5. Taller

Continued:

We Need Taller Trees Not Taller Buildings

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is the gold standard for comparing the relative carbon intensities of wood versus substitutes for various uses, and one recent analysis that included emissions associated with soil carbon loss and conversion of native forests into tree plantations found wood-based buildings to have a cradle to grave carbon footprint six percent higher than concrete buildings. Advances in concrete technologies that reduce its carbon footprint show promise in tipping the scales even further. In fact, for every use of mass-produced timber (woody biomass, paper, lumber) there are substitutes with a lower carbon footprint (Figure below).

Source: Talberth, J., 2023. The carbon intensity of wood products and wood alternatives. Port Townsend, WA: Center for Sustainable Economy.

Clearly, we need to reduce logging pressures and not expand timber production as suggested by another recent Executive Order. Wooden skyscrapers and cross laminated timber (CLT) increase the demand for a product based on small diameter plantation trees with a high carbon footprint. Instead, we need a rapid transition to climate smart practices that can provide steady supplies of high-quality, large diameter wood to meet demand while simultaneously achieving four key objectives: reduced emissions, increased sequestration, increased carbon storage on the land and enhanced climate resilience. In addition to proforestation, extended rotations and various forms of selective harvesting can meet this test - not CLT. In addition to proforestation, we must invest in the development of innovative, tree-free building material to alleviate the pressures on our forests

As noted in the Forest Carbon Coalition’s policy roadmap – “Repairing America’s Tattered Forests: Maximizing natural carbon removal while revitalizing our forgotten rural areas,” policy makers have a rich portfolio of options to scale these practices. For example, given their unique role on the landscape (i.e. the only lands where the public has any rights) forestlands managed by federal, state, and local public agencies should be set aside as forest carbon reserves and no longer managed for commercial logging, since all our wood products demand can be met from private lands.

On private lands, market-based strategies can help penalize bad practices and reward the good. A forest carbon tax and reward program can simultaneously reduce emissions, incentivize a rapid transition to climate smart practices, and raise badly needed revenues for rural communities seeking to diversify and adapt to climate change. In Oregon, a forest carbon tax and reward bill was drafted for consideration in 2017 to do just this. Carbon emissions from timber plantations would be taxed at the social cost of carbon to capitalize a forest carbon incentives fund to help offset the cost of climate smart practices by responsible forestland owners as they manage their lands for carbon storage, timber, recreation, wildlife, fish and many other ecosystem goods and services. Thousands of new jobs in the woods would be created because climate smart practices are far more labor intensive than the highly mechanized techniques used in timber plantations.

We agree wholeheartedly with Lowenstein et al. in a recent New York Times opinion piece when they said, “Trees are some of our best allies in solving the climate crisis.” But we don’t agree with such an assertion in support of policies to expedite cutting trees down and converting them to wooden buildings. We support the opposite: trees should be allowed to grow to maturity wherever possible.

John Talberth, Ph.D., is President and Senior Economist for the Center for Sustainable Economy based in Port Townsend, Washington. He has published extensively on forest carbon accounting and forest-climate policy for the Forest Carbon Coalition and other NGOs.