What is eco modernist outlook on mass timber construction? A lot of traditional environmentalists hate it because they think it will lead to more deforestation.
My opinion is that mass timber construction will increase the demand for forestry in the long run since it will trees will become more economically valuable than using the land agriculture or mining. Mass timber construction might also become the largest carbon negative industry.
My assumption is that a lot of regulations around "environmentally sustainable forestry" is holding the industry back. If we deregulate the sector there will be more planting of fast growing (potentially genetically modified) trees.
My bigger concern would be land use. Any large scale use of mass timber will be produced by plantation forest, so I don't know that either the concern that it will drive deforestation or the benefit of more forest, at least in the way that is generally conceived are that significant. Might have some carbon removal benefit and of course depends on how alternative building materials are produced.
Well cement and steel are the most carbon intensive industries. So replacing them with a carbon negative material would be a big win for net emissions. But when we deregulate the sector it will replace "natural" forests with forestry optimised for construction material, which is what the environmentalist crowd is afraid of. There will probably also be biodiversity losses etc.
Sub Saharan Africa will be a good place for mass timber production. Fertile land and relatively low population density (except Nigeria and even with the high current birth rate). A country like Mozambique, for example, is not land locked and more than 90% of its arable land is not used for cultivation.
Yes. But from a carbon cycle perspective, you also need to account for land use change. So the question is what the LUC impacts will be versus whatever the alternative in terms of low carbon concrete or steel, which today, obviously, don't actually exist.
I mean normally when trees die they release methane. So in the long run trees aren't really carbon negative. But if we use them for construction they would be. In a deregulated environment the land use change will generally be in favour of reducing net carbon. That will come at a cost of probably more biodiversity losses.
My hope is that cultured meat dramatically reduces the demand for arable land. Hence making it easier to set up a deregulated mass timber industry. But that's a long shot.
What seems to be dead is the roll-up-our-sleeves spirit of 1970s environmentalism. Back in the day, a river burned, and the next thing you know, folks are cleaning up rivers, launching recycling programs, getting things done. Nixon signed all the great environmental legislation. Now, it's about marching in the streets, screaming and shouting, demanding that somebody do something, and raising money for politicians.
It's not that the do-it-ourselves spirit is dead, it's that it moved on to volunteer crisis response, building houses with Habitat for Humanity, writing open source software, and building cities in the dessert every year, at Burning Man. Meanwhile, try to take any initiative at home - and everybody and their brother is breathing down your throat - bureaucrats getting in your face, snake-oil salesmen trying to sell feel-good bullshit, politicians asking for money, folks complaining about your language -everything but actually advancing progress.
It's time to get serious about actually solving problems. And, to that end, I put in a plug for my own efforts to rebuild suburban communities - over at ThisOldNeighborhood.Net (thisoldneigbhorhood.substack.com). Where we're actually trying to get something done - and yes, we could use a little support - if only of the moral kind.
And yes, I'm feeling a bit frustrated right about now, after getting another ton of asks from politicians. Sigh...
Global warming is centrally about building a new world, not restricting the old one. It is primarily a technology, investment, and infrastructure challenge, not a regulatory problem. Success requires swimming with, not against, the currents of social, economic, and technological modernization. Climate politics works best when we focus on delivering real social and economic benefits in the here and now, and often when we don’t even talk about climate change at all, not when we threaten apocalypse. It works, in other words, when we tell people about the dream, not the nightmare.
What is eco modernist outlook on mass timber construction? A lot of traditional environmentalists hate it because they think it will lead to more deforestation.
My opinion is that mass timber construction will increase the demand for forestry in the long run since it will trees will become more economically valuable than using the land agriculture or mining. Mass timber construction might also become the largest carbon negative industry.
My assumption is that a lot of regulations around "environmentally sustainable forestry" is holding the industry back. If we deregulate the sector there will be more planting of fast growing (potentially genetically modified) trees.
My bigger concern would be land use. Any large scale use of mass timber will be produced by plantation forest, so I don't know that either the concern that it will drive deforestation or the benefit of more forest, at least in the way that is generally conceived are that significant. Might have some carbon removal benefit and of course depends on how alternative building materials are produced.
Well cement and steel are the most carbon intensive industries. So replacing them with a carbon negative material would be a big win for net emissions. But when we deregulate the sector it will replace "natural" forests with forestry optimised for construction material, which is what the environmentalist crowd is afraid of. There will probably also be biodiversity losses etc.
Sub Saharan Africa will be a good place for mass timber production. Fertile land and relatively low population density (except Nigeria and even with the high current birth rate). A country like Mozambique, for example, is not land locked and more than 90% of its arable land is not used for cultivation.
Yes. But from a carbon cycle perspective, you also need to account for land use change. So the question is what the LUC impacts will be versus whatever the alternative in terms of low carbon concrete or steel, which today, obviously, don't actually exist.
I mean normally when trees die they release methane. So in the long run trees aren't really carbon negative. But if we use them for construction they would be. In a deregulated environment the land use change will generally be in favour of reducing net carbon. That will come at a cost of probably more biodiversity losses.
My hope is that cultured meat dramatically reduces the demand for arable land. Hence making it easier to set up a deregulated mass timber industry. But that's a long shot.
What seems to be dead is the roll-up-our-sleeves spirit of 1970s environmentalism. Back in the day, a river burned, and the next thing you know, folks are cleaning up rivers, launching recycling programs, getting things done. Nixon signed all the great environmental legislation. Now, it's about marching in the streets, screaming and shouting, demanding that somebody do something, and raising money for politicians.
It's not that the do-it-ourselves spirit is dead, it's that it moved on to volunteer crisis response, building houses with Habitat for Humanity, writing open source software, and building cities in the dessert every year, at Burning Man. Meanwhile, try to take any initiative at home - and everybody and their brother is breathing down your throat - bureaucrats getting in your face, snake-oil salesmen trying to sell feel-good bullshit, politicians asking for money, folks complaining about your language -everything but actually advancing progress.
It's time to get serious about actually solving problems. And, to that end, I put in a plug for my own efforts to rebuild suburban communities - over at ThisOldNeighborhood.Net (thisoldneigbhorhood.substack.com). Where we're actually trying to get something done - and yes, we could use a little support - if only of the moral kind.
And yes, I'm feeling a bit frustrated right about now, after getting another ton of asks from politicians. Sigh...
Wonderful talk, Ted. I particularly liked this:
Global warming is centrally about building a new world, not restricting the old one. It is primarily a technology, investment, and infrastructure challenge, not a regulatory problem. Success requires swimming with, not against, the currents of social, economic, and technological modernization. Climate politics works best when we focus on delivering real social and economic benefits in the here and now, and often when we don’t even talk about climate change at all, not when we threaten apocalypse. It works, in other words, when we tell people about the dream, not the nightmare.