If not wood, what? If not here, where?

By Rob Riley

Part one of “The Forest Advocate” series

The increasing political divide is weaving itself into how to best sustain public forests and maximize their contribution to society. Recent calls to significantly reduce or halt all timber harvesting – as well as others to radically open more acres for harvesting on public lands – frame our choice as either 1) save forests by eliminating human use or 2) embrace extraction that solely serves economic gain. This is a false choice. Many options lie between these two extremes, including the one the Northern Forest Center believes is best: public forests in our region can be managed to remain healthy and productive carbon sinks and habitats, while also providing wood we need for our daily lives.

Here in the Northeast, some invoke climate change to justify halting forestry and forest product production. This is a shortsighted and ultimately counterproductive call that undermines holistic environmental sustainability. This flawed, over-simplified strategy fails to consider the strong forest management on public lands in this region, the global impacts of resource consumption, and the environmental consequences of shifting demand to alternative materials and other places.

If not wood, what?

Our current reliance on materials derived from fossil fuels is profoundly impacting the planet. We know the production, transportation, and use of plastics, steel, and concrete contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, and resource depletion. And produce lots of trash.

When steel, concrete, heating oil, and plastic came on the scene, they quickly overshadowed the time-tested, wood-based alternatives in our backyard. Compared to other materials, wood stands out for its superior environmental credentials. Unlike fossil-derived materials, wood is renewable and biodegradable. And trees offer invaluable climate benefits including absorbing and storing carbon – benefits that persist in durable products even after wood is harvested. Wood is naturally a part of a more circular ecological system; fossil fuel is not.

For example, a study by Efficiency Vermont reports that shifting from concrete and steel to wood products in constructing just one typical Vermont commercial building would eliminate 159 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. That’s as much carbon as 2,385 seedlings would pull out of the atmosphere over 10 years. Multiplying this savings across commercial construction in New England would generate tremendous benefits.

And across northern New England, we produce more than 289,000 tons of plastic waste annually. If we replaced just 10% of that packaging with wood-based, molded-fiber packaging, we would reduce that waste by an equivalent of more than 100 Statues of Liberty.

At present, Americans consume 1,095 pounds of wood per year. The reality is that global demand for wood products is increasing, not decreasing – and this reality presents a need and an opportunity. Recycling and reduced consumption must also be part of the answer, but the reality is there is no way to supply our huge daily demand for wood products without harvesting trees.

With models predicting a 37% increase in global wood demand by 2050, New England can be a sustainable and reliable source – from both public and private lands – to meet this need. If we do not continue to use forest products, our consumption of fossil-fuel products will grow exponentially.

Wood from away is not the solution

Suggesting that wood should “come from somewhere else” doesn’t equate to less tree cutting; it simply shifts the burden to other regions, often to places with weaker environmental regulations and worker protections. This is not a solution; it is a transfer of responsibility that yields no positive outcome for the environment and a loss for local economies and landowners. And there is the added environmental and economic impact of transporting the wood here. It’s a lose – lose – lose.

Instead, let’s follow the example of local food by celebrating and relying on local forests, well-managed by people working and living in this region. Forest management here at home can better supply regional wood demands while enhancing ecological and community resilience against climate change, promoting biodiversity, and nurturing cultural connections to the land. A recent study of wood sources and uses in New England, “Beyond the Illusion of Preservation,” provides data to prove this point.

The region is positioned to adapt to a new forest future. Let’s have a more productive conversation about our relationship to forests – both public and private. Public lands play an important role for society and should not be controlled by extreme views on management or use; they are increasingly more critical as we confront our past choices and consider how we reduce overall consumption with diverse and innovative uses of wood that enable us to reduce our reliance on concrete, steel, fuel oil, and plastics while maintaining a resilient forest landscape.

Let’s stop arguing about false choices. Let’s celebrate our public forests, the people who steward them, and the benefits of sustainable forestry. By choosing local wood products, we ensure the vitality of the forest, the people who depend on it, and generations to come.

Citations, Equations and References

Staff Contact

Rob Riley

President, Canterbury, NH

Cell: 603-731-0563

The Forest Advocate Series

Public Forest Stewardship Under Threat

Instead of cutting into the deep knowledge and professional ranks of the Forest Service and compromising the public lands it stewards, now is the time to up our stewardship game and secure all the benefits the forest supplies – economic, environmental, and social.

Simple Solutions are Not the Answer for Saving Our Complex Forests

Let’s not fall prey to calls for blanket “hands off” management that cherry-pick science and ignore the much broader consensus that forest management can in fact support the underlying ecological conditions and complexity that ensures public and private forests are healthier and stronger for future generations.

Managing National Forests: Stewarding For Generations Requires Balanced Approach

While New England loses approximately 30,000 acres of forest annually to development and other land uses, national forests set aside land to provide essential ecological, economic, and social values to our communities.