Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Green Blog Topic Review - Master Index
A few weeks ago I was asked to give someone information on formaldehyde so they could talk to a customer. I suggested that they send the customer an old blog post. But it was a bit challenging for them to find that post, so I thought it would be good to provide a master index of the topics covered so far. It has the added fun advantage to me of driving my editor, Kim, crazy since she’ll have to link each of these individually to the old posts!
I’ve grouped them by general topics. Of course many will overlap topics, but this should make it a bit easier to find things.
After this, I’m going to wrap it up for the year. We’ll take a bit of a break while I try to find some more green issues to discuss next year. I wish everyone happy holidays and all the best for 2012. It’s been a tough few years for all of us, and I hope we can become more united next year and work toward the health of the industry as a whole. Thank you all for reading, and all my best.
The Formaldehyde Series:
09/14/10 Alphabet Soup Series, Part 1 of Many: VOC
09/21/10 Formaldehyde, Part 1: The “CARBonization” of America
09/28/10 Formaldehyde, Part 2: Emissions vs. Content
10/05/10 Formaldehyde, Part 3: CARB’s Approach to Formaldehyde in Composite Wood Products
10/12/10 Formaldehyde, Part 4a: The Flooring Industry’s Responsibilities Under CARB (Part 1: Documentation)
10/19/10 Formaldehyde, Part 4b: The Flooring Industry’s Responsibilities Under CARB (Part 2: Emissions)
10/26/10 Formaldehyde, Part 5: LEED and the Air Quality Standard
11/02/10 Formaldehyde, Part 6: Fun Formaldehyde Facts
LEED
08/31/10 LEED and Certified Wood: Let's Acknowledge 'Wood is Good'
11/30/10 Alphabet Soup Series, Part 2: LEED
05/17/11 Let’s Look at LEED, Part 1: Basic Vocab
05/24/11 Let’s Look at LEED, Part 2: Specific Credits for Flooring
Legality Issues, Lacey
03/01/11 Gohowood in Japan
03/08/11 Resources for the Lacey Act and Legality
04/12/11 The Lacey Act: What it Says
04/19/11 Lacey’s Documentary Burden for Importers
04/26/11 Lacey’s Legality Burden
05/03/11 Lacey and Marketing U.S. Woods
11/15/11 Lacey in the U.S., Part 1
11/22/11 Lacey in the U.S., Part 2
11/29/11 The Lacey Act and Gibson Guitar
12/06/11 Lacey's Broad Scope
12/13/11 The Proposed Lacey RELIEF Act
Greenwashing & Green Marketing
01/25/11 Alphabet Soup Series, Part 4: Greenwashing
02/01/11 Greenwashing with Logos
02/08/11 Sins of Greenwashing, Part 1
02/15/11 Sins of Greenwashing, Part 2
02/22/11 Misuse of the FSC Logo
05/10/11 Green as the Default at the NWFA Convention
05/31/11 Language Choices
10/11/11 Alphabet Soup Series, Part 5: CSR
Alphabet Soup Series
09/14/10 Alphabet Soup Series, Part 1 of Many: VOC
11/30/10 Alphabet Soup Series, Part 2: LEED
12/28/10 Alphabet Soup Series, part 3: MSDS
01/25/11 Alphabet Soup Series, Part 4: Greenwashing
10/11/11 Alphabet Soup Series, Part 5: CSR
Tropical Timber Issues
08/17/10 Banning Tropical Timber = Burning Tropical Timber
08/24/10 Ask Your Suppliers for LKS
01/11/11 Carbon Credit Confusion
01/18/11 Options for Funding Certification
11/09/10 Visit to FRIM, Part 1
11/16/10 Visit to FRIM, Part 2 (pictures)
Plantations and Species Information
12/07/10 A Green Grass?
06/21/11 Dead Trees Standing
07/05/11 Plantations Pros and Cons, Part 1: the Cons
07/12/11 Plantations Pros and Cons, Part 2: the Pros
07/19/11 What's Hot in Plantations
07/26/11 Confucius or Confusion? What Acacia is This?
08/02/11 The Lowdown on Cork
06/07/11 What Mother Nature puts in Wood May Not Always Be Good for You, Either
06/14/11 Gifts from Old Ma Nature
Interviews with Organizations on the Ground
03/15/11 Snakes and the GFTN (GFTN Interview, Part 1)
03/22/11 The GFTN Goes Flat (Temporarily) (GFTN Interview, Part 2)
03/29/11 I Have a Suggestion About the Chicken (GFTN Interview, Part 3)
10/18/11 Sustainable Harvest International (SHI), Part 1 (Almost 3 million trees planted!)
10/25/11 Sustainable Harvest International (SHI), Part 2
11/01/11 Tropical Forest Foundation (TFF), Part 1
11/08/11 Tropical Forest Foundation, Part 2
Industry Associations
09/07/10 Should We Have Green Standards? (Grades vs. Standards)
12/14/10 Association Resources, Part 1: In the Industry
12/21/10 Association Resources, Part 2: Green Building
09/06/11 IWPA & AHEC: An Expanded Focus
10/04/11 Hardwood Federation Fly-In
Malaysian Production
11/09/10 Visit to FRIM, Part 1
11/16/10 Visit to FRIM, Part 2 (pictures)
11/23/10 Malaysian Timber Programs
04/05/11 Malaysian Mission to the U.S.
Chinese Production
09/13/11 China and Being Green
09/20/11 A Strong International Market Helps Green China
09/27/11 Evaluating Production Sources
Miscellaneous
08/10/10 Introduction: The World of 'Green'
01/04/11 Green Install Tips and Tricks
08/09/11 Spacecraft Earth
08/16/11 A Year of Blogging
08/23/11 My Green Summer Reading List
08/30/11 Enjoying the Woods
|
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
The Proposed Lacey RELIEF Act
We’ve been discussing Lacey these last few weeks, and I’ll start this post by encouraging you to check some of the previous postings for comments posted by readers.
And we’re not the only ones talking about it—the federal government’s raid on Gibson Guitar last summer kick-started a national discussion on the Lacey Act. Congress, the media, musicians and many people outside the wood industry are all giving Lacey a closer look (or for some, a first look).
Now, in response to the Gibson raid, Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) introduced the Retailers and Entertainers Lacey Implementation and Enforcement (RELIEF) Act, in an attempt to eliminate some of the unintended consequences of the 2008 Lacey Act Amendments. The bill currently has 17 co-sponsors (both Democrat and Republican). I would recommend you take some time and read the bill in its entirety–it isn’t that long–so you can see some of the problems Rep. Cooper has identified. There is also an overview of the bill if you would like a shorter summary.
In essence, the bill would reduce penalties for certain first-time offenses, grandfather in plant and plant products produced before the 2008 implementation of Lacey, call for a database of applicable foreign laws to be compiled with which U.S. businesses would be required to comply, and establishes an as-yet undefined certification process. The bill also aims to ensure “no government enforcement of penalties against those who unknowingly violated the Lacey Act.”
This last provision – the concept of an innocent owner—is the one that many in the industry see as the most important. Brent McClendon, executive vice president of the International Wood Products Association spoke passionately on the need for a strengthening of the innocent owner provision. “The fact that an individual or company can perform all the due care in the world, and if found to be in violation of Lacey can still have their goods confiscated without the opportunity to even have their day in court to petition for the return of these goods is not a responsible approach to combating the problem of illegal logging. This law was supposed to go after illegal logging crime syndicates, not innocent Americans.”
Innocent owner protection definitely needs to be considered. After all, having goods seized for an unwitting simple civil violation—without any legal recourse to retrieve the goods—is more than just an inconvenience. For many businesses, the result could be ruinous. The RELIEF Act attempts to strengthen the innocent owner clause of the Lacey Act to restore fairness and improve the effectiveness of the Lacey Act.
A business would still have to prove to a court that it exercised due care (again, innocent owner defenses cannot be used for actual criminal violations). And even with stronger innocent owner protections, a company would still face tremendous costs associated with the legal proceedings (and the not-so-insignificant fact of not having access to the inventory). But, if a business prevails in court, the goods would eventually be returned.
The RELIEF Act will certainly not fix all of the unintended problems of Lacey. It still has a long way to go in defining what this “certification process” would be, and needs to more fully cover the innocent owner concept. There are still many questions—including some I raised over the last few weeks—that would remain unanswered. But as a starting point, it’s a pretty good place to begin the debate.
For more on Lacey in the news, here are a few more links:
Battle Lines Drawn for Amending Lacey Act
Stringing Up Gibson Guitar
Guest Editorial: Gibson CEO Henry Juszkiewicz
NAMM Fights To Amend Lacey Act
|
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
Lacey’s Broad Scope
The Lacey Act is not just about guitars, although Gibson’s case has certainly gotten guitar owners concerned. The 2008 Lacey amendment applies to any plant or plant product. We’re not just talking flooring and furniture here.
Lacey covers the burl on a fancy car’s dashboard and the rubber tires on bikes—or for that matter, any machinery with a rubber gasket. There’s instant lemonade (pineapple pulp), maple syrup and chewing gum. We’re looking at clothing containing rayon as well as pet shampoo (pine tar). Books and paper products might be obvious, as well as wine corks, but did you know lipstick contains wood rosin, so that’s also covered by Lacey?
Many Americans might think, “Well that’s good it covers so many items. If they are using illegally logged components then they deserve to be cracked down on!” Yet that very scope means Lacey isn’t even being fully enforced.
Justice and APHIS (the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) and the other governmental organizations are stretched thin—despite their best efforts, APHIS can’t even process the declarations they receive for the handful of products for which they are currently requiring submissions. Although Lacey requires APHIS to collect declarations for thousands of products, they aren’t doing so at this time. (Ironically, doesn’t that mean imported chewing gum or lipstick could be illegal since Congress requires a Lacey declaration upon entry and the form it isn’t being collected?)
Lacey also has excessive, and unfortunately, really meaningless data requirements for species and genus names. Wood is traded under a commercial or trade name, but is rarely purely a single species of tree. However Lacey says that if you do not know exactly what species are in your product, you are require to list out any possible species that could be in there.
Wood professionals know that a commercially marketed species such as “red oak” can contain dozens of different species. The NHLA (National Hardwood Lumber Association) has traditionally marketed certain species purely under an “spp” definition—Carya spp., for example, is the traditional definition of both the pecans and hickories. But Lacey doesn’t allow Carya spp. as a valid entry, which can make many declarations really rather absurd.
For example, say your leather furniture is made with a mixed U.S. hardwood lumber core. Your mill may use poplar, hickory, red oak, white oak or any number of other species, depending on what’s available at the right price at the right moment. They may buy from brokers specializing in Southern material, or get a shipment from the Appalachian region one week and a Northern state the next. You never know what they will use from week-to week. Consequently, for every single entry you need to list every possible scientific name for every possible species they could use. That could be 100 different species since what is marketed as “red oak” could be a blend of 30-50 different Quercus species.
APHIS has tried to be practical in a few areas. Although it’s not exactly what the letter of the law requires, APHIS has wisely created a special category for HDF and a few other products that are truly impossible to clearly declare—trying to figure out which grain of sawdust came from which species simply isn’t feasible. They even have a category for “driftwood” now. But they don’t accept “spp” for mixed species of the same genus. The idea is that you want to be able to track if the product is Quercus rubra or Quercus alba. But if you’re importing plywood made of meranti, to be truly accurate, you might have to list over 250 different species, which makes it truly meaningless data.
Next week we’ll look at efforts by a coalition seeking to amend Lacey so that it helps prevent illegal logging while not preventing commerce, trade, and the growth of an already struggling economy. The Lacey Act is a vital law that has protected wildlife and the environment for over 100 years. And the 2008 amendments were added with the best of intentions. But there were a lot of unintended consequences and questions raised by those amendments that mean there are ways we can make a good law even better.
|
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
The Lacey Act & Gibson Guitar
Looking at the Lacey Act in the United States certainly requires a look at the first Lacey enforcement action, that being against Gibson guitars. In August 2011, for the second time in two years, Gibson’s facilities in Nashville were raided for an alleged Lacey Act violation, and for a second time everyone is waiting to hear what—if any—charges will be filed.
I have no inside knowledge of the case, on either side. I’ve been reading the news the same as everyone else. And, like everyone else, I’m very interested in the public reaction to the case and also how it may impact Lacey’s future.
When the Gibson case hit the papers, it was the first time many Americans outside the wood industry had even heard of the Lacey Act. The coverage was almost overwhelmingly negative – how could a law punish an American company for importing wooden fingerboards to be finished in the United States by American workers, rather than in India, where the material was sourced from? How can a customs issue be covered by a law that is aimed at preventing illegal logging? In an era where government overreach is a politically charged issue, and in the run-up to an election year, the American people can be forgiven for their outrage.
They can also be forgiven if they are confused and concerned about what Lacey now means to them. When the Lacey Act was originally passed in 1900, it only covered birds. The scope gradually expanded with each amendment until 2008, when it was drastically expanded to cover the importation of all plant and plant products. This conservation law is intended to eradicate illegal logging by making American companies liable for the products they sell. And not just companies, but consumers as well.
Since there is currently no exception for goods produced prior to the law’s passage in 2008, it is possible under the law that a person traveling with a vintage guitar could have their instrument seized. It’s unlikely that person would face jail time, but they would have lost a priceless instrument. And under the Justice Department’s interpretation of the Lacey Act, no person or company can petition the courts for the return of their goods.
There is also a problem with the Lacey Act’s definition of illegal. It is not limited or specific to harvesting questions. Illegality in the case of Lacey means in violation of virtually any law. And while I agree that we don’t want to break the law in any way, it’s putting an extraordinary burden on all wood professionals (or consumers) to know the law both within their field and without. Just as discussed last week, Lacey can be enforced for accidental violation just as aggressively as for deliberate actions.
That’s because there is no due diligence protection in Lacey. Nor is there any innocent owner protection or option to appeal confiscation of a load of wood or a single guitar. And the U.S. government has made it very clear that they are the only ones who can determine if the law, foreign or domestic, has been broken. In past (non-wood) cases of Lacey, foreign governments have disagreed with the U.S. government’s interpretation or enforcement of the foreign laws.
In the case of Gibson, that means if the wood exported from India was 10 mm rather than 6 mm, it is illegal based on Indian export laws. Apparently, from what I’ve read, there isn’t a dispute about the actual legality of the wood itself—it seems that everyone agrees it was harvested legally—but rather in the extent of it’s processing. In other industries such as fish imports, Lacey has previously been enforced for failure to meet certain packaging and labeling requirements.
This law, as currently written, seems able to find everyone guilty, even those without intent, and no matter what actions they take to comply. It forces American companies to draw legal conclusions about foreign laws—conclusions that aren’t automatically going to be accepted by the U.S. government. It covers every person who has ever bought any product that contains wood. And as discussed in previous posts, it’s unclear about applications when a company tries to make things right about a violation.
If you would like some more information on the Lacey Act and the Gibson case, here are a few recent articles:
www.palletenterprise.com/articledatabase/view.asp?articleID=3533
www.woodworkingnetwork.com/wood-blogs/Gibson-Guitar-Raid-and-the-Lacey-Act-Run-Amok-129977978.html
www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2011/08/31/140090116/why-gibson-guitar-was-raided-by-the-justice-department
markaltekruse.tumblr.com/post/9674807430/an-editorial-from-brian-majeski-at-music-trades
|
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Lacey in the U.S., Part 2
I wanted to continue my look at Lacey in the U.S. The rules a U.S. harvester must follow vary from state to state and are based on the type of timber and location—rules and procedures for both purchase and harvest are often different if it’s state or federal land vs. privately held.
Interestingly though, the U.S. rules do not always require a plan for sustainability of the forest.
The Congressional study cited last week pointed out that the laws in the U.S. may differ from those in other countries. "For example, logging without a government-approved management plan may be legal in parts of the United States, but illegal in Brazil." In fact, most international harvesting, even on private lands, requires forest management plans while in the U.S., most private harvesting can be done without a specific management policy. Many U.S. states require certain procedures to be followed to protect the surrounding environment, most commonly related to watersheds, but a requirement of a full management plan is rare.
This means that, ironically, while most U.S. wood is likely to be legally harvested, the legality does not automatically imply sustainability. On the other hand, in the case of most internationally harvested wood, legality does imply sustainability. This is not to say that U.S. wood, particularly U.S. hardwoods, are not highly sustainable—they are and they are being very well-managed on the whole—but it does mean that Lacey means that international material traded in the U.S. is almost guaranteed to be not just legal, but also sustainable.
As you start to look at U.S. forestry law, you’ll find the legal directory HG Org to be a good reference. They have provided a “Guide to Forestry Law” with links to both U.S. and international sources of information.
And below is a collection of links information provided by a variety of U.S. states regarding their specific BMPs (Best Management Practices) or specific regulations for timber harvesting. This is far from complete, but should start help start someone’s research.
Arkansas - www.forestry.state.ar.us/manage/manage.html
Connecticut - www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2697&q=322792&depNav_GID=1631&depNav
Delaware - http://dda.delaware.gov/forestry/forms/2007/2007_BMP.pdf
Georgia - www.gatrees.org/ForestManagement/documents/BMPManualGA0609.pdf
Illinois - http://dnr.state.il.us/conservation/forestry/IFDA/index.htm
Indiana - www.in.gov/dnr/forestry/files/fo-timber-harvest.pdf
Louisiana - www.ldaf.state.la.us/portal/Offices/Forestry/ForestryEnforcement/StateForestryRulesRegulations/tabid/409/Default.aspx
Maine - www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/rules_regs/index.htm
Maryland - www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/programapps/newFCA.asp
Massachusetts - www.mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/forestry/service/lawsnforms.htm
Michigan - www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-30301_30505_41820---,00.html
Minnesota - www.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/harvesting/index.html
Mississippi - www.mfc.ms.gov/pdf/Mgt/WQ/Entire_bmp_2008-7-24.pdf
Missouri - http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/22317.pdf
New Hampshire - www.nhdfl.org/fire-control-and-law-enforcement/timber-harvest.aspx
New Jersey - www.state.nj.us/dep/parksandforests/forest/nj_bmp_manual1995.pdf
New York - www.dec.ny.gov/lands/37845.html
North Carolina - www.dfr.state.nc.us/publications.htm
Ohio - www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/18/landowner/pdf/bmplogging.pdf
Pennsylvania - www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/stewardship_bulletins%5C12_Best_Management_Practices.pdf
Rhode Island - www.dem.ri.gov/pubs/regs/index.htm#forest
South Carolina - www.state.sc.us/forest/le.htm
Tennessee - www.state.tn.us/agriculture/publications/forestry/BMP_Booklet.pdf
Vermont - www.vtfpr.org/regulate/documents/Timber_Harvest09_web.pdf
Virginia - www.dof.virginia.gov/resources/pub-2005-Va-Forestry-Laws.pdf
West Virginia - www.wvforestry.com/lsca.cfm?menucall=lsca
Wisconsin - http://dnr.wi.gov/forestry/Usesof/bmp/index_water.htm
|
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Lacey in the U.S.
Recently I was working with a U.S. company on what I call “green tape”—the various certifications and environmental issues I need to cover with suppliers such as CARB and other formaldehyde or chemical issues, FSC and other certification issues, Lacey and other legality issues, etc. I asked about their Lacey procedures and the response came back: “The wood chips are from forests locally in the U.S. I do not believe that the Lacey Act applies here.”
This is a common misconception among both producers and buyers that Lacey somehow doesn’t apply to U.S. wood production. It absolutely does. And there actually is illegal logging taking place in the U.S.—often by accident, but sometimes deliberately. U.S. companies need to ensure that all their supply, not just imports, is legally harvested.
A Congressional study found that:
"Illegal logging exists in the United States but is primarily done by individuals or small operations. Some report that up to 10% of forest production in the U.S. is illegal. The U.S. Forest Service estimates that approximately one out of every 10 trees harvested in national forests is taken illegally. Private lumber companies estimate that nearly 3% of their cut trees are stolen, amounting to losses of approximately $350 million annually. Statistics for illegal logging on private lands are unavailable, yet are anecdotally quoted as a serious problem."
Just as with an import, if the U.S. government can prove that material in a domestic mill’s supply chain is illegally sourced (or there has been a violation of another related law associated with it), then the mill can be prosecuted under Lacey.
Wikipedia references a U.S. Forest Service report stating that “the biggest issue facing deforestation in the United States is illegal logging in forests.” It notes that “illegal logging is the biggest problem with deforestation because it is nearly impossible to monitor and stop…(it) often happens when companies disregard their permits and go beyond what they are allowed to harvest.”
That raises an interesting question—what happens when companies (deliberately or accidentally) cut more than they were supposed to. A very useful and interesting study by the state of Indiana found that most illegal logging there could be resolved without law enforcement:
“99.96% of the timber removed in Indiana was legally acquired, harvested, and processed. A large percentage of the cases that fall within the wrongfully cut category are often accidental problems that are settled between parties not requiring law enforcement action or the Division of Forestry’s (DoF) intervention.”
However, Lacey is unclear regarding the state of the wood in this case. Lacey is very specific that if the wood is illegal, it’s illegal. Can it become un-illegal?
Let’s say the logger accidentally crossed a property line and illegally harvested trees on another property. The mistake is discovered and the two owners and the logger come to an agreement that settles the matter to their mutual satisfaction. Is the wood still illegal? It was harvested illegally originally—can it be “reverted” to legal somehow?
What if the property line was in dispute—did he fail in due diligence because he didn’t independently determine exactly where the line really was? Maybe he didn’t even know there was a dispute—again, was that a failure in due diligence? He surely entered the contract with the landowner for harvest in good faith and followed the guides given—is he guilty if he crossed a border that wasn’t where he was told it was?
And how much should intent play a role in evaluating a Lacey violation? If the logger had absolutely no intent of stealing the tree, should he be punished under Lacey? Right now, ignorance of the law (or the property line) and innocence in terms of intent mean nothing under Lacey. Right now, it seems that the logger is guilty and the wood is illegal and there’s no clear way to change that.
Now consider also a violation that is resolved through law enforcement action—for example cutting too close to the watershed. In most cases, the logger is fined but he keeps the wood. The wood was illegally harvested initially—does the fact that law enforcement has penalized the logger mean that they’ve now sanitized the wood and it’s legal again?
The Department of Justice, when asked about Lacey prosecutions, say that they’ll study each case independently; that they’ll evaluate the due diligence practices of the offender and their level of professional knowledge as well as the type of violation in determining how they would prosecute and what penalties they would seek. But at the moment, all violations, in and out of the U.S., are absolute.
|
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Tropical Forest Foundation, Part 2
 To continue my review of groups doing great work on the ground in tropical countries, I interviewed Bob Johnston, executive director at the Tropical Forest Foundation (TFF).
What causes deforestation?
Deforestation isn’t caused by the timber industry, but rather the lack of demand for timber products. Forestlands get converted to other uses when owners, managers and even governments perceive other uses to have greater economic benefit.
Since 1989, the findings of the Smithsonian Tropical Forestry Workshop have been widely accepted by scientists, environmentalists and the timber industry. The three core principles are:
- Tropical forests will be conserved only if they have economic value
- Blanket bans and embargoes tend to depress the value of hardwoods and the forests
- Funds obtained from products of the tropical forests must be rechanneled into managing and regenerating those forests.
What are some the challenges faced in expanding tropical wood markets?
The tropical ecosystem and international trade are dynamic and complex, impacted by social and economic issues and a maze of international, national and regional regulations. Despite these complexities, there are two consistent challenges that suppliers face when delivering specified product to the U.S. market—cost of certification and natural variations in wood.
As most flooring suppliers know, the common practice in the design community is to pursue LEED points by specifying only woods certified to the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standard. They then further tighten the specification by pursuing narrow aesthetic values. That narrow spec—FSC-certified and color- or-size restricted—causes a reaction all the way down the product’s supply chain.
We would like to see more certification programs accepted. For example, in addition to the FSC label, there are alternatives such as TFF’s RIL Verified or the Rainforest Alliance’s SmartStep that are highly effective in auditing Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) and legality. But, the design community has had a major influence on suppliers’ ability (or inability) to sell tropical woods. Architects just won’t accept anything other than FSC right now, and that can be very expensive for a small operation. As a result, companies and communities in tropical regions that are pursuing sustainable forest management and higher value for their forests through routes other than FSC are being excluded from a large portion of the U.S. market.
In addition to cost and lack of demand, wood product manufacturers must meet aesthetic challenges, as well. There has been a trend toward narrow specifications that do not leave room for the natural variations of wood.
What can designers do to help?
There are three actions that designers can take to help.
- Keep specifying tropical wood: Demand ensures the economic viability of the forests and protects them from conversion. Demand encourages well-managed companies to keep investing in training and better forest management. It is worth paying a premium to keep the forest standing.
- Look beyond LEED credits: TFF, Rainforest Alliance and other programs help companies that want to improve their forest management and meet strict certification requirements. When specifying wood products consider tropical timber products that help support sustainability, not just what will get you the most LEED credits.
- Accept natural wood variations: By incorporating wood’s natural variability into your designs, you can eliminate byproducts that are at risk of going to waste. Consider using lesser-known species that deliver the same characteristics you have specified.
What is TFF’s role in expanding SFM?
We have our own certification program. However, we also offer training to many companies that are either going through alternative certification programs (including FSC), or who just want to do it better. Suppliers, wanting to maintain the forest, have increasingly pursued training and education around SFM practices, tapping into TFF’s on-the-ground training centers in Africa, South America and the Asia/Pacific regions.
In many cases, this training acts as a first step toward third-party certification. However, to make further progress, the market must provide the demand. A greater, consistent demand for tropical timber from major import markets is required for suppliers to continue to invest in training and certification.
|
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Tropical Forest Foundation (TFF), Part 1
 Last week I discussed Sustainable Harvest International (SHI), a private organization working on the ground with local communities to encourage greater sustainability and economic recovery from their nearby forests. This week, I'd like to look at an organization working on the ground with logging and wood companies and local communities to encourage sustainable forestry on an industrial scale.
The Tropical Forest Foundation (TFF) is a non-profit, educational institution dedicated to the conservation of tropical forests through sustainable forestry. They seek input from all sources: industry, government, science, academia, and conservation and are partnered with respected organizations such as the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), World Bank, World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society, and more.
The TFF was formed in 1990 as a result of a Smithsonian Institution workshop that brought together leaders of industry, science, and conservation to address the growing concern for the protection of tropical forests. The focus of the TFF is to promote tropical forest conservation and management through education and training. The key component of their program is "Reduced-Impact Logging" (RIL). Going beyond academic study and theory, TFF provides practical and realistic solutions and direct training. The RIL training goes far beyond logging to cover equipment use, maintenance, safety, inventory systems, mapping, watershed management, road building, and more.
Over 5,000 people from communities, timber companies, universities, government, and even journalism internationally have completed the RIL Field Training Program. TFF also assists in developing chain-of-custody programs to ensure the legality of log purchases.
The TFF is on the ground in South America, Africa and Asia, teaching both large and small companies and communities how to maximize value recovery and minimize collateral damage to their commercial forests. TFF's training and coaching often leads concession managers to seek certification for their forest management practices. In addition to improving logging practices, TFF is engaged in research to increase the commercial value of tropical forests that have already been logged once.
|
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Sustainable Harvest International (SHI), Part 2
A Honduran girl guides a horse loaded
with tree seedlings.
Last week I talked about Sustainable Harvest International (SHI), a group working on the ground in Central America to reverse deforestation and improve the conditions of families living within the forests. I asked Christina Becherer, director, for an update on some recent projects, particularly ones that would be of interest to the wood industry.
So what’s new with SHI?
I encourage people to look at some of our reviews of our programs. We’re trying to find ways to better evaluate our performance, and our first “graduate report” is available online. I think the wood industry will be particularly pleased with these two notes:
- During the interviews, all of the families interviewed conveyed the positive impact that SHI/FUCOHSO has had on the local environment and reduction of migratory farming (slash-and-burn). It was noted that not only were fewer participants burning (approximately 75% were not), but the community as a whole has for the most part abandoned this technique. The 25% who still burn noted that they do so much less than previously and in a more controlled manner. This data leads us to believe that participants shared knowledge with neighbors and as a result, reduced the level of community-wide slash and burn. Those still practicing slash-and- burn explained that it was being done in a controlled manner, meaning weeds and crop residues were collected and burned versus an entire area.
- In addition to preserved land, the majority of the families interviewed have continued reforestation efforts that were initiated with the support of SHI/FUCOHSO. On average families were planting 462 trees, though it should be noted that three graduates were planting on collective plots. Species being planted most commonly included mahogany, ear pod tree (Guanacaste), mangoes, pink trumpet tree, and others. Over 90% also maintained shade-grown coffee and agroforestry systems in areas measuring ¾ to 8 acres.
That sounds terrific. We in the industry are definitely pro-trees.
We’re pro-trees, too. Since July 2010, SHI-Nicaragua participants have planted more than 29,000 trees, mostly in areas previously deforested for pasture. As participants learn about agrosilvopastoral systems, they now understand the complexities of nature and importance of maintaining forest cover on the fragile tropical soils. The changes in attitude point to renewed efforts to rehabilitate the land and create healthy, living soils.
Then, last fall and winter, SHI-Belize participants reforested approximately 34 acres with over 9,000 trees. They expanded current cacao and agroforestry plots with a goal of future commercialization and protection of ecosystems.
So you are replanting destroyed forests and reducing slash and burn agriculture. What else?
In all our countries and various programs, we now also encourage the use of a wood-conserving stove design originally implemented by SHI-Panama that has both health and environmental benefits.
Traditional stoves, notorious for consuming large amounts of wood, are a main cause of respiratory infections, tuberculosis, eye disease and more. During my visits, I’ve seen the walls and roofs of rural homes in Central America caked with black soot. Unbelievably, the smoke being inhaled by women and children would be the equivalent of smoking 2 to 5 packs of cigarettes per day. According to the World Health Organization, about 1.6 million deaths around the world were associated with indoor air pollution or the burning of biomass as cooking fuel.
Utilizing up to 50% less wood as a “traditional” open pit fireplace and reducing the amount of smoke and black carbon in the home, the wood-conserving stoves (or Justa stoves) being implemented by SHI are a radical and healthy change. Wood-conserving stoves save thousands of trees, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and greatly improving women's and children's health in Central America.
Incredible! I had no idea about the personal health implications of the traditional fire pit, just the impact on the forest. Anything else to add?
Is it ok if I make a quick plea for more support? Donations can be designated for specific purposes—for example to plant trees or to buy stoves or to educate locals on better forest management.
I would also like to encourage people to join us on the ground. We have upcoming trips to Belize, Honduras and Nicaragua, where people can work on a coffee farm, help build a wood-conserving stove, help with a reforesting project and more. It’s a wonderful experience.
|
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Sustainable Harvest International (SHI), Part 1 (Almost 3 million trees planted!)
 One of the groups I like to support is Sustainable Harvest International (SHI). SHI works to reverse rainforest destruction with direct replanting programs and teaching farmers sustainable land-use practices that allow them to take control of their environmental and economic destinies.
The primary cause of deforestation in tropical climates is NOT commercial logging, but slash-and-burn agriculture and the need of many people to use wood for cooking fires. Therefore, not only has SHI planted more than 2 million trees in the last decade, they have also worked to reduce new deforestation by teaching sustainable agricultural techniques such as multi-story cropping and organic farming, helping local communities develop short-term and long-term cash crops, and offering homestead improvements such as wood-conserving stoves, all of which have a major impact on preserving forests. The combined programs are highly effective in both restoring and preserving tropical forests.
I like how SHI works to balance environmental, economic and social realities when designing their programs. They go beyond just replanting by working through local education to ensure the long-term health and expansion of tropical forests.
They are not a forest investment program, they are not restricted to a single country or wood species, nor do they have additional religious or political agendas to promote. They are in multiple countries, providing a full range of services that we believe will better the social, economic and environmental conditions of the forests and the people dependent upon them.
Since 1997, SHI has worked with more than 2,000 families and 900 students in Honduras, Panama, Belize and Nicaragua implementing alternatives to slash-and-burn farming, a leading cause of rainforest destruction in the region. They note that they have, with local field personnel trained by SHI:
- Planted more than 2,800,000 trees.
- Converted 14,000 acres of degraded land to sustainable uses; thereby saving 70,000 acres of tropical forest from slash-and-burn destruction.
- Improved nutrition through the establishment of more than 200 organic vegetable gardens.
- Increased farm income up to 800%.
- Built 165 wood-conserving stoves (saving 1,650 trees per year)
SHI also offers tours of their programs (visit a chocolate farm!) and a small online store offering products from some of their projects. I think it’s an impressive organization and working to ensure that the forests provide long-term economic benefits for all.
|
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Alphabet Soup Series, Part 5 of Many: CSR
CSR stands for “Corporate Social Responsibility,” and is one of many ways of looking at business and evaluating companies. Companies that embrace CSR recognizes that they must make a commitment to their communities, both local and international. A strong and sincere CSR program means that companies value success not just in financial profitability, but in the happiness of their employees, their contributions to their community, their defense of the environment, and the success of their suppliers and customers as well. (Among many other things.)
In the wood industry, CSR often takes the form of participation and support of “green” programs such third-party certifications, replanting programs, and contributions of stock to groups like Habitat for Humanity. It can also mean the support of local or international charities. Over the next few weeks, I’m going to look at two groups related to international forestry that I think are well-worth supporting.
I welcome everyone commenting here on groups that their corporations have chosen to support. Let’s give some good organizations some advertisements. Tell me who you support and why!
(To see the rest of the Alphabet Soup series, go to my posts on VOCs, LEED, MSDS, and Greenwashing.)
|
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
Hardwood Federation Fly-In
Since I’ve been on a somewhat political theme for the last few posts, I thought that I would note that this week is the Hardwood Federation Fly-In.
The Hardwood Federation is an association of associations. Members include the NWFA (National Wood Flooring Association, of course), the NHLA (National Hardwood Lumber Association), the MFMA (Maple Flooring Manufacturers Association), and the KCMA (Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association), to name just a few. If you are a member of any one of these associations, you are also counted as being represented by the Hardwood Federation.
The Hardwood Federation was created to give all related wood industries a greater political presence in Washington. It has an affiliated PAC with a full time lobbyist who has the responsibility of keeping the wood industry’s needs in front of Congress. Their agenda is set by the associations they represent, so increasing your activism within the NWFA and other industry associations will give you a greater say on their political activities.
The Fly-In is an annual event, where members of industry come to D.C. and meet with congressional representatives at a series of sponsored meals and meetings on the Hill. The more individuals who attend, the more attention the members of congress will pay to the industry’s issues.
In the Fly-In this week, the Federation is focused on four key topics. They are: the protection and funding of the Lacey Act, putting a halt to new regulatory costs on an industry already in recession, encouraging proper management tactics at the USFS and expanding pro-hardwood government procurement policies.
For the latter issue, government-procurement policies, they’ve already had several major successes. The Federation was the key force behind the March announcement from USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack that wood should be recognized as a green building material of choice throughout his agency and the Federal Government. They were also instrumental in having the U.S. military change a gym floor specification at Camp LeJeune in North Carolina from bamboo to locally sourced hard maple.
Other green-related issues include addressing the proposed EPA's Boiler MACT regulations, continuing to push to have wood recognized in all federal green building projects as a renewable and sustainable resource, asking legislators to support reform of the U.S. Forest Service and opening up more federal forests to appropriate commercial use, and supporting proposed bills H.R. 2451 and S. 1369, the “Silviculture Regulatory Consistency Acts” to maintain the status of forestry as a nonpoint source of water pollution under the Clean Water Act (CWA).
The Hardwood Federation will support your views and your needs in D.C., but only if you support them, as well. Get involved in your association and help identify your business’ priorities. Then consider joining us at next year’s Fly-In, and making your case directly to your congressional representative.
|
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Evaluating Production Sources
Since we’re talking China, it’s probably time I got to this request from the editor. A while back, Hardwood Floors received an email. It read:
“How can retailers be certain where products are being made? We want to offer our customers good U.S. and Canadian products that are manufactured in North America. The reason being is that we need to warranty our work, thus, we require reliable products. Companies are being dishonest in terms of where products are from. Often after detailed investigation, the wood may be North American but finished in China or nothing North American other than shipping. That is scary given the problems with what materials the Chinese put into any products. What can be done to ensure the companies are honest and return to supporting North American products? I would appreciate you addressing this issue. It's absolute deception. Not all companies should be tarnished. Providing a list of reputable mills/manufacturers is a MUST, as is having certified products.”
HF asked me to respond. First, I think the writer is correct: Companies should label where their products are made. In the U.S., they are required to do so. There are very strict laws enforced both by the U.S. Customs Service and the Department of Commerce regarding how you define the origin of the product. Mannington properly distinguishes its U.S. production from its Chinese imports, as Anderson does with its American and Paraguayan material. My company, Metropolitan, correctly labels each of our boxes with the source country, which could be the U.S., Canada, China, Chile, Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Germany or others.
But as you might guess from the post prior to this one, I don’t think it’s appropriate to buy a product solely on country of origin. We should be buying based on the quality of the production and how well it fits our needs. Is it the color and design and size we want? Is the product category right for our application and installation method? Is it priced appropriately? And more importantly, how do we evaluate the company providing it? Do we have confidence in them? I believe we should be selecting our supplying company, not the production country.
Does your supplier have a proven track record of good service? Do they provide you with the information on issues important to you? Are they active members of industry associations? Do they stock a reasonable percentage of certified products? How have they handled claims in the past?
The writer is correct that to be able to warranty work, we need reliable products. That said, reliable products are being produced around the world. And unfortunately in some cases, there is less than stellar production being done in the U.S. It is not the location of the company, it is the quality of the company that should be considered.
If buying an American-manufactured product is an important component of your purchasing consideration, then you should absolutely weigh that as a key factor. Perhaps you believe it important to utilize only U.S. temperate woods. Perhaps it is important to you that they follow a specific labor policy—that they be unionized or not, that they utilize prison labor or not. The issues that matter to you are certainly ones where you should devote your time and energy researching.
But you should consider which American company and look at them as carefully as you would a company with an imported source. Buy because it is the right product for you overall, including, in part, the issue of who made it where.
Voting with dollars is an excellent form of expressing enthusiasm for or displeasure with a product, company or institution of any kind. I wish more people gave deeper thought to what they casually buy. And that includes going beyond an origin label to look at the entire package. Buy from the right company, not just the right country.
|
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
A Strong International Market Helps Green China
As many folks know, besides blogging and trying to keep up with my day job, I’m also active with the Alliance for Free Choice and Jobs in Flooring. The Alliance was formed to oppose a petition made to the U.S. government by eight (now seven) U.S. flooring manufacturers requesting stiff punitive duties be placed on imports of Chinese engineered flooring. That group alleged the imports are heavily subsidized by the state and unfairly traded in the U.S. at artificially low prices. After extensive investigation for over six months, the DOC has yet to find any evidence of significant dumping or subsidies. Final rulings on both the possible future duty rates—but more importantly, if the order should actually be formalized or not—will come this later this fall.
Since this blog is focused on green issues, not specifically on such trade issues, I’m not going to discuss in detail the Alliance’s perspective on this issue. And just so you can get both viewpoints, here’s the petitioner’s website, www.usfloorparity.org as well, right up front. Please review both to learn more about the case.
I share this background because last week I wrote about the current ITC antidumping case and how some people feel that it’s an appropriate means to “punish” Chinese manufacturers for their “sins” against the environment. I responded by noting first that I didn’t think that many of the international exporters were sinning and none were sinning at the level that some individuals would believe, and that second, the ITC was not the appropriate system for either discussing or correcting the possible problems in the “greenness” of Chinese manufacturing.
My third point in response is that if only for the sake of argument, we hypothesize that Chinese companies may have committed some of the evils that conventional wisdom automatically attributes to them, then what happens if the ITC case results in Chinese flooring imports being barred from the U.S. market?
From personal experience, I know that removing the foreign influence is not going to solve the problem; in fact, it will only make it worse. It is often only through continued international pressure, in the form of education and technology exchange, that things will get better there.
American buyers insist on improved monitoring to ensure the legal sourcing wood of wood. American consumers insist on better air quality and floors made with low-VOC glues and finishes. The international market insists on better treatment of workers from the factories that produce our products. All of us together are demanding higher quality production that lasts longer, performs better and, not coincidentally, is less harmful to the environment.
We are voting with our dollars: voting for factories that meet our standards; voting against factories that do not. We provide training and information to help them meet those standards, which most candidate factories in China embrace willingly because they come to realize it’s good business to be green. If U.S. importers are forced to pull out of the China market, it will be a long time before the domestic Chinese market (which is far greater in size than ours) puts the same environmental pressure on their suppliers.
If the ITC rules in favor of the petition this fall, many excellent and environmentally sensitive American companies will be compelled to withdraw from China. (That won’t be based on the actual duty rate—high or low rates don’t really matter. It’s because the way the U.S. trade remedy system works is that it doesn’t just put duties on the imports coming in today. It also imposes the burden of retroactive liability on the importer -- potentially for up to 30 years—so while they might import a container in December 2011, they only find out what the actual duty rate is sometime after April 2013.)
The Chinese manufacturers aren’t going to go out of business. They’ll turn inward to service their immense and growing domestic market and they will export to countries other than the U.S.—countries that maybe are not as concerned about environmental standards and workplace conditions. When that happens, they will be without any international pressure to source legally or produce in an environmentally friendly way. Yes, many of the Chinese companies will continue to work hard to be good environmental stewards, but others may simply work towards the greatest profit or at a minimum, stop asking questions.
They say that change is best effected from within. We need to be part of the process, not standing apart from it. I make several trips to China a year to work with our QC teams and our factories on our sourcing programs, teaching them how to backtrack supply for legality and sustainability. Rather than purchase from a factory solely because it is FSC-certified, we instead chose to bring our long-term partners into the FSC program, providing financial support for certification and training in the systems. We monitor every shipment for production standards that range from meeting CARB certification requirements (even though we don’t sell into California!) to ensuring that the finish shipped in container No. 1 matches the color in container No. 100.
Our close relationships with the workers in these factories have given them a new perspective on the Western world. We show them great respect and often insist that line workers are involved in quality control discussions and product development issues. Hopefully with more financial power, these people will be in the position to demand—and support—a better lifestyle for them and their families. Only with broader economic growth are we going to see a better China. Effective embargoes like the one proposed in this pending petition will only increase the poverty level and create hostility towards the West. Doesn’t it make more sense to make friends rather than enemies?
Our own Chinese staff in China benefits from continuing education programs and opportunities to travel internationally with us. We also provide scholarships for Chinese forestry students, hopefully helping the next Chinese generation be a better environmental stewards. Yes, a lot of this is based on hope, but it takes time to see the change—-all of these things are like ripples in the pond—we take small actions and hope they spread. I've seen it happen. It’s a slow process, but after 20 years, I know it works.
The China I work in today is not at all the same as the one I visited two decades ago. The changes are nearly beyond comprehension. And I know for a fact that many of those changes came from companies like Metro building programs there. As Western companies put their feet through the door, we force that door open wider and wider and many other things sneak in with us, like environmental standards. There is no question in my mind that the Western business investments in China have resulted in changes far beyond products purchased.
We live in an increasingly small and interlinked world. What happens in one country impacts us all, and we need to work to build a better world together. We need to open borders to new ideas and information. Walls restrict growth.
So that is the third reason why I reject the argument that dumping duties are somehow going to teach China an environmental lesson. Only by our increased presence in the market there (and all around the world) will we have any influence in improving these standards and conditions. Force out the American buyer and you lose your opportunity to have any say on conditions there.
|
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
China & Being Green
I had a recent conversation about the pending case on imported Chinese hardwood flooring with someone who thinks dumping duties were a great idea—the higher the better—but not because he believed the Chinese were actually dumping product. Rather, he felt it was a great way to punish Chinese companies for all their supposed anti-green evils.
The reasoning was that since the Chinese supposedly use nothing but illegal wood, process everything with poisonous chemicals, have no worker protection, and clearly take great delight in polluting the environment, they should be punished—and these punitive antidumping duties were a great way to do it.
I have three primary responses to this line of reasoning, because however emotionally appealing it may be, I believe it to be wrong.
1) First and foremost, I do not believe that most Chinese flooring companies are doing any of those things.
I’ve been working in China for over 20 years. When I first went over, all factories were state-run. Frankly, if you had asked me 20 years ago if the production was government-subsidized, I would have had to say yes. These mills pulled heavily from nearby state forests and had terrible recovery percentages because the raw material was not properly valued as a resource and because they were using hand-me-down Soviet technology. Formaldehyde was not a consideration for them.
Today, most mills supplying the American market are privately held enterprises. They are modern facilities run to tight specifications. Many are ISO-certified for both the 9001 management condition and the 14001 series, for environmental management.
The factories are tightly controlled for profitability, which includes limiting waste, working to reduce power and water consumption, and recycling their resources. Most of the Chinese mills recover a greater percentage of wood fiber from a low-grade log than mills anywhere else in the world. An increasing number are FSC-certified.
They use international glues and finishes (often European) for quality and most are working aggressively to improve their sourcing to ensure legality and long-term sustainability of the world’s wood resources. Like all true wood people, they have become environmentalists, recognizing that their long-term business health relies on the long-term health of the forests.
2) Second, using U.S. trade remedy laws and the International Trade Commission (ITC) system to punish Chinese manufacturers for their assumed environmental sins is simply wrong. The ITC system is specifically designed to review conditions of foreign subsidies and aggressive dumping activities. There are other policies in place and laws in development that are looking to address environmental issues.
For example, some legislators have proposed a “pollution tax” or “carbon emission fees” on certain imports. (These taxes/fees may be appropriate or not. They may also be found inconsistent with WTO rules, but these are other issues for another discussion. The point is, the issue should not be addressed within the structure of a dumping case.)
Other regulatory acts are addressing some of the environmental concerns now. CARB and the new EPA regulations are designed to limit formaldehyde emissions on all glued wood products, no matter what their origin, and the Lacey Act (as well as the new laws in Europe, Japan and Australia) provides very clear punishments for the trade in illegal wood.
The market can make choices—people can choose to follow certain green building certification programs that have set specific standards for material input, production systems, and chemical usage, again, regardless of the product’s origin. People can choose, or not choose, a product made in any country.
3) So this leads to my third point in response. Why do you think the Chinese condition has improved so much in 20 years? Let’s talk about that next week.
|
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
IWPA & AHEC: An Expanded Focus
 Recently, the International Wood Products Association (IWPA) partnered with the American Hardwood Export Council (AHEC). This strikes me as a natural blend of strengths.
The IWPA promotes the responsible international trade in wood products. Members include U.S. importers, international manufacturers and a wide number of service organizations. Products represented include lumber, decking, plywood, and many others including flooring. Species represented include everything—tropical woods, softwoods and temperate hardwoods from Europe, Asia and the North America.
AHEC represents the American hardwood industry internationally, helping promote the exports of an equally large range of products such as lumber, veneer, plywood, flooring, molding and dimension materials. In my opinion one of their greatest gifts to the industry has been the creation of information in multiple languages explaining the U.S. species, NHLA and NWFA rules and terms, and much more.
Many companies are members of both organizations as globalization encourages a presence in all parts of the industry. U.S. companies export hardwood lumber and import tropical species. Foreign producers often utilize U.S. hardwoods in products they export to the United States. There is a natural business synergy between the two organizations.
Both organizations recognize the long-term value of the forests and the need to promote legal and sustainable forestry. As some of their promotional work, AHEC encourages the use of lesser known U.S. hardwoods and is creating several programs to scientifically demonstrate U.S. hardwoods’ excellent environmental track record and superior performance in use.
Among their many activities supporting trade, the IWPA's CURE (Conservation, Utilization, Reforestation, Education) is an environmental education and outreach program that has worked successfully to protect both the tropical forests and the international tropical timber trade. The IWPA also provides educational seminars and training on Lacey, formaldehyde issues, and other green issues.
I think it’s wonderful that the two groups will be working even more closely together in the future—it can only mean good things for the international wood trade… in all directions!
|
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
My Green Summer Reading List
As a break from my ranting, I have a few recommendations for articles on different topics that folks might want to take a look at:
How to cheat at LEED for homes
This is not actually a guide to cheating, but a note on some of the basic ways to earn LEED credits for your project—the simple things you don’t want to miss. It also points out a few of the flaws in the system. It’s a good read, both fun and practical. Here's a quote:
Instead, pick up as many points as you can by doing the easy stuff. While this isn’t technically cheating, it will feel like it because many of these things are things that quality builders do already.
Interview with author and historian Andrea Wulf
Ms. Wulf wrote a book about the Founding Fathers and their love of gardening. I enjoyed the interview from Smithonian and may go grab a copy of the book. The interview is short, but looks at how Jefferson finally decided that a formal garden could be patriotic and how felt that farming was definitely so. I was particularly interested in this question and answer:
You write that Madison was at the forefront of conservation. How so?
This was the greatest surprise in writing the book. Madison is not just the father of the Constitution; he’s also the forgotten father of American environmentalism. He tried to rally Americans to stop destroying the forest and the soil. He said for America to survive, Americans had to protect their environment. He did not romanticize nature as later generations did. He looked at this in a practical way, saying nature was a fragile ecological system, and if man wanted to live off nature, in the long term something had to change.
Overview of LIDAR technology
LIDAR is increasingly being used in forest management. Here's an excerpt from an article in The Economist that I thought was interesting:
Like its cousins radar and sonar, lidar (light detection and ranging), works by broadcasting electromagnetic waves towards a target and then building up a picture from the reflection. In the case of lidar, the waves are in the form of an infra-red laser beam. And in the case of the forests of south-western Nepal, the target is the trees. During a forest survey, an aircraft-borne lidar sweeps a beam that fires about 70,000 pulses a second over the canopy. A sensor on the aircraft records the time it takes to receive the backscattering of pulses, and that is used to compute distances to the forest canopy and to the soil beneath.
|
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
A Year of Blogging
Just over a year ago, I started blogging for Hardwood Floors. I’ve written about formaldehyde and Lacey; CARB and LEED; FSC and carbon credits. I’ve looked at plantations, bamboo and cork. I’ve wandered through South America, Asia and across the U.S. We’ve looked at green in install, green in marketing, and green in production. And while I’ve got a half dozen more topics planned, I’m starting to run out of rants.
I welcome new topics of discussion and new things to debate. There are issues on the horizon—new green programs, the EPA’s formaldehyde regulations, revisions to Lacey—but we need more than that. Give me some new topics before I run out of steam!
|
Tuesday, August 09, 2011
Spacecraft Earth
Last week I talked about cork. Did you know cork is also used by the space program? I think it’s amazing that something we often walk on or pull from wine bottles has been used in heat shields to protect the shuttle and other spacecraft. It just goes to show the great versatility of natural products.
Personally, I’m a huge space geek and love the idea that a product we’ve used here on earth for thousands of years can help take us to the stars. And did you know we are likely to take bamboo with us there as well? NASA is currently doing tests with bamboo and other plants to serve as oxygen producers in space stations while some engineers are considering bamboo as a scaffolding option in construction, just like it’s used down here on Earth. (I also recently read a scifi novel that had carbonized bamboo being used as a meteor shield by a spacecraft—someday, why not?) This all reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw:
EARTH FIRST!
(We’ll log the other planets later.)
All that got me thinking on a new way of looking at the Earth that’s been proposed by some groups recently. The idea is that we should change our mentality and our approach to resource use. We should stop looking at the Earth the way we did as pioneers, as having an endless horizon with unlimited resources available to exploit. Rather we should consider ourselves on a spacecraft now, where everything is limited. Everything needs to be recycled, everything needs to be used to the maximum benefit and greatest amount.
On a spaceship, what you have there is all you get to use. You need to constantly recycle air, water, materials. You can’t run down to the store to pick up a new pipe. What you have around you is all you have around you to use. We need to realize that our resources are limited—while trees are potentially endlessly renewable, it takes time and it takes space and it takes water…
In this spacecraft of ours, we need to work hard to maximize our recovery from the trees we have—less production waste. We need to get longer lifetimes out of our floors and other wood products. We need to recycle when we do need to replace something. We need a mentality change on how we look at the world.
I hope some day we do find a way to “log the other planets.” I think it will be wonderful if natural products like cork and bamboo help take us there. And when we’re there, I hope we treat that planet’s resources as precious and limited, just as we need to learn to treat Earth as our fragile spacecraft carrying us through the stars.
|
