FSC Lumber

High stakes for dealers, builders and homeowners
If you ever want to elicit groans from dealers, just mention FSC (Forest Stewardship Council). Dealers pay fees to obtain the FSC “Chain of Custody” certificate, and then they pay more fees to renew that certification. Now, if you think the dealer groans about FSC are loud, just mention FSC to builders. Since USGBC’s LEED standard accepts only FSC-certified lumber, builders are forced to buy it, often at a premium, to achieve the LEED lumber point. Typically, builders overbuy FSC lumber, mistakenly believing it’s required throughout the entire LEED job. Not true; see below.

Do you get a greener wood with FSC than with other reputable wood certification systems?  Frankly, no. That’s one reason the SFI (Sustainable Forest Initiative) is fighting so hard for LEED recognition. The core of the problem is that USGBC considers SFI a so-called “industry-sponsored program” – and in the eyes of USGBC that somehow compromises SFI’s ability to protect forests.  At press time, BuildingGreen.com reports that the new LEED wood certification draft language would allow for “multiple levels of compliance, and assigns half-credit, full-credit, or double-credit to programs based on the degree of compliance.” FSC of course gets access to the full point. Non-FSC standards would settle for less.

Outsiders may look at SFI’s battle for LEED acceptance as inconsequential. But that’s a misconception. If SFI attains LEED acceptance — through a proposed USGBC benchmark system — it will affect lumber costs for LEED projects, by driving them down through competition. It will also reduce fees to dealers for FSC Chain of Custody certificates. Plus, as SFI’s CEO Kathy Abusow recently pointed out to me, SFI acceptance could bring recognition of all SFI-certified products to the LEED community, from paper to wood fiber of all types.

The Point of the MR7 Point
Today, the battle for LEED acceptance by SFI is focused on the MR7 point. (Yes, I know that wood and wood fiber may also qualify for the MR 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, and 5.2 points, as well as the EQ 4.4 point.) Today, FSC has a monopoly on that LEED MR7 point. If a builder used wood certified by SFI, American Tree Farm, or CSA—to name just three—he would be ineligible for that point. To show you how crazy this has become, here’s a story for you: You could build a stone house and install a fixed cutting board from an FSC source and obtain the same wood-product point as a builder who pays for FSC lumber for a 10,000 square foot home. Plus, to obtain that LEED point, the builder has to prove that he’s bought the wood from a certified FSC Chain of Custody provider, which the dealer must pay to keep current.

The goal of LEED has been to create greener buildings, and it has succeeded in large part, especially in the commercial sector. Kudos to them, and I genuinely mean that. But does the freezing out of SFI (and other standards) foster greener, more-sustainably harvested lumber and wood fiber? No, it doesn’t. The fact is, these so-called ineligible lumber standards achieve equitable results when compared to FSC. (Some argue that FSC is focused more on non-U.S.-based lumber and therefore is inherently compromised as a truly green standard by the carbon footprint of shipping wood products).

The 50% Rule
Let’s say that SFI fails at navigating the USGBC benchmarks for acceptance in the LEED standard. Well, in that case, here’s a perception about LEED. The MR7 LEED point requires that more that 50% of the value (not the quantity) of permanently installed wood and wood fiber be FSC-certified. Some LEED builders have recognized this and they use non-FSC lumber for the framing (“legally” amounting to 49% of the wood value). Then they buy the higher-priced FSC wood products for, say, cabinets, built-ins, and floors, to comply with the MR7 rule.  Even though that rule is public, it isn’t widely known, and I have met builders who mistakenly bid out FSC certified products for every stick in the structure, and paid as much as 20% more for FSC lumber that they weren’t really required to use.

At the end of the day, I hope USGBC opens its wood certification system to other standards, as other green building standards have done.  In my opinion, the FSC system does not demonstrably offer a greener wood product, and all the hoops that mills, distributors, dealers, and builders have to jump through just make it more expensive to build.

An iPod, a Lump of Coal, and Replaceable Trees

If you look across all the green building standards and product-certification systems, one consensus principle that repeatedly comes up is the use of products that are “sustainable.”

A sustainable product lowers pressure on the environment through the use of source materials that are renewable and/or sustainably harvested. The term “sustainably harvested” means the product, or the product’s components, are harvested in a way that doesn’t permanently deplete the source of the material, nor poison or ruin the surrounding area, nor—in detailed analysis—pollute the air on its way to market.

That’s a fairly academic description, so let’s take a practical example. I have an iPod and I suspect you do too. A green product? You bet! By downloading songs off the Internet, I help reduce pollution, because a download avoids the production and shipping of CDs and plastic boxes, and the printing of liner notes. The iPod is green in its application. 

But is the product “sustainable” if the iPod is made in a filthy plant in China and powered by coal generating plants here in the U.S.? In other words, does the manufacture and power generation for the seemingly green iPod poison the air we all breath? In fact it does, thereby ruling the iPod out as a truly sustainable product, its green properties notwithstanding. If you were to power the iPod with hydro or solar, and ensure that the factories are well-run, you’re talking green and sustainable. See the difference?

Let’s take a remodeling example. Consider a high-performance caulk. Let’s say it’s a high-VOC product that is nasty to use because of the fumes. That caulk can be very green indeed, if it stops air infiltration, keeps out moisture, and cuts down on energy costs and mold. But is the product sustainable if the manufacturing process is poisonous? Or if the product risks the health of the contractors, or the occupants who must smell it before the fumes cook off, when they first move in? 

No. So, something can be green in its ultimate application but not sustainable in its manufacture and initial use.

• Performs as a green product
• Has low or no toxicity, and
• Is manufactured in a sustainable manner

That said, sometimes, for lack of choice, you may choose to make a trade off. You pick a product that isn’t very sustainable during production, but is very green in its application. Take a highly durable, high-VOC floor finish. It’s very green in its application and use – because the floor doesn’t have to be stripped and refinished as often – but it’s probably not sustainably manufactured, because the high VOCs contribute to smog and other problems. In this situation, you have to look at the life cycle analysis of the product, and make a judgment of the greenest way to go, on balance. 

Take wood for another example. Wood is clearly a very green building product, but it’s only sustainable if the company that harvests the wood has a sustainable forest plan that doesn’t deplete the source forests, over time and on balance (FSC lumber / FSC wood: FSC is an independent, non-governmental, not-for-profit organization established to promote the responsible management of the world’s forests). Tropical lumber may be very green because of the durability, but not sustainable if harvested in destructive ways. Some pressure-treated lumber products, such as ProWood Micro, use a treatment process which has received Environmentally Preferable Product (EPP) status.

So, for green purists (and that’s a growing number of people) making the judgment of what to use takes research not only of the properties of the product, but of the corporate practices of the manufacturers. If the data is correct, this is a judgment that Americans are increasingly willing to take time for, as they increasingly vote with their dollars for products that are both green and sustainable.