Article by Rich Donnell,
Editor-In-Chief
The world’s largest producer of oriented strandboard isn’t holding back on its criticism of United Kingdom electricity produced with wood biomass.
Norbord’s European operation, which has been dogging biomass power for several years, has ramped up its attack in recent months, saying it’s not fair for UK taxpayers to have to foot the bill; that the burning of wood is not a sustainable source of energy but rather creates more carbon emissions than burning coal; that the diversion of wood raw material for this purpose distorts the traditional wood market and drives up prices for timber and residues; and that the wood pellet procurement chain poses a threat to bottomland forests especially in the Southeastern U.S.
It’s no secret that our publishing operations also produce Wood Bioenergy magazine, in addition to Panel World, and that we organize back-to-back conferences every two years in Atlanta, Georgia—the Wood Bioenergy Conference & Expo and the Panel & Engineered Lumber International Conference & Expo. Dozens of exhibitors participate in both conferences. You see many familiar faces at these conferences who have switched from one industry to the other. We tend to view this dichotomy as a family affair.
Norbord’s arguments above are valid, but we’ve all read counterpoints to each one of them. If a government is pushing for renewable energy, shouldn’t it be expected to provide some measure of subsidization at least for a period of time? Shouldn’t the fact that forests have been sucking in carbon for years be figured in the carbon emissions equation? Didn’t the emergence of OSB divert wood raw material away from the traditional pulp and paper industry? How much timber that’s to be used in wood pellet production is really coming out of bottomland forests?
The arguments on both sides of the fence seem to have lots of merit. We should know, since we have to straddle that fence.
We do have one concern, however. As we note in an article on page 8, Norbord teamed up with several organizations and signed a letter to the UK secretary of energy, registering their criticisms and asking that the UK review its bioenergy policy.
The letter is signed by a Norbord officer, as well as an officer from the Wood Panel Industries Federation, which represents several European structural and non-structural board manufacturers, including Norbord. Fair enough. But also signing the letter were representatives of the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Dogwood Alliance.
When I think of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Dogwood Alliance I think of organizations whose mindset is against real forest management and timber harvesting.
We have no problem with Norbord and forest products companies voicing their concerns about wood biomass power. That’s what’s in their best interests. We also understand that signing the dotted line along with preservation organizations in this matter is a temporary political alliance. But it still makes us uncomfortable. We all know that tomorrow these preservationist groups will be signing the dotted line in protest of our industry.