I’m confused about the goal of using of progressively fewer wood products. The UN sustainable development goals call for lifting people out of poverty by providing housing, education, employment, health care, etc. – accordingly, parts of the world require lots of new construction. Developed countries are also not going to shut down their construction industries. Right now, for mid- and high-rise buildings, if we don’t build with wood, we will use a lot more steel and concrete. (Transitions for those materials are also envisioned but not on a faster timeline than transitions in forest management practices.)
My understanding of the premise of the summit was that we wanted to use the advent of mass timber and interest in its potential to substitute for steel and concrete to drive change in forestry practices as wood is going to be used more frequently and so is a concern. I think AEC professionals will lose the ability to drive procurement of wood in any direction if we are using a lot less of it - why would any vendor listen to a customer who is walking away? (Maybe not the worst outcome, but not the premise of the summit.)
If the science does not support the idea that we can continue to use present (or increasing) levels of wood and meet our climate and biodiversity goals, what does it say about continuing to use current or expanding quantities of steel and concrete? In the spirit of the SDGs and “donut economics,” I would offer that humans need to use enough resources to not fall into the “donut hole” of underdevelopment (which is also true in its own way in so-called developed countries). I’m a bit concerned that the vision here overlooks achieving an adequate level of human development by focusing largely on the environmental sphere without a corresponding focus on the social and economic spheres of sustainability.