July » 2010 » One Voice for Working Forests

Archive for July, 2010

Opinion of timber on the rise

July 30th, 2010

As we recently wrote, the timber industry has been in the green business for decades, and people in Washington state are noticing. According to a new poll, 76 percent of likely voters in Washington say that the forest products industry is green.

On top of that, Washington residents think very highly of the state’s timber industry, and their opinion has become more favorable over the last 20 years. According to the poll, 52 percent of likely voters approve of the actions of timber companies; 30 percent have no opinion and just 18 percent disapprove.

Compare that to 1990, when 37 percent of likely voters in Washington approved of timber companies’ actions, and 51 percent disapproved.  That’s almost a complete reversal from disapproval to approval in just two decades.

Don Brunell, the president of the Association of Washington Business, wrote this week in the Vancouver Columbian that the state’s timber industry changed people’s minds through strong outreach and education about the industry’s environmental bona fides.

Today, people have a better understanding of forest management and…have pretty well jettisoned the old “cut and run” image of the early days of logging.

Working with stakeholders on a common solution is also important to success, and the timber industry in Northeast Washington is helping come up with a groundbreaking agreement in Colville National Forest. The Seattle Times, in a front-page story this week, described how environmental groups and loggers have reached agreement to add 180,000 acres of wilderness to the national forest, in exchange for tripling the amount of logging allowed in the forest.

In the comments section of the story, readers have lauded both sides for putting aside their differences and reaching common ground.

From “Mitch Friedman”:

That this proposal has the support of major timber and local community leaders demonstrates that our values aren’t as far apart as we’re made to think, and that working together has (incredible) potential.

From “city farm”:

I think it is high time to see conservation-minded folks and resource-extraction folks sit down and work it out. A quick look at recent news, the coalition’s site, etc show me that they’ve invited ALL to the table (tribes, ORVs, landowners, etc) and that they are really working hard to make a sound solution that gives everyone something while still preserving something for the future. Great work!

From “hillrunner”:

Finally. Real work being done by those who know the forest best; conservationists and the logging industry. Together, as non-traditional allies, a win-win-win situation is created. A win for conservation (and wildlife), a win for timber as more and more small diameter trees are off to the mill, and the folks who live in and around those areas win as their economies strengthen, and the natural landscape is kept intact.

Anyone who hikes, fishes, hunts, or owns grazing lands adjacent to wilderness areas only stand to benefit from this precedent-setting collaboration.

No comments »

Posted in Logging Communities, Pacific Northwest, State Issues, Timber Industry, Washington

Biomass finds support in the NW

July 20th, 2010

While a biomass operation was recently announced in Port Townsend, Wash., a new poll shows that public support for biomass plants in Washington state is high. According to Moore Information, 57 percent of likely voters in Washington support the generation of power from biomass gathered from sustainably managed forests.

The support goes all the way to 70 percent once voters are informed that two-thirds of all potentially available biomass renewable energy comes from forests, more than twice all agricultural and other sources of biomass combined.

The poll results show that the public is hungry for clean, renewable sources of energy as climate change and carbon control become predominant issues for our economy, environment and well being.

In other biomass news, industry leaders and supporters in Oregon are worried about the new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rule that could lead to biomass not being considered carbon neutral, according to this Associated Press story.

Congressional supporters say the issue comes down to finding a clean energy source besides coal:

…(L)ast month U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., and more than 60 other members of Congress from biomass states sent a letter to the EPA demanding that the agency keep the carbon-neutral rating for biomass because of its potential as a renewable energy source, for creating jobs and paying for projects to thin forests.

“Do we or do we not move past the fossil fuel economy?” DeFazio said in an interview with The Associated Press. “Do we or do we not get free of imported fossil fuels and oil?”

1 comment »

Posted in Biomass, Climate Change, Federal Issues, Oregon, Pacific Northwest, Timber Industry, Washington

Timber: the original green industry

July 16th, 2010

It feels like all we hear about these days is green. Green business, green cars, green energy, green building. It’s the hot new thing, and also a very real part of our economic future, as the world responds to the threat of climate change.

And yet, as a new Washington state report shows, the timber industry has been green for decades, long before it was cool. In Washington, 10 percent of timber industry jobs are green, as opposed to just three percent of all jobs statewide. (The state’s definition of green jobs is where “workers are helping to increase energy efficiency, produce renewable energy, or prevent, reduce or clean up pollution.”)

The Daily World in Aberdeen, Wash., just took a deeper look at this trend, profiling local timber workers and companies to discover why “green” is flourishing in the industry. The answer: the timber industry has long been green, has taken major steps to become more green and is well positioned to take advantage of the growth of “green” in our economy.

“For the forest products industry, we’ve been leaders in the green economy since before it was even called the green economy,” said Rep. Brian Blake, D-Aberdeen, who has worked as a contract forester as well as an environmental specialist.

The geography of the green jobs is also compelling, state officials said:

Dave Wallace, acting chief economist for the state Employment Security Department, said the new report was prepared at the direction of the Legislature and included several findings seen as surprises. One of those was the high percentage of green jobs in the forest industry and the fact that rural communities often had higher percentages of green jobs than in larger metropolitan areas such as Seattle and Tacoma.

“It’s hard to project green job growth because it’s so new,” Wallace said.

Another key finding is that the green jobs have been growing steadily without much of a coordinated effort by the state to promote them.

“One of the interesting things we’re finding…is that it’s somewhat happening organically, regardless of what we do,” Wallace said.

Timber industry leaders say that the future is only getting greener, with sustainable forestry practices in everything from logging to sawmills, and the development of micro-products from trees. Forestry students are also excited to start sustainable work, and companies are focused on green jobs.

“This (state) report seems to be saying, ‘Keep up the good work and how can we help you do what you’re doing to get more people back to work,” said (David Quigg of Grays Harbor Paper), noting that many green jobs in his company don’t take much specialized training. “We’re always looking for people who are simply willing to learn and work hard.”

As an unabashed cheerleader for all things green, Quigg says being part of the green economy is no longer seen as a hippie pipe dream from the 1970s.

“Being sustainable is not a political movement,” he said. “The average American recognizes it’s not a hippie movement, it’s a reality.”

No comments »

Posted in Pacific Northwest, State Issues, Timber Industry, Washington

Shattering misperceptions of biomass

July 14th, 2010

Biomass plants are being built across the country, as more and more people discover the environmental benefits of burning woody biomass for energy. But it’s also clear that the biomass industry must respond strongly to threats that have appeared on the national stage in recent weeks.

First there is the state-sponsored Massachusetts study, which we wrote about here, here and here, that was misreported by the media but also had misleading statements of its own that could potentially hurt the industry.

Second, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently pulled its exemption for biomass plants when it comes to obtaining greenhouse-gas emissions permits. As this story notes, the EPA had previously considered biomass plants carbon-neutral, so permits weren’t necessary, but now the agency says it’s not so sure.

Both developments have led to some negative coverage of biomass in the national media, which makes it all the more important that the biomass industry — and all of us who support it — push back.

One glaring misperception that has somehow spread after the Massachusetts study is that forests are being cut down, or will be cut down, to feed biomass plants. It was good to see this week Bob Cleaves, the head of the Biomass Power Association, debunk a misguided editorial in the Washington Post. Cleaves’ letter pointed out that “it is irresponsible to imply that the biomass industry does or will ever engage in ‘chopping down and burning forest[s]‘”

We use scrap lumber, forest debris, agricultural harvest waste and other industry byproducts. We collect waste that would otherwise rot in landfills or on forest floors, contributing to forest fires.

Clearing forests to create energy is not an economically sustainable practice, as clearing costs would far outweigh potential energy gains.

The Register-Guard in Eugene, Ore., this week quoted the operators of a new Seneca Sustainable Energy biomass plant being built in its city, who admitted that the biomass industry needs to do more to spread the words about its timber practices.

With a little more effort, the company could have demonstrated that it doesn’t make financial sense to burn whole trees, said [Joshua Skov, principal with Good Company in Eugene, which performed an analysis on the Seneca plant.]

The wood products industry, as a whole, has not done a good job of explaining its business plan to the public, Seneca attorney Dale Riddle said, including the fact that it doesn’t want to cut down and burn whole trees to produce electricity.

“There can’t be anybody on the West Coast burning trees,” said Rick Re, sawmill general manager.

“It’s absurd,” he added.

On the EPA rule change, the National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO) responded strongly by releasing a letter written by 163 different organizations urging the EPA to change its mind and acknowledge that biomass is carbon neutral.

The NAFO this week also released its own statement asking the EPA to go back to its previous policy.

Each moment of delay jeopardizes existing and future investments in low carbon biomass energy that are essential to meeting our national renewable energy goals and reducing our dependence on high carbon emitting fossil fuels.

The potential impact of the EPA’s rule change is not just a national issue but would be felt in local communities around the country. The News-Review in Douglas County, Oregon, wrote an editorial this week saying that the EPA’s decision could imperil local biomass projects and “is the wrong decision, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. We support legislative efforts to have that decision reversed.”

No comments »

Posted in Biomass, Federal Issues, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pacific Northwest, Timber Industry

Wrangling over the future of Oregon timber

July 9th, 2010

As we wrote last week, the 20th anniversary of the spotted owl’s listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act has brought up some interesting results. The Northwest timber industy has been decimated, and yet the spotted owl is actually in worse shape than it was 20 years ago.

In a guest column this week in the Oregonian, Thomas Partin, president of the American Forest Resource Council in Portland, said that the spotted owl listing “exposed the personal, largely hidden agendas of those who have advocated for the owl over the years.”

Scientists whose research funding and professional reputations most benefited from national attention being focused on the species were allowed to place their interests ahead of the livelihoods of thousands of Oregonians and, ultimately, the health of the very forests in which the owl lives. The fate of Oregon’s national forests, federal Bureau of Land Management lands, rural communities and the forest industry on which all three depend for a sustainable future have been nothing but sacrificial pawns in an elite game played for academic credentials and professional pride.

According to Partin, it’s time for a new management plan for Northwest federal forests that acknowledges the spotted owl’s real threats are wildfires and larger barred owls, not logging.

Partin’s column has spurred some passionate discussion in the comments section about past timber practices in the Northwest and what should be done in the future.

Meanwhile, Partin is also one of the stakeholders who has played a role in U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden’s proposed timber plan for Eastern Oregon, as this story this week in the Blue Mountain Eagle points out.

According to the story, the timber plan has garnered some opposition — or at least concerns — from local county officials. One of the prime concerns is that the plan won’t prevent future litigation from environmental groups and stop timber policy from being dictated in the courts.

But, as the article points out, the timber plan should be lauded for its success in bringing all the major players together.

The bill continues to draw strong support from some key players in the timber industry – including John Shelk, a principal in the only sawmill currently running in Grant County.

Unveiling the proposal last fall, Wyden was flanked by Shelk, managing partner of Ochoco Lumber Company; Tom Partin of the American Forest Resources Council, as well as environmental activists including Tim Lillebo of Oregon Wild and Andy Kerr of The Larch Company.

Shelk reiterated his support June 24 in John Day, at an event celebrating the genesis of a new biomass plant at Ochoco’s Malheur Lumber Company millsite.

“It’s really an imaginative attempt to bridge the huge gap between the environmental community and industry,” he said.

Shelk said it’s encouraging to see people from such diverse backgrounds determined to come together, for the sake of the forests and the communities.

“We’re hoping that this bill, or something close to it, is going to pass,” he said.

In this day and age, true partnerships on major timber issues are hard to come by and should be recognized whenever possible.

No comments »

Posted in Federal Issues, Oregon, Pacific Northwest

California makes exciting progress

July 7th, 2010

We first wrote in May about a historic plan in California, developed with timber companies, environmental groups and government officials, that would give a boost to the state’s timber industry by allowing some thinning to protect from forest fires.

The Sierra Nevada Forest and Community Initiative is even bigger than that. It would put parties normally at odds on the same page for the first time, creating a shared future for California’s forests that would allow for both working forests and environmental protection. The initiative would produce not just thinning to protect from wildfires but also biomass plants and entry into new markets, such as wood pellets for home heating.

Just this week, Calaveras County in Northern California became the first local government in the Sierra Nevada region to approve the plan. The county’s position as the first goverment to receive the plan was no coincidence, given that much of the state plan was modeled after economic initiatives created by County Commissioner Steve Wilensky.

What’s interesting is that even in Calaveras County, there were mixed feelings about the plan’s ultimate impact:

The unanimous vote came despite lingering doubts expressed by several supervisors over whether the Sierra Nevada Forest and Community Initiative can really engineer a lasting peace between environmentalists and logging companies. That’s something all sides say is needed to break a legal deadlock that has left public forests largely neglected.

“It’s easy to say this and then it all gets hijacked,” Supervisor Tom Tryon said of the resolution calling for local government, state authorities, federal officials, environmentalists and private industry to work together to make forests healthier and safer while boosting the economy.

No surprise that local leaders would have some qualms about such a far-reaching plan, but kudos to California stakeholders for putting their heads together and moving things forward in a collaborative way.

No comments »

Posted in California, Timber Industry

Protecting the future of forests

July 1st, 2010

Comments on the latest draft of the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED rating system are being taken until 5 p.m. Pacific time July 4th, so if you have time between now and then, please leave a comment here.

As we’ve discussed before, the updates to the LEED rating system will have a profound impact on the timber industry’s future. If the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) allows the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) to continue its monopoly on LEED-certified building, then the timber industry may cease to exist as we know it. On the other hand, the USGBC still has the ability to allow other forest certification systems, such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) – the largest forest certification standard in the world.

ProSales Magazine this week took a look at how FSC and SFI are reacting to the latest draft changes to the LEED rating system. The gist of the story is, neither side is happy. FSC thinks the changes go too far and allow other forest certifications besides itself, while SFI thinks the changes are small enough that they would still effectively bar any other certifications.

USGBC has felt pressure for years to open up its points system to more than just FSC, and its response has been to propose a set of benchmarks that a wood certification scheme would have to abide by in order to be regarded as eligible. That proposal now is in its fourth draft, and the opposing sides haven’t been satisfied yet.

In the meantime, SFI continues to make its arguments for why the LEED rating system should be opened up to other certifications. Check out this video, for example.

No comments »

Posted in Green Building Standards, Timber Industry