Thanks, Brad, for sharing these thoughts. I have a few reactions/comments, which I’ll try to round out with some (hopefully) helpful suggestions for getting us to the finish line for the pre-work before the Summit.
First, regarding the recommended reading resources: you are correct that none of the top 3 resources are examples of collective action. I do believe they are helpful in grounding us in a similar starting place from which we can then, collectively, work together on how to decarbonize the built environment while ensuring the forests from which the products come from are also doing their part to provide climate mitigation solutions and many, many other benefits. That said, if we had to remove one, I would suggest dropping the guided lessons from Michigan State University. It is a great resource for learning, but I agree that it might not be necessary for teeing up the solutions being presented by the CAWG. I wholeheartedly endorse sharing the Forest-Climate Working Group’s policy platform as an excellent example of collective action, from diverse organizations and groups.
Now, onto the stickier part of your post.
While I am not pretending to know the specific desires of specific actors in the design/development community, my understanding of the central question around using wood in the built environment is whether it is better for the climate than alternatives, like concrete and steel, AND can it come from forests that are also mitigating climate change, being managed well, and are generally providing more good than bad (and even better, much more good!). Embodied and embedded carbon are key to answering the first question. Sourcing wood from regions where forests are “carbon negative” helps add a second layer of information to the first question. At the same time, we need to be able to understand - and feel good about - what is happening in the forest beyond the carbon facts. And you touched on the key needs: are they being managed to adapt to a changing climate, do they need additional stewardship, are they protecting/providing critical habitat? I’m all in here!
Then, I start to diverge from your post. Yes, we should all have choices about where and how we can buy anything, especially things that we want to have a positive impact in the world. But just because I might like something better, have a personal preference, maybe have a personal connection to the maker of the product, it doesn’t mean it’s automatically “better” than another product. I re-read your post many times and it sounds like you are saying that private forest land managers/owners, like Weyerhaeuser, aren’t significantly improving the way we are managing our forests to be resilient to a changing climate, aren’t sequestering more carbon both in our forests and in the products we make, aren’t protecting habitat, biodiversity, providing clean water and more.
If that’s what you intended to say, I disagree completely. I invite you – and others – to learn more about what we do and visit our website: www.wy.com/sustainability. I personally stand behind everything written, everything shared. And, I know that the many forestry experts invited into this forum have similar pride in the strength, validity and excellence of their forest management. And, most importantly, we have great respect for the many different ways forests are cared for, stewarded and managed.
So perhaps this is where we really diverge. Similar to what I posted in February on the forum, are we trying to build a big tent, where we can work together, agree where we disagree, learn together, and chart a new path together? Or, are we trying to pit on thing against the other?
Doesn’t that approach make collective action really hard, if not impossible? I might like the color blue, someone else might like the color yellow. Blue isn’t necessarily better than yellow nor is yellow better than blue. Can we only agree if we find the spaces that are green? I would hope we could see the benefit of blue and yellow and green and find opportunities to improve in all of those colors. How about we turn them to sapphire, into gold, into emerald?! If the intent of the Summit is to turn blue to yellow or yellow to blue, I believe we are going to miss the opportunity to find any moments of green or the dazzling brilliance of emerald, sapphire or gold.
The point I’m trying to say: I, too, believe the climate crisis is real. And we need all of the tools on the table to fight it and solve for it. We also need really well-managed forests. Certification systems, like FSC (which you represent), and SFI (which Jason Metnick represents and which all of Weyerhaeuser’s lands are certified to), and others, like CAS and ATFS, have done a great job to drive sustainable forest management on private forest lands. FSC and SFI have also done a great job at helping mills with sustainable sourcing using risk-based approaches and the SFI Fiber Sourcing standard has improved land management on uncertified forests. While there is always room for improvement in all certifications, they are all highly credible and should provide confidence to designers and developers with respect to sustainable sourcing. Still, some may choose to buy from one or the other. That’s wonderful! I want that choice, too.
These are the points I keep coming back to:
• Nearly three quarters of the net annual forest carbon sequestration in the lower 48 states (nearly 1,200 million metric tons) comes from private working forests adding to the 82,000 million metric tons already stored in these forests, and that each forested region is carbon negative.
• Each year 100 million metric tons of additional carbon is stored in the wood products pool, adding to the nearly 10,000 million metric tons of carbon already stored in these products.
• We harvest only 2% of the private working forest land base in our nation each year, and that each year we replant 2% of our working forest land base.
Rather than an existential threat, I see this carbon success story unmatched by any other sector. That should give us all confidence, rather than pessimism, about the future potential of forests and wood construction as a powerful carbon mitigation combination.
And, I recognize the tremendous need for continued improvement in forest management, the need for dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and all hands working together.