We in the panel industry know that utilising wood to make panels locks up carbon. We also know that young vigorously growing trees absorb more carbon dioxide than older trees. We use wood residues and ‘waste’. We know that it is not some sort of crime to cut down – ie harvest – trees grown for the purpose of making our products. Or does a field of wheat deserve to be preserved lest harvesting it spoils the landscape or natural habitats for wildlife?
And we appreciate the decorative potential of wood in its natural form, as well as its amazing potential when surfaced.
Organisations such as the European Panel Federation – and several others – are tireless in their efforts to defend the reputation of panels and to meet the latest demands to reduce formaldehyde emissions, or meet new technical standards. The EPF’s
latest initiative to introduce a new standard for low emission boards is a case in point (p6), as is its continuing fight to convince the European Commission that wood is better utilised than burnt.
We also report the grave concerns of the US furniture industry over the CARB rules which I, and wiser heads than mine, believe to be a gross over-reaction to an at best uncertain threat (p8).
As regular readers will know, I am a ‘CO2 definitely = global warming’ sceptic too, but it does at least give us the ‘carbon credit’.
Now the industry is faced with spiralling costs for resin, energy and wood and is looking at a very tough market for its products.
If only the undeniable advantages of panel products would sell themselves. But they won’t – we all need to shout them from the rooftops and make ourselves heard where it counts – with the onsumers. That’s what your detractors do.
