Cap and Trade or Cap and Cause Problems???

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry is possibly headed for a very uncomfortable debate in the upcoming 2019 session of the legislature. Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, previously reluctant to adopt Carbon Cap and Trade legislation, has stated his intention to pass such a bill in 2019.

To demonstrate his commitment, Sen. Courtney has joined Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, in chairing the Joint Committee on Carbon Reduction. The Committee has been meeting in preparation for Carbon legislation adoption in 2019 since the adjournment of the 2018 Short Session in March.

Carbon legislation means different things for the various sectors of the Forest Products Industry. Forest landowners see the opportunity for additional revenue from selling carbon allowances for growing forests to carbon dioxide emitters in Oregon and throughout North America.  The allowances can mitigate the Carbon dioxide emissions from forest product manufacturing.

Forest product manufacturers may be taxed for their carbon dioxide emissions. To avoid the fees they may be forced to curtail their operations to reduce emissions. One option is for manufacturers to purchase emission allowances from forestland owners who agree to restrict harvests on their own forestland.

Forest operators, like loggers, see the impending Cap and Trade legislation as more restrictions and increased taxes on diesel which is a critical component for converting forests to logs for mills. Expect to see manufacturers, loggers and forestland owners all seeking Cap and Trade specifications that protect their forestry interests. 

The forestry interests could lead to different stances on the Cap and Trade legislation. Landowners may choose to increase the harvest age of their forests to generate carbon credits. Recently much of Oregon’s private forestland has been transferred to Timber Investment Management Organizations and Real Estate Investment Trusts. These new landowners have investors with different financial objectives then Oregon’s traditional large forest landowners.

Most Oregon wood processing plants have adapted to the drastic curtailment of large logs from Federal Forest land since the 1990s. The small log processing mills can’t use large logs that would come from older trees which have carbon credits as their objective. Landowners must weigh the revenue from Carbon credits against the lower prices for their large logs.

Debates over the price of Carbon credits and the limits forest product manufacturers may be the theme of the negotiations over 2019 Cap and Trade legislation.

A vibrant wood products market is good for Oregon and the climate

A vibrant wood products market is good for Oregon and the climate

The Oregonian

By Kristina McNitt

In his April 21 op-ed "Our forests can make Oregon the first carbon-neutral state," Dominick DellaSala proposes that the state can achieve this feat by disincentivizing wood production from our forestlands. He believes that Oregon's forests have the potential to be a large carbon sink, and that they should be managed to more aggressively offset emissions from other sectors. We are confident that his proposals would not actually decrease global carbon emissions and would come at great cost to Oregonians.

DellaSala alludes to the fact that Oregon's forests are already sequestering huge amounts of carbon. What he doesn't tell you is that this is true across all ownership classes. Federal forestlands, state forestlands and private industrial forestlands are all growing more trees every year than are harvested or lost to wildfire or mortality. In fact, the 30 million acres of forestland across the state are sequestering approximately half of all of Oregon's carbon emissions every year.

But rather than praise Oregon forest landowners for being part of the climate change solution, DellaSala proposes that they bear ever more of the burden. By taxing industrial landowners and paying others to stop cutting trees, he believes that even more carbon emissions from other sectors can be stored on Oregon forestlands. Putting aside the fundamental inequity of making forestland owners solve a problem caused by others, curtailing harvest means curtailing the forest products industry and all of the otherwise carbon-neutral employment in rural communities those industries support.

But the real punchline is this: Domestic development and redevelopment will not stop. New houses are built every day in Oregon and across the United States. By reducing the state's wood production, we only ensure that developers turn to wood from other jurisdictions with more lenient environmental protections than we have here. Or worse, that they use less-climate-friendly alternatives to wood. For this reason, DellaSala's proposals would not actually decrease global carbon emissions and, in fact, could increase net emissions depending on what products are substituted for wood. 

We hope that reasonable people see DellaSala's op-ed for what it is: A thinly-veiled anti-logging agenda. In most mainstream circles working on climate change issues, including the International Panel on Climate Change, use of wood products is strongly encouraged. The panel concluded that in "the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fiber or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit."

Of course, wood products come from trees. And there's no better place in the world to grow (and re-grow) trees than Oregon. In light of its positive contribution to climate change, we look forward to working with state lawmakers on finding ways to encourage the use of more Oregon wood, not less.

Kristina McNitt is president of the Oregon Forest & Industries Council, which is based in Salem.