TPA Urges Lawmakers to look into EconoSTATS study on Forest Stewardship Council in letter to Congress

Eagleville, PA (Courtesy Mortis, Wikimedia Commons)

The Taxpayers Protection Alliance has been looking into the United States Green Building Council (USGBC)’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green building certification system for quite some time and since 2010 the General Services Administration (GSA), the federal government’s landlord, has mandated LEED standards for all new federal buildings. This green building certification system can inflate the cost of construction by millions of dollars per building without providing proof of any environmental or energy-efficiency benefits. TPA has also been looking within LEED and there is another green building monopoly – on forest certification programs – that the USGBC is currently deciding whether to keep intact.  Currently, the USGBC and LEED only recognize the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification for wood products. Past studies have shown that FSC raises consumer costs 15 to 20 percent more while not providing a significant environmental benefit and a new study prepared for EconoSTATS at George Mason University, highlights the negative impacts of a FSC only monopoly on jobs. TPA President David Williams sent a letter to members of Congress urging them to look at this study in order to fully recognize the implications not only for the timber industry, but for other components of the economy as well.

Read the full letter here:

June 27, 2013

Dear Member of Congress:

Over the last year, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) has been investigating the United States Green Building Council (USGBC)’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green building certification system.  This green building certification system can inflate the cost of construction by millions of dollars per building without providing proof of any environmental or energy-efficiency benefits.  Since 2010, the General Services Administration (GSA), the federal government’s landlord, has mandated LEED standards for all new federal buildings.  Also hidden in LEED is another green building monopoly – on forest certification programs – that the USGBC is currently deciding whether to keep intact.  Currently, the USGBC and LEED only recognize the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification for wood products.  Past studies have shown that FSC raises consumer costs 15 to 20 percent more while not providing a significant environmental benefit.

A new study, prepared for EconoSTATS at George Mason University, highlights the negative impacts of a FSC only monopoly on jobs.

Specifically, the study examines the implementation of forest certification programs.  Forest certification programs are competitive and voluntary regulatory structures where forest owners choose a forestry certification program, and then, in order to obtain the desired certification, abide by its rules and regulations.

The paper, authored by Dr. Brooks Mendell and Amanda Hamsley Lang, evaluates how certification programs affect the ways in which private landowners in the South and Pacific Northwest of the United States manage their lands and what the implications could be for jobs and tax revenues.  It shows that a monopoly of the FSC program could jeopardize tens of thousands of American jobs and hurt economies in the South and the Pacific Northwest.  In the face of a recovering economy, policymakers should refrain from imposing such inefficient regulatory frameworks on any sectors of the economy that disrupt commerce and depress tax bases.

In Oregon alone, the state level implementation of a sole FSC standard could reduce forest industry employment by more than 31,000, decrease annual severance taxes by more than $6 million, and reduce economic returns to landowners by at least 31 percent. In Arkansas, FSC could reduce forest industry employment by up to 10,000, decrease annual severance taxes by more than $600,000, and reduce economic returns to landowners by at least 26 percent.

Given that forest land covers one-third of the U.S., the nationwide impact of such a framework could be staggering for landowners, consumers of local American grown wood, and the economy alike.  These findings should serve as warning against policies – such as the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED program – that promote FSC to the exclusion of other types of American timber.

Earlier research found that a FSC monopoly would lead to a $34 billion annual loss to the domestic wood and paper market, while increasing product costs for American consumers by as much as 20 percent.  A competitive certification market leads to better economic outcomes and gives landowners, business, and consumers greater choice.

We hope you will take the time to read this paper and consider the implications not only for the timber industry, but for other components of our economy as well.

Sincerely,

David Williams

President

Taxpayers Protection Alliance