Skip this site's navigation and go to its main content


Receive Updates From Heritage

Receive Updates From Heritage

The Heritage Foundation
Leadership for America

Our Vision

Building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.

About The Heritage Foundation

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. We believe the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing. As policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and principles.


Waxman Markey Cap and Trade’s Biggest Losers: Wood Products

Posted June 25th, 2009 at 1:51pm in Energy and Environment 6 Print This Post Print This Post

One of the advantages of The Heritage Foundation’s economic analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill is we can determine out who loses most of all the losers. We’ve detailed the negative impacts cap and trade would have on farmers, manufacturers and construction workers. This time, it’s the wood product industry.

Wood products encompasses everything from logging, sawmills and planning mills, manufacturing veneer and plywood, treating wood products, building wood and mobile homes, building wood containers and pallets, etc. Simply put, it’s everything dealing with wood, and Waxman-Markey hits the industry hard. Wood product employment falls by over 23,000 on average (2012-2035) due to Waxman-Markey climate change legislation. By 2035, cap and trade would reduce the industry by 68,573 people.

waxman-markey-wood-products

The industry is already struggling: “Booming timber towns with three-shift lumber mills are a distant memory in the densely forested Northwest. Now, with the housing market and the economy in crisis, some rural areas have never been more raw. Mills keep closing. People keep leaving. Unemployment in some counties is near 20 percent.”

Allegedly, the forestry industry could collect paychecks from the carbon offset program. If a company believes it’s cheaper not to reduce its carbon footprint, it can pay someone else to do so. For instance, a company could pay a logger not to cut down trees, or they could pay someone to grow trees, since trees absorb carbon. The problem is, it’s highly susceptible to fraud and corruption. This has been most evidenced by the EU’s carbon trading plan. As a result, electricity prices are up, windfall profits are plentiful, and carbon reduction is negligible. Consequently, environmental groups are upset knowing businesses profit, consumers suffer, and there is no chance for environmental change. Even the Italian mafia’s getting involved.

There is also the problem of “proving that emissions cuts are reductions that would not have occurred absent the offset payments is proving difficult. For example, India’s largest exporter of Basmati rice, KRBL, was set to receive several hundred thousand dollars’ worth of CDM credits a year for installing a $5 million generator to produce electricity from rice husks, a renewable energy source. Though the company claimed the biomass generator would not have been installed without funding from the credits, the senior manager at the plant admitted to the British Broadcasting Corp. that KRBL ‘would have done the project anyway.’”

For the logging industry, there is the lost opportunity of cutting down timber to make profit. It’s highly unlikely the offset program would recover the economic costs Waxman-Markey would inflict. And those offsets wouldn’t cover the rest of the wood products industry hurt by cap and trade.

If a tree falls in the woods after policymakers pass cap and trade, would anyone hear it? The loggers won’t, because they won’t have jobs anymore.

Tags: , , , ,

6 Responses to “Waxman Markey Cap and Trade’s Biggest Losers: Wood Products”

  1. Mel Parnes New Jersey on at said:

    I have 10 acres filled with fast growing cedar
    trees. Many of these trees are 20 to 30 feet tall. I am therefore sequestering carbon, many hundreds of tons of it. When can I get in on the ‘trade’ part. I would like to offset the increase in my electrical bill, fuel etc. I can make fence posts of these trees and the carbon would remain sequestered for at least thirty years after it’s cut down.

  2. Barb mn on at said:

    LIVE FREE OR DIE!

  3. Sean, Washington on at said:

    AYE! Live free or die! Hopefully we can live free from our coasts being under water within this century, and free from having to ship $300-400 billion overseas every year to buy millions of barrels of imported fuel. Lets also live free from having to send even more money to china and germany to buy wind turbines and solar panels because they’re governments have better private sector incentives than ours does, and that’s where the innovative companies go. Live free or die indeed!

  4. Michael on at said:

    A strange application of “Live free or die”. That’s suppose to apply to lack of onerous regulation. Cap and trade is pretty much death. It’s not going to just kill the timber industry, but pretty much every industry. It will increase the cost of everything, and widen the gap between rich and poor even wider. It will be fraught with corruption, because it’s built-in.

  5. Lucie-Bierig on at said:

    This brings me to an idea:…

  6. RouletSystems on at said:

    I cannot believe this is true!

Leave a Comment

In order to leave a comment, you must supply information for all of the required fields below (which are indicated by bold text).

Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.