Everett, Wash.
Published: Sunday, September 16, 2007

GUEST COMMENTARY

Everett's green building law means using local timber

By Todd Myers

 Just outside of Everett the town of Index is dealing with a seemingly straightforward problem. Local residents are trying to buy local timberland scheduled for harvest and preserve it as protected land. It appears to be a standard conflict between timber jobs and environmental protection.

In reality, Everett and other local communities should openly support the harvest of the timber. The reason has nothing to do with local taxes or jobs. Supporting the timber harvest is the best way Everett officials can live up to the environmental values they say they support.

First among those values are Everett's new "green" building standards, which offer incentives for the use of local building materials, especially wood. Shipping timber from Canada, Chile or Russia adds transportation costs and increases transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. If Everett officials truly believe in the "green" building standards they mandated, the city should cultivate local sources of timber. Restricting local supply simply increases costs and the environmental impact.

Second, harvesting mature timber reduces atmospheric greenhouse gases. As trees grow they absorb carbon, but the amount slows over time and they even begin to emit carbon. Harvesting a mature tree stores carbon for up to 80 years. While that carbon is stored, replanted trees begin the process again, removing carbon from the atmosphere as they grow. This strategy, known as "carbon sequestration," is recognized by the European Union and others as a good way to reduce greenhouse gases.

Using timber also reduces demand for other nonrenewable, energy intensive building materials, like concrete and steel. Concrete and steel have their place, but using them where wood would be appropriate has a negative environmental impact. University of Washington studies confirm that wood is a more sustainable building material than the alternatives.

Finally, it is clear that aesthetics, not environmental impact, are the underlying motivation for opposing timber harvest. Washington's forestry standards are widely recognized as some of the most protective in the world. Environmental groups even supported President Bush's tariff on Canadian timber because they understand that our forestry standards are higher here than in British Columbia. Washington streams are healthier today than in the past, old growth habitat is increasing and protection for unstable slopes is perhaps the highest in North America.

Will Everett or environmental activists call for cutting the timber near Index? It is highly unlikely.

It would, however, be consistent with policies they have advocated in other situations. One cannot say they support local timber products and then oppose local harvests that meet high environmental standards. It is inconsistent to defend the rights of a few residents to buy a piece of land at the cost of larger environmental benefits like reducing CO2 but put severe restrictions on landowners in other circumstances when "public" environmental benefits are involved.

As an advocate of market-based environmental solutions, I often see such restrictions justified by "market failures." The most common example is the case of pollution from smokestacks causing costs to society but benefits to the business. Such examples have elements of truth. They are, however, often exaggerated and used to justify heavy-handed, costly and counterproductive efforts by the government and overlook possible market-based solutions like the market-based sulfur-dioxide trading system that helped reduce acid rain in the Midwest.

The case of Index is a good reminder that reflexively looking to government regulation to solve problems can quickly become costly and ineffective, missing opportunities provided by the market which is consistently better at managing such complex relationships.

By ignoring the high costs of inconsistent and contradictory political solutions, we find ourselves in the position of the City of Everett, demanding local timber while being unwilling to support local timber harvests. The ironic result is fewer jobs, increased costs to consumers and increased impact on the environment. City of Everett officials need to decide what they are truly willing to do to in order to support their new green building standards.



Todd Myers is director of the Center for Environmental Policy at Washington Policy Center. Nothing in this document should be construed as any attempt to aid or hinder any legislation before any legislative body. Contact Washington Policy Center at 206-937-9691 or washingtonpolicy.org.
© 2009The Daily Herald Co., Everett, WA