Archived Story

Consider side effects of climate plans
By ELLEN ENGSTEDT-SIMPSON

Once again I am going to travel on the slippery slope of discussing climate change. It has been duly noted that most of those vocally warning the rest of us about the end of the world as we know it no longer use “global warming” but rather now use “climate change” as the mantra.

The term, at least, is something that most of us can agree on because the climate has been changing for eons and the same is true today. The issues thus become what is causing the changes and what, if anything, can people do about it. I have read enough articles, studies, reviews and letters to send myself into serious information overload. There are so many alleged experts it causes one’s head to spin trying to make sense of it all. So, instead of drowning in the sea of hysteria, some common sense and rational thought must enter this picture or the consequences of inappropriate actions could be severe.

Going hand-in-hand with the climate change discussion is the promotion of “green” building. The promoters of certified buildings using recycled and reusable materials are going overboard with their agenda in a huge way. Fortunately, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, certification program hit major icebergs in the past few months when the Wall Street Journal exposed the Forest Stewardship Council and its policy chaos relating to LEED.

The FSC in the beginning endorsed paper, furniture and other wood fiber products with a label that signified 100 percent of the wood used in a product was harvested by sustainable methods. A mere handful of takers embraced the idea of LEED certification, so the FSC relaxed its regulations allowing producers to use the label for paper in which just 50 percent of the pulp had to come from forests that met the original criteria. Certifications soared because the costs of production of products was lowered and could still be promoted as green to make people feel good about using it.

Meanwhile, the 50 percent of the products coming from sources mostly outside of the United States were suspect at best as to origin. It turns out the producers of the products were bringing in fiber from Malaysia, Brazil and Australia to make products that could be labeled with the FSC “mixed sources” logo. It became such a mess that the longtime director of FSC resigned and the organization is still in the process of revamping its program of certification. All of this because the sales pitch for certification under LEED tries to make people think they are saving the planet by building green.

Wood is still the best building material there is and when harvested close to where it will be used it is even better. The example to be used is the promotion by LEED for bamboo to be used mostly in flooring. Obviously bamboo does not grow in Montana, so it would have to be transported from a country where it does grow. No one who thinks could rationalize the use of a product grown elsewhere and hauled to Montana as being more environmentally friendly than fiber grown nearby. Factor in the cost of transportation and the burning of fuel to acquire materials not readily available near a project and the idea of “green building” sinks very rapidly.

Another idea that is promoted by some who believe all ills come from the use of fossil fuels is what type of energy we should all jump on and use. Biofuels such as ethanol are touted as the wave of the future along with wind, solar and biomass. An article published in the journal Science concludes that over 30 years the use of traditional corn-based ethanol would produce twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as regular gasoline because of the clearing of land needed to produce the raw product necessary for production.

Knowing how complex the issues are surrounding climate change, green building codes and production of alternative fuels, the legislative body known as the Environmental Quality Council is conducting a survey on the 54 recommendations produced by the Governor’s Climate Change Advisory Committee. The EQC is asking for public input into each of the recommendations produced in this report along with comments to support each ranking. The survey can be found on the Legislature’s Web site under “Environmental Quality Council.”

While a few of the recommendations could be considered laudable, the vast majority are cost-intensive with little apparent effect on the planet. When making sweeping statements about methods to stop climate change, feeling good about green building and driving cars using corn that should be used for food instead, it is incumbent upon all of us to think about the impact actions have on consumers, especially low-income folks, both here and elsewhere, in the form of food, affordable housing and inexpensive energy.

Ellen Engstedt-Simpson is executive vice president of the Montana Wood Products Association. She writes from Helena.


Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)
Current Word Count:
   

|

Subscribe to the Missoulian today — get 2 weeks free!