Economy
Could wood be bad for the environment? That depends on policy
When considering the greenhouse gas emissions from the full lifecycle of anything, the relevant government policies should be factored in. Otherwise the results may surprise.
WHO HAS A greater impact on the climate: a person who regularly eats beef and builds their house with bricks and mortar or a vegan with a wooden house?
Intuitively, most people would think that the bricks and mortar dwelling beef-eater has a greater impact. This is also what the vegans and forestry industry will tell you.
For example, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) tell us to “fight climate change by going vegan”. Similarly, Planet Ark tell us to “make it wood — do your world some good” because “when sourced responsibly, wood can play a big part in helping tackle climate change by storing carbon and through reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere'”
Some might think that the slogans of lobby groups are hardly a reliable source of information for judging the relative climate benefits of products. However, in this case, the positions of the lobby groups are supported by the results of many life-cycle analyses (LCAs).
LCA is a technique for evaluating the environmental impacts (in this case, greenhouse gas emissions) of a product, service or system.