Washington Report: Big Wood Makes Its Move in Congress

By Craig Piercy, ACPA Washington Advocate

By now, I suspect you are aware of the North American timber industry’s efforts to expand market share in the low- to mid-rise construction sector. However, this is only one element of a larger strategy by “Big Wood” to grab market share and gain competitive advantage over its rivals in the concrete and steel industries. To date, their efforts have been focused primarily at the local level, changing building codes to allow the use of wood for larger and higher structures. However, on May 2, Big Wood opened up a new battlefront in Washington with the introduction of S. 2892, the Timber Innovation Act of 2016.

This legislation would, among other things, establish a government-funded R&D program to promote tall wood building construction in the U.S.; create a “Tall Wood Building Prize Competition” run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture; and initiate a federal grant program to support education and outreach activities aimed at extolling the virtues of tall wood construction to U.S. architects and builders.

There is so much “bad” in this legislation that it’s hard to know where to start. Perhaps we should begin with the idea that the federal government should not choose sides in a free market competition over building materials. Just imagine if the concrete industry asked the federal government for the same kind of assistance. The cries of “corporate welfare” would come fast and furious. Yet that is exactly what the timber industry is doing: using taxpayer dollars to subsidize the promotion of wood construction over other construction methods.

“Big Wood” has always had a cozy relationship with the federal government, primarily through its bureaucratic allies in the U.S Forest Service. While most people think of the Forest Service as a sister organization to the U.S. Park Service, charged with protecting the natural beauty of federal lands, the reality is quite different. The U.S. Forest Service is actually a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Part of its mission is to help “use the forests to promote rural economic development” through a “multiple-use management concept” that includes cutting down trees on federal land for timber. In fact, last year the forest service reaped over $150 million in revenue from cutting down trees in our national forests.

Big Wood has also been adept at “greenwashing” timber construction by playing up its environmental benefits. Specifically, the wood industry argues that logging is an environmentally-friendly activity and that wood products help combat global warming by sequestering carbon. Don’t believe it for a second. Clearcutting timber creates an ecological trauma that takes decades for the land to overcome, if ever. Furthermore, only 15 percent of the carbon dioxide in a tree is actually preserved when it’s cut down for lumber. The rest is released into the atmosphere during logging and processing operations.

Big Wood’s long-term objective in introducing the Timber Innovation Act is to build market acceptance for so-called Cross Laminated Timber (CLT), which is essentially several layers of 2x4s molded into panels that can be used in modular and/or prefabricated building designs.

Acceptance of CLT in the construction community would give Big Wood a powerful tool to compete with concrete on a head-to-head basis in larger, higher structures (even though it is classified as a “combustible construction” material in the International Building Code).

ACPA is working closely with its partners in the concrete industry to mount a counterstrategy to the Timber Innovation Act, and correct some of the myths that have been perpetuated by Big Wood. While it is not expected that the legislation will see action in this session of Congress, it is clear that we will have to continue to fight when a new Congress convenes in 2017.

In the meantime, you can find more information about the risks and societal costs of timber construction at www.buildwithstrength.com.