Making the Case for Innovation in Forestry
Prince George, B.C.- There is great potential for new wood fibre products and growing markets in non-traditional product areas says Derek Nighbor, CEO of the Forest Products Association of Canada and the potential can be realized with some support from the senior levels of Government.
He says from bio-energy to taller buildings made of wood, and even real wooden consoles for Lincolns, there are numerous opportunities. Nighbor is outlining some of those opportunities to a meeting of Canada’s Ministers of Forests in Dawson City, Yukon today.
The whole idea of forestry innovation aligns with the Federal Government’s thinking on climate change says Nighbor “Innovation in the forest sector really does help contribute to the whole issues of climate change. The intersection of innovation and climate change presents a very powerful opportunity for the Canadian forest product sector.”
But new products and market growth rely on one factor, a sustainable forest. With the recent decimation by the Mountain Pine beetle, the Spruce beetle threat, and dry conditions which make wildfires ravage hundreds of thousands of hectares of woodland, climate change is a major concern says Nighbor “What are the impacts of the changing climate in terms of acess to fibre, access to quality fibre?” He believes the forestry sector has valuable experience to share in terms of what climate change is doing to the forestry sector “But we also can be part of the solution in terms of some of the improved practices in the forest, in terms of greater efficiencies at the mills, and our ability to deliver, new innovative environmentally friendly products.”
The Forest Products Association of Canada has committed to a plan to remove 30 megatonnes of CO2 a year by 2030, that’s more than 13% of the Federal Government’s emissions reduction target. He says it starts by focusing on how every part of a tree can be used in a value added way “So part of the work in the forest is going to be getting away from slashing and burning, it’s finding other uses for every part of that tree.The other opportunity is in genomics in terms of higher yield forests more resistant species, those kind of things. That’s one part of the contribution. ” He says the other part is work at the mills where new efficiencies have reduced greenhouse gas emissions significantly since the early 1990s, largely because of the elimination of beehive burners and the closure of some mills “A lot of the heavy lifting has been done.”
He says the 30 by 30 plan “Was not something that was developed on the back of a napkin, We worked in detail with the Canadian Forest Service, we worked with the R&D folks in our member companies and we ran this by some of our third party experts and people we know in the academic field, so it’s ambitious, it’s pretty comprehensive.” They have pledged to report out the numbers annually.
The Federal Government had pledged a billion dollars over the next four years for innovation in the resource sector, Nighbor is pressing to ensure some of that funding will find its way to forestry innovation “There is a clear innovation play to ensure Canada is staying on top of and on the leading edge in bringing some of these new products to market.”
Nighbor will be on a panel at the International BioEnergy conference taking place in Prince George next week from the 15th to the 17th. “The main message I will be bringing is about the opportunity that does exist in bioenergy”. While B.C. is a leader in bio-energy, he says there is more that can be done ” I will present the possibilities that exist and why innovation is critical to growing the industry and making sure we have good forestry jobs in the future in BC.”
Could they squeeze “climate change” in there a few more times, 3 times in one paragraph? Geeze.. Maybe if the greenies of the world would allow the use of a pesticide that actually kills something maybe the pine beetle could be controlled and save the trees.
Nice to see scientific evidenced based discussion and decision making taking the lead when planning for the future of our industries such as the forest industry. This article shows us in no uncertain terms that the effects of climate change must be addressed and incorporated into the long term planning of our resource industries.
What amazes me is that we have some flat earth society types on this discussion board that are still in denial about climate change… and to those “fringe kooks”, please do not bother responding to my comment as I have no time engaging in infantile and regressive banter on this subject.
Typical, as soon as someone debates climate change the greenies cover their ears with their hands and go bah, bah, bah… I don’t know if this link will work but here is an opposing view of “global warming”, oh wait, that was changed because the planet was not warming up, it is now referred to as “climate change” so it is all encompassing so everything even forest fires started by humans can be blamed on “climate change”.
The Edmonton sun is run out of New York City by oil shills . Happily for me they are bleeding cash so bad that they could not survive without their oily handlers . If memory serves they bought it from the aspers just before they went under .
Just when I think Ataloss won’t say anything more ridiculous he does it again. The Edmonton sun is run out of New York City by oil shills??? How do you expect anyone to ever take you seriously?
Sun Publishing was formed on February 4, 1978 through the amalgamation of Toronto Sun Holdings Ltd and Toronto Sun Publishing Ltd. The two companies had been formed in 1971 with the launch of the Toronto Sun by former staffers of the defunct Toronto Telegram. On February 14, 1978, the Edmonton Sun, the second member of what would become the Sun chain, was announced through a partnership of Sun Media and Edmonton Sun Publishing Ltd. The paper was launched on April 2, 1978. In 1981, the outstanding shares of Edmonton Sun Publishing Ltd were acquired by Sun Media. The company purchased the Calgary Albertan on July 31, 1980 for $1.3 million and relaunched it days later as the Calgary Sun, with the same format and appearance as its sister papers.
In 1983, 50% of Sun Media was acquired by Maclean-Hunter for $55 million. That same year, Sun Media, with Maclean-Hunter’s backing, acquired the Houston Post for $100 million in an attempt to expand into the United States. It was sold for $150 million four years later. In 1987, Maclean-Hunter’s Financial Post weekly was sold to Sun Media for $46 million and was relaunched as a daily tabloid financial newspaper the following year. In 1988, Sun Media acquired the Ottawa Sunday Herald which it would relaunch as the daily Ottawa Sun.
In 1994, Maclean-Hunter was purchased by Rogers Communications. Two years later, on October 4, 1996, the management of the Sun chain under the leadership of Paul Godfrey purchased Rogers’ share of the Sun Publishing and renamed the company Sun Media. In 1998, the Financial Post was sold to Southam Inc. in exchange for the Hamilton Spectator, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, the Guelph Mercury, and the Cambridge Reporter. Also in 1998, Sun Media was purchased by Quebecor and maintained as a wholly owned subsidiary of it.
Quebecor Inc. is a communications company based in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. It was founded by Pierre Péladeau, and remains run by his family. Quebecor Inc. owns 75% of Quebecor Media.
Well said JG . This is what I have been saying for years . We need test forests run by horticulturists . the warming isn’t going to stop for many lifetimes . Planting the same trees (crops ) isn’t going to work in the long run . The climate is changing . Only the insane won’t see it . The trees can’t move north to stay within their growing ranges . We have to help them flee North . People are growing fig trees in Victoria . You couldn’t do that when I was a kid .
Oh, so everyone should only listen to CBC to get the cold hard facts? Of course the climate is changing, one only has to look at the mountains to see the rings from melting glaciers over the last million years. Not sure how oil companies or humans contributed to that. Why do we in Canada have to be frozen 7 months a year for all to be right in the world? I for one am enjoying the milder winters and one day hope to grow bananas in my yard.
Plants are not limited much by heat. They’re very much limited by cold. Trees throw seed every year. Well not quite every year, in colder areas they may go 10 years without producing seeds. That’s why Northwood (now owned by Canfor) took lodgepole pine and spruce seeds from the chilly northern forests and used them to plant a seed orchard near Vernon, where it’s much hotter and they produce seeds every year. Native coniferous trees will do fine in warmer climes but not in colder ones so they couldn’t take trees from warm zones and plant them in the cold areas. Because the seed from the Vernon seed orchard comes from trees adapted to cold zones, they do just fine when planted there.
You really don’t know what you’re talking about.
“Flat earth society types on this discussion board that are still in denial about climate change”?
Judging from what you posted, that would be you. Do yourself a favour and take the trouble to check out the science rather than blind adherence to the global warming religion.
Alberta is bringing in a carbon tax, looking a lot like the one in B.C.
In Germany the wind turbine farms are mostly concentrated on the coast of the North Sea where the prevailing winds are. In southern Germany (Bavaria) there is a demand for that kind of clean power. The state of Bavaria did not want to have its landscape disfigured by huge transmission towers and wires. So right now they are putting the infrastructure in for underground high voltage transmission lines. Once completed Bavaria will replace a lot of its fossil fuel usage with energy from wind. The grid allows the extra power to be better distributed, even some excess to be sold to neighbouring countries.
In fact, when the sun is shining and the wind blowing, there have been several occasions when the two energies were feeding more than 50% of the total energy requirements and a lot of clean energy was exported.
Might as well do it now rather than later, the future arrives a lot sooner than we think!
Wind , solar and vertical farms are springing up in Canada’s North , being lead by First Nations communities but it’s not in the fossil controlled msm . This is happening world wide .
Happening world wide only because of massive taxpayer subsidies and higher costs to consumers. Get rid of subsidies and suddenly demand for that kind of energy will plummet.
I wonder if anyone ever does the math on some of these ideas.
So, you’re going to utilize a slash pile rather than burn it to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
You will need a loader to load it into a grinder, which will pour the contents into a chip truck, which will drive 50 to 100 kms to a plant, which may use natural gas to dry the material, then it will go into another truck, which will take it to a rail siding, where it will be loaded on a train, then taken to a ship, which will take it to another continent, where it will be loaded onto a truck, taken to a distribution yard, loaded onto another truck, taken to a store, and picked up by someone who drives it home in their car.
I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, but it seems you throw in the name climate change and suddenly something’s a good idea. There’s a lot of fossil fuel burned getting slash from it’s current state to some other state. Please tell me someone bothered to calculate greenhouse emissions from a slash burn vs converting it to say – pellets – to have it burned somewhere else.
ski51, you make way too much sense… Just like one duck dies in a tailing pond and the greenies go ballistic, yet approximately 300,000 birds die every year from windmills and not a peep.
Tossing the phrase climate change around reminds me of being at a concert when the lead singer will say the name of the city they are in and everyone loses their minds, LOL.
Would you rather have that slash out in the woods being burned by a wildfire?
According to the above article there was a massive release of carbon greenhouse gases from the Fort McMurray wildfire, are you saying we should just forget about all that slash and let it burn?
I think it is a great idea processing that slash and turning it into stored energy and heat via wood pellets. By the way ski51, the entire transportation, shipping, distribution, and sales process you described at each and every stage involved the creation of JOBS, now what is wrong with that?
Did you read what I said. The issue – greenhouse gasses, the question, is more greenhouse gas released burning slash, or converting to some other purpose.
Are you saying if increasing greenhouse gasses will create jobs we should do it? Isn’t the issue the survival of the planet?
I’m not for it or against it, I just wonder if they ask the question? Right now we use water based paint to line the roads, and they suspect the greenhouse gasses from painting every year, is causing more harm that the oil based paint caused.
Do you have a problem with questioning the status quo? Sometimes it is wrong, but, if we’re not allowed to ask?
And slash fires and wild fires have nothing to do with each other. Slash is burned when the conditions are optimal. If logging companies fail to burn the slash piles, then, it becomes a wildfire issue. But what we’re talking about here, is do we burn it now, or process and burn it elsewhere – which is best for the planet.
I’m with all of you though, I hate it when they burn the slash piles. But they tell me the planet is dying, so, doesn’t that mean we should choose the method that causes the planet not to die? Or is climate change B.S. You tell me.
Burning it as slash or burning it as pellets results in the same amount of CO2 being released so your question is irrelevant in that sense. The question is, what about all the fossil fuel being burned to convert the slash to pellets and transport it to market? Wouldn’t it make more sense just to burn natural gas if you’re concerned about emissions?
If one burns 20% of the btu value of the wood in other fuels to process it and get it to market, then one is still capturing the other 80% of the btu from the wood that now doesn’t require a coal source for a power plant, since it would burn either way.
However people don’t buy wood pellets for climate change or to reduce carbon, but rather to reduce mercury poisoning in their local environment from coal fired power plants. Any climate change or carbon trading talk is merely a side benefit.
“”By Greg Fry Wednesday, June 8, 2016 @ 12:07 PM
Prince George, B.C. – Air quality in Prince George continues to show improvement though wildfires are posing a challenge.”
“ski51:”So, you’re going to utilize a slash pile rather than burn it to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
When wood waste is burned at high temperatures in properly controlled facilities with precipitators which catch fine particles it makes sense to truck it there. Letting it smoulder for days in burning slash piles it does not make sense.
The smoke from wildfires and from burning slash are the same kind of smoke. I called the city some years ago because just at the beginning of July the slash burning darkened the P.G. sky and the sun was blood red, the air almost unbreathable. I was told that wood smoke is a natural smoke and that it does not affect human health but maybe I should stay inside just in case! Stay inside in July? Bizarre, or worse!
Now we know better. Wood smoke is – believe or not – carcinogenic!
Anybody in favour of giving people cancer? Hopefully not.
Slash burning in July? Bull excrement! They don’t burn slash in July, that’s done in the fall when fire hazard is low to none. Moreover, those piles burn hot and the very small remnant that isn’t burnt on the first day produces very little smoke.
I remember those July smoke darkened skies. That was from forest fires. It was all over the news, even made the national news when it was dark at 9 am. You need to pay more attention to what’s going on if you’re going to comment.
Germany, high energy costs, industry leaving moving to China, India. Portugal, Spain almost broke because of their following the renewable mantra. Ontario energy costs rising steeply. California industry moving to cheaper Arizona.
China, India, developing countries c02 output negates all the planned reductions of the above and laughing all the way to the bank attracting industry.
Well when one mentions climate change in the context of CAGW seemingly implying there was no climate change before man it’s about money politics and power no science.
So people say things like how do you know a politician is lying, there lips are moving. But when it comes to AGW OR EVEN CAGW climate change and a polition says to fight it we must raise taxes and more rules no one even media such as this site does not question it. Why is that. You all now trust politicians?
You are confusing things: Why would politicians support a scam (as you call it) which requires the same politicians to raise taxes? It is a well known fact that politicians loathe raising taxes since by raising taxes they will have to face the anger and wrath of the voters! They may lose the election and get turfed out! End of the gravy train!
There have been climate changes before man had the power to influence the global climate. You keep saying that those who do not agree with you are denying climate change. That is patently false and misleading! What the scientific community has determined is that man’s burning of fossil fuels definitely has an impact on climate change. We are urged to step on the brake and start cutting down on getting our energy from those non-renewable resources and switch to new technology which utilizes solar, wind, tidal, wave and geothermal energy instead.
I fail to see any conspiracy by those scientists. But I am convinced that those who own the oil wells, gas wells and coal mines want to keep the fossil fuel thing going as long as possible because of their trillions of dollars investment in production facilities, refineries, bulk fuel carriers and so forth. Have you taken notice of that?
Those of you who give me thumbs down show your facts to refute me, facts, not bending over to authority from some individual who’s income depends on perpetuating the scam.
They can’t refute you so they won’t even try, but they sure will call you names. That’s what passes for rational debate for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming believers.
Lots of thumbs down on my comments above but not one attempt to refute what I said. Seems that my detractors don’t actually know much, if anything, on the topics I commented on but because of their blind faith in the nonsensical global warming religion, just have to do something to show their displeasure at someone telling the truth.
Those that complained about Harper so called muzzling of scientists, here is a thought. Now since so much power, false prestige money is awarded to researchers, scientist on the AGW bandwagon do you think they would tolerate anyone who would go against the grain? Not likely. That is why it’s mainly scientists who are safetly retired raise embarrassing facts about the scam.
You are too deeply committed to supporting the aims of money making cabal, which I have identified above, to even consider that perhaps it would be wiser and beneficial to the inhabitants of this planet to move ahead and start preventing what could be a very bad outcome in the long run.
What is your issue? Do you own investments in the fossil fuel industry or a business which relies for profits on doing it the usual way? Are you against paying a few dollars more in taxes in order to have cleaner air, clean water and unpolluted food?
In the long run those countries which embrace the new technologies are the ones that will be better off by having taken advantage of the situation by designing and building their own equipment like wind turbines and solar panels, geothermal devices and so forth. Perhaps even export the stuff. Many people will have jobs and pay new taxes.
You are getting upset when people give you a thumbs down. I have tried to find out what motivates you, without success and was called names instead. So what gives?
PG I am motivated by the truth and trying to get it out. The cabal you speak of is the 1.5 trillion climate cabal. Why is it so hard for you to look into it. Your belief in alternate energy shows me your ignorance in the facts of those forms of energy. They can be useful in niche markets but alternate energy is very expensive and inefficient. Just look at where ever those forms of energy are developed and you will see the expense and problems.
I have no investments in fossil fuel industry the “stuff” that has given us our standard of living.
Wind solar and geo will always be on the fringe. You talk about jobs, it was proudly stated that more people are now employed in the solar industry than oil, gas and coal. Sounds great heh well here is a fact conviently left out, solar on a good day supplies 1% of the electricity of the US. so it takes more people to supply 1% of energy than fossil or nuclear which supplies most of the rest. Effecient heh, and lower wages.
I hobbled along with the AGW,CAGW crowd until Gore came out with his discredited bs movie. When I saw that I thought what the hell. I then got interested in what was going well in couldn’t believe the lies and deception going on and how the media so called government watch dogs got sucked in.
See, I can think for myself and take no one at their word.
So PG think out of the box. Do you buy the first car a salesman throws at ya? Oh and you just keep believing those politicians.
Comments for this article are closed.