I feel at home in the Allegheny forest – not because I was born and raised in Philadelphia, but because I have lived for 20 years in Alaska’s Tongass national forest— ground zero in the Forest Service planning wars. I don’t need to tell you—commercial users of the forest have lost the war. If the present allowable cut is “balance,” then someone has a thumb on the scale. Timber harvest on federal lands has fallen dramatically, with collateral damage to both human and ecological communities. Local economies are in ruins. In the West, we have more, larger, and hotter forest fires. There is increased disease and insect infestation. Fewer sun-loving species, such as ponderosa pine, sugar pine, Douglas-fir, white ash—and perhaps even the black cherry for which the Allegheny region is famous.
Weyerhaeuser no longer purchases much federal timber, but we advocate access for those who depend on it. We know that if you are denied access because of a loss of public will to see trees harvested, our own license to operate is threatened.
We have been at this debate for almost a quarter of a century. We are making little progress because both sides are locked in position: we in the industry have sought access to timber and those with a different view have sought protection from logging. We have played defense, they have played offense. We have arrived—as those who play defense often do—with our back against the wall. We have persuaded very few of the merits of our case. We have not turned the tide of public opinion. In fact, the oversimplified debate has not even been over stewardship and resource protection. It has been about the ugly “stump” and we have lost.
The global concern about climate change and search for sustainability offers those who favor balanced use a different and bully pulpit from which to launch a new campaign. In the quest for restored carbon balance, and demand for sustainability, we are part of the future solution regardless of what has been said about us in the past. It may be time, at last, for us to play a new, unfamiliar role. We can play offense, for a change.
To reframe the discussion about our industry we need to address some legacy problems. It is not surprising that after so many years of accusation, recrimination and litigation there are residual issues. I will touch on three this evening: consumers are plagued by guilt; our détente with ENGOs is uneasy; and marketplace rhetoric about saving trees is all wrong.
Let’s talk about guilt first. Using products that come from trees causes deep-seated guilt among some consumers.
Let me give you an example: A new employee recently joined my team. He was truly excited about being a part of Weyerhaeuser and wanted to show pride in the company. So at a recent trip to the grocery store, he asked for paper bags rather than plastic. “My company makes those,” the enthusiastic employee said. “Oh,” said the clerk. “You cut down trees.” The new employee thought for a minute, looked the clerk in the eye and said, “We GROW them.” The clerk nodded looking relieved. “Well, that’s okay then.”
(Incidentally, we plant over 100 million trees every year at our nurseries. Our germination rate is 85%. Tree growing is a business in which we excel.) Guilt about the use of wood products is all around us. In focus groups, college educated women express extreme guilt about using paper towels. Disposable paper products are seen as being wasteful. As depleting resources. As killing trees. I have seen advertising in the new “greenwashing” publications that advertises “tree-less” paper! (From recycle content, of course.)
In the same focus group, consumers had a tough time describing renewable resources or discussing the abstract concept of renewability. Almost none could describe what it means. When they guessed, they usually described it as recycling—or using something again, but in a different way. Several offered electricity as an example of a renewable resource. Unaided by the moderator, they did not offer the obvious—planting a tree!
Few, if any, were able to link the idea of prudent resource management with predictable future supply. The idea of sustainability was an esoteric, abstract concept. But they were certain that the nation’s forests were “in trouble”.
These same consumers, when asked to think about trees and told that there were more trees growing in the U.S. today than a hundred years ago didn’t believe it. They were skeptical and disputed the numbers. They became upset, argumentative. It can’t be true, they said, not with everything we hear in the media. When we use trees, we deplete the forest—that was their view. Some other examples of consumer guilt:
- Newspapers, many apologized for not using the Internet more.
- Paper plates, many apologized for not using reusable dishes.
- Paper bags, many apologized, saying maybe plastic would be better, especially if the bags were used again for other things.
- Too much paper is being wasted in school, they said. Their laments went on and on.
Why the guilt? Why such irrational guilt, at odds with the reality of today’s forests?
Consumers believe forests are dying. They are burning up, said one focus group participant. Again, when confronted with the numbers that acres are increasing in the U.S.: Denial, Denial, Denial.
They had difficulty with the facts—U.S. timber harvesting is well under sustainable limits—removals < 2% of standing inventory; volume of net growth 36% > volume of removal.
“That’s hard to believe. I’d dispute those numbers. I’m really skeptical.” Are the kinds of things they said.
This attitude reflects a post-industrialist society where there’s psychological tradeoff over the comfortable lives we lead – an anxiety that our benefit is gained at another’s expense. It is well documented that consumers are motivated by personal values when choosing products. Americans choose wood. Our annual consumption of timber products exceeds domestic production by 4.2 billion cubic feet—we import wood and fiber!! So, consumers, in a complex psychological exchange are buying guilt. If it makes me feel good, then it must make someone or something else worse off.
So they feel guilty about using forest products. It took a generation to teach people to use seatbelts. It took a generation to turn the tide on smoking in the US. Our industry has been demonized for over a generation. Foolish us for thinking it might be easy to present the facts and change public opinion. To regain the public trust, we have much work to do. Enough about guilt.
Now, on to the industry-environmentalist détente. It may seem a stretch to say that there has been an easing of the strained relations between our industry and ENGOs, but I believe this to be the case. We have formed new alliances across the historic divide. These cooperative endeavors are most successful when focused on field research, for example, caribou in our northern forests or bat populations in the south. They are increasingly energetic when focused on global-scale programs for sustainable forest management and protection of endangered forests. On illegal logging we can all agree. But this détente has not yet rooted in core values and is not advancing nearly fast enough.
In thinking about this problem, my thoughts return to Philadelphia. Not to fond memories of my childhood home—but because it was also the home of our nation’s founders, and the cradle of the American Revolution.
For our founders, opposing ideas were the impetus for change, not a roadblock to success. From diverse, passionate points of view, they crafted a bold Declaration of Independence. And a new Constitution unlike what the world had ever seen before. For bedtime reading I recommend James Madison’s notes from the constitutional convention. Again and again, as delegates debated the role of the executive, the structure of the legislature, the role of the electorate, the power of the purse, the differences appeared insurmountable. Again and again new forms emerged from the stone.
That has not been the case with our national forests. We and our ENGO partners are still stuck between the same rock and the same hard place. Although the pressure has eased, the tension has not produced a new or common vision. We are not uplifted by optimism for a better future, even though over the years of strife we in the industry have instituted best practices that now constitute world class stewardship. For example, we argue in North America about very small differences in forest management certification systems while > 90% of the world’s forests are not certified to any system at all! This is somewhat like fiddling while Rome burns.
Perhaps you remember former chief of the forest service, Jack Ward Thomas. His tenure came at the height of some of the most intense controversy of the last 25 years. In the spring of 1993, in the wake of President Clinton’s Forest Conference in Oregon, Thomas was named to head the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. His assignment was to use the best scientific evidence to resolve the spotted owl crisis in the Pacific Northwest. Thomas was later chosen to be the new Chief of the Forest Service. He served until 1996. Several years later, in testimony before Congress, Thomas discussed the impasse in the national forests: (I quote)“Fierce in battle, many of the eco-warriors have been unable to come to grips with the consequences of victory and are now reduced to wandering about the old battlefields bayoneting the wounded.” (end quote)
Our national forests are locked in a time warp. The lessons from our Founders’ great struggle to create a new nation are forgotten. There is no visionary breakthrough. In other arenas, consumer activism partnered with new technology has produced spectacular results. Look at air pollution. From 1970 to 2000 the gross domestic product increased 161%. During the same period, vehicle miles traveled in the United States increased 149%, yet energy consumption only increased 42%. Of specific relevance to environmental protection, aggregate emission of air pollutants decreased by 25%.
A world without products from the forest would be a world far more heavily dependent on non-renewable resources. Forest activists were successful in dramatically reducing national forest harvests. Yet the environmental community had no reconstruction plan – no Marshall Plan, further alienating rural communities. Thomas’ allusion to warfare is dramatic but appropriate. Sometimes the hardest part of war is “winning the peace.” The choices presented by stale, tired arguments need to give way to the fresh air of new ideas. Only very slowly are new alliances forming after the great forest battles of the last several decades.
So, I’ve discussed consumer guilt, ENGO relations. Now let’s talk about marketplace rhetoric. I recently attended a celebration – the 25th anniversary of a moderate ENGO think tank. The dinner party was in New York City, and attended by over 1,000 people. There were goody bags for the guests containing a long-life fluorescent light bulb, messages about the planet, a calculation sheet for personal carbon impact, and – wrapped in a plastic tube – a tree seedling. The seedling packaging bore a message about deforestation as one of the world’s most serious ecological threats. There was no mention on the package of the impressive forest-cover statistics for North America. No celebration of the importance of our renewable resource. I was disappointed that our partners in détente had not yet developed energy and passion around a shared vision and new story – of forest products as part of a sustainable resource economy.
Wood is good. Solid wood and cellulose fiber products sequester 56% of the carbon stored in the growing trees. Managed forests themselves store a “pool” of carbon and preserve habitat and shelter a diversity of plant and animal species. Managed forests are feeding grounds and breeding grounds.
How often have you heard, “save a tree”? In today’s marketplace it is becoming harmful rhetoric as large national companies wrap their own green campaigns in a promise that they can “save trees.” They are showcasing themselves at our expense—and their rhetoric is WRONG. We can’t save individual trees – they’re not immortal—they will fall and rot or rot and fall – but we can save forests. Now, with concerns about climate change, the need to save forests and use forest products is too compelling to allow fuzzy thinking about resource economics to dominate the marketplace.
A forest can be "saved" in two ways. It can be reserved from commercial uses, foregoing economic value but meeting other values such as set-asides for recreation or wilderness. Vast amounts of our public forests and 10 to 15 percent of our private forests are dedicated to this use. The second way to save a forest is to ensure the economic value of the trees. If the forest has economic value, the landowner will retain the value by actively managing for products now and into the future. Land and water will be protected and new trees planted soon after harvest. We—our industry—is not a threat to the forest. The "threat" to forestlands occurs when their value for timber is lost. If people do not use forest products, timberland values become diminished. Therefore, to save a forest one must use the trees.
Counter-intuitive – yes?
Impossible to convey? – NO.
Consumers can be savvy, and markets can be swift. Market research shows that high-end consumers want to purchase products made from wood that is derived from sustainably managed forests. Products from our certified forests have been embraced by the country’s leading retailers – Home Depot, Lowe’s, Staples, and Office Depot. It’s time to turn public opinion away from being against logging and toward being “for” wood.
We offer so much to be for in our industry. Sustainable forestry, carbon neutrality, biodiversity preservation, alternative fuels.
Here’s what I recommend we do:
- Help consumers make the connection to what they want. Recycling. Green and natural products. Clean water and wildlife habitat. Trees are the most remarkable, most highly renewable resource available.
- Reframe the debate. Rejecting wood products to save a tree is a false choice. We are part of the solution. When consumers buy more forest-based products, we plant more trees. And if they select those products more often, we grow even more trees.
- Go to the source. Public policy begins with public policy makers – elected representatives. You have a very good one in Representative John Peterson. We need representatives who engage in critical thinking, who embrace science, understand economics, and have confidence in human ingenuity.
At Weyerhaeuser, our mission is to release the tremendous potential in trees to solve important problems for people and the planet. We are inspired by trees. Their strength, vitality and unlimited potential to be transformed into useful products have guided our approach to business for more than a century. Trees and human ingenuity are equally precious, sustainable resources and we are committed to growing both.
The need for imaginative solutions to the world’s challenges has never been greater. We are doing things every day that contribute to the human good. So are you.
It is time for our industry to roll out new messaging – our true world value proposition: Use a tree – sustain the planet.
Thank you.
