should work on technologies that are like ravens on a bison carcass..technologies that allow feasting on bb killed trees and then are mobile to move on to the next source. Our society is certainly capable of that approach. Something doesn’t have to be forever to be useful. Climate change may mean we need to change also, and be flexible and adaptive.

    Reply
    • OK, “intended” wasn’t the best word to describe what I wanted to describe. What I was trying to say is, there may be larger cycles of climate and forest processes that we don’t understand, and in the past, inevitably, when we humans have tried to tinker, or inadvertently tinkered with these things on a large scale, the outcome has not been favorable.

      On the surface, I like the idea of biomimicry, for example using fungi to hasten decomposition, but again, who knows what the unintended consequences are?

      And the more I look at some of the clearcuts around Summit County, with an incredible amount of slash left on the ground, the more I realize that it doesn’t really mimic the natural process of trees falling gradually, some still standing as snags, with brush growing in the clearings … and yes, perhaps fire (might as well say it).

      I’m not against doing the logging in areas where it will clearly protect lives, property, trails, rec facilities, infrastructure, but some of the projects have been expanded beyond that scope in the quest to “get value” for the wood, and my gut tells me it’s going to take the forest longer to recover in some of those places where the slash is going to suppress regrowth for quite some time.

      In other areas, around many of the local campgrounds, the careful logging and restoration has been wonderful to see. I can’t believe how fast the young lodgepoles are responding to more light, and perhaps the good moisture from the past couple of years (until this year).

      And yes, it would be great if we could find use for the trees that are being removed for fuel reduction and other safety reasons. But that’s where I question whether there is any economically sustainable way to do that, and I guess that’s what we’ve all been grappling with.

      I guess I’m arguing that, instead spending a bunch of money trying to “market’ the wood, we might want to just try and concentrate on finding the most cost-effective and environmentally benign way to deal with it.

      It’s probably not possible, but it would be interesting to draw up a balance sheet of how much money has been spent on planning projects, holding workshops … all the money being paid to consultants, etc and then look at how much actual revenue the beetle-kill wood has generated.

      Reply

Leave a Reply to TreeC123 Cancel reply