Humankind has always had a tricky relationship with forests. We depend on them to regulate the climate and rainfall, clean our air and water, sustain myriad species of plants and animals, and support the livelihoods of more than 1 billion people. Yet we continue to destroy them, to the point that only half the world’s original forest cover remains.
The price of deforestation can hardly be overstated. Trees consume large amounts of carbon dioxide as they grow, making them vital tools for absorbing the greenhouse-gas emissions — from cars, factories, power stations and livestock — that result in climate change.
If we continue to lose forest cover, the Paris climate agreement’s goal, of limiting global warming to less than 2?C above pre-industrial levels by 2050, will be impossible to achieve.
Illustration: Lance Liu
In fact, to meet that target, we will need to restore a significant amount of forest cover that is already gone.
There are two ways to approach reforestation. The first is to allow agricultural lands to fall into disuse, and then wait for them to revert naturally to forest. This would not cost much, but it would take decades. The second option is more proactive: Plant billions of new trees.
As part of the New York Declaration on Forests, signed in 2014, governments pledged to restore hundreds of millions of hectares of forests. However, with most governments short on cash these days, financing the pledge has proved challenging.
Against this background, we must try to engage the private sector to deliver the needed investment.
When forests have an economic value, they are more likely to be cultivated than destroyed. And, indeed, trees have been cultivated for profit for millennia. Today, productive forests cover an area of more than 1 billion hectares, or about one-quarter of the world’s forested land.
Such forests produce fuelwood, which accounts for about half of tree removals. They also produce materials for clothes, oils for soaps and lubricants, fruits and other foods, such as cocoa.
Demand for these products is growing, although not as fast as demand for newspaper print falls as a result of computerization.
How can demand for forest products be increased? One particularly promising opportunity lies in construction.
Timber has always been an important building material, and remains so for residential construction in places like the US, Scandinavia and parts of Southeast Asia. However, most buildings today are constructed using bricks and mortar, concrete, and — for larger structures — steel.
These are all materials that produce substantial carbon emissions during the manufacturing process.
While it is unlikely that timber can fully replace any of these materials, new types of engineered wood are making the resource more competitive.
One of these is cross-laminated timber (CLT), which is made by gluing together layers of wood to create panels that are as strong as steel or concrete, and that thus can replace those materials in buildings.
More research is required to determine the precise benefits of using timber to cut carbon dioxide emissions. One estimate comes from architect Anthony Thistleton-Smith, one of the UK’s leading experts on wooden buildings.
He recently noted that, whereas a typical British home has a carbon footprint of about 18 to 19 tonnes, a CLT home has a negative footprint of 17 to 19 tonnes. In other words, every home built with CLT saves 36 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.
If the 300,000 new homes targeted for completion in the UK this year were built using CLT, that would equal taking 2.5 million cars off the road. The climate benefits could be massive.
As with so many climate measures, cost can be a major barrier to implementation. According to a UN report, CLT is more expensive than concrete in Europe.
However, CLT is still in its infancy, with only a handful of factories in operation. As the CLT supply chain develops, costs will inevitably fall, as has happened with “renewable” energy.
Moreover, builders report that the total costs of building with CLT already end up similar to those of building with concrete, because the process takes less time. After all, unlike concrete, CLT does not need time to set.
Of course, delivering a transformation of this size will not be easy. Vested interests -— pressure from industries producing traditional building materials — must be overcome, including by ensuring a level playing field in terms of subsidies.
Furthermore, public concerns, for example, regarding fire safety or infestation prevention, must be addressed, and builders will have to learn new skills.
Most importantly, monitoring will have to be improved considerably, so that increased demand for wood does not result in more deforestation.
For many countries, the economic opportunities presented by a transition should be sufficient to make addressing these challenges worthwhile. New plantations could regenerate rural areas, as new factories created opportunities for investors and entrepreneurs.
Governments and larger companies would be able to tap the fast-growing green-bond market to fund the early transition, including the creation of systems using drones and satellite imaging to monitor for unsustainable forestry practices.
Opportunities to align economic development with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are rare. Yet that is what reforestation offers.
We must take advantage of this opportunity, by pursuing a construction transformation based on restoring trees, the world’s most effective carbon-capture tool.
In this “new age of timber,” we would grow wood, build with wood, and allow our forests to thrive.
Justin Adams is global managing director for lands at the Nature Conservancy.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing