Illegally logged wood from Cambodia likely ending up in U.S. homes(news.mongabay.com)
news.mongabay.com
Illegally logged wood from Cambodia likely ending up in U.S. homes
https://news.mongabay.com/short-article/illegally-logged-wood-from-cambodia-likely-ending-up-in-u-s-homes/
94 comments
From what I understand through cursory Googling, trading in illegally-harvested timber is a federal crime in the United States [1], and it's a strict liability, meaning everyone in the chain is subject to penalty via law enforcement. I don't know if unknowingly receiving illegal timber without penalty gives you standing to sue.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacey_Act_of_1900
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacey_Act_of_1900
Doesn't that mean that even the end customer is subject to liability via law enforcement?
So they're actively incentivised not to bring attention to it.
So they're actively incentivised not to bring attention to it.
Yes but there is an intent component so only if they didn’t exercise “due care.” A consumer might be liable if they buy something obviously illegally harvested like Cuban mahogany (unless it’s very old stock that predates the ban) from some rando on Craigslist but if they’re buying wood from a lumberyard or hardware store, they’re likely in the clear (IANAL).
If the feds are going after end users those same feds can't be trusted to use good judgement regarding the definition of "due care". Nobody wants to ruin their life being "right" in federal court hence people keep their mouths shut.
I know a bit about this from woodworking and having friends who deal with exotic species (and are licensed to collect windfallen exotic trees, etc).
Pretty much the only cases they charge are those involving endangered or critically endangered exotics (as defined by CITES). See, e.g, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/gibson-guitar-corp-agrees-res...
Things like underpriced "relatively normal" lumber due to illegal logging are usually handled as any other trade war.
Pretty much the only cases they charge are those involving endangered or critically endangered exotics (as defined by CITES). See, e.g, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/gibson-guitar-corp-agrees-res...
Things like underpriced "relatively normal" lumber due to illegal logging are usually handled as any other trade war.
I am no expert but I imagine "I hired a licensed contractor to handle this" would provide decent coverage for the home owner? Maybe I'm too naive.
Often times it isn't as that can be abused by bad actors that attempt to insulate themselves from liability by foisting it off on others. I think in a lot of cases markers of intent may be useful here - if you specifically request a class or species of wood that is restricted in logging you'd likely be held liable - "Oh I had assumed this specific rare tropical wood would be ethically sourced"... while as if you'd just requested a hardwood and contractor happened to source an illegally sourced wood the liability would likely be lessened.
In this particular case it's actually particle board so end customers were likely completely unaware it was illegally sourced.
In this particular case it's actually particle board so end customers were likely completely unaware it was illegally sourced.
If I were on a federal jury attempting to convict a home owner that had no direct knowledge of where the raw materials were sourced from, there's no way in hell I'd vote guilty.
No - strict liability does not require any intent, nor can you escape liability by saying you paid someone to handle it.
What provides decent coverage is that nobody is going to charge and convict you.
They only charge the cases with intent in practice.
What provides decent coverage is that nobody is going to charge and convict you.
They only charge the cases with intent in practice.
Which has the wonderful side effect of creating backlog of "we found no intent so we just kinda dropped the matter and didn't bring charges" cases waiting to be prosecuted when some careerist decides they're only N cases way from some milestone and is willing to ruin lives to do it.
I know a guy who got screwed over something like that.
I know a guy who got screwed over something like that.
So if I find illegal wood used in my house, I shouldn’t report it because I’ll be in big trouble? Yeah, okay. I’ll play dumb.
You likely would not sue anybody, because you have not suffered any loss. Unless you are being fined by the local building department for having such materials in your home, or can demonstrate some kind of loss of resale value, which would probably be difficult.
Enforcement of this kind of stuff has to happen much higher in the supply chain, e.g. by criminal prosecution of the importers for breaking the law, not civil claims by homeowners.
Enforcement of this kind of stuff has to happen much higher in the supply chain, e.g. by criminal prosecution of the importers for breaking the law, not civil claims by homeowners.
It was more of a thought exercise.
But yes, you could sue someone if there is false advertising happening.
If I buy wood from someone saying everything is ethically sourced, and it’s not, that’s more than enough for a lawsuit.
The “damage” I suffered is that now I need to rebuild my house because it doesn’t use the wood I thought I bought. (Obviously no one would do that in practice, but that’s how these lawsuits work)
But yes, you could sue someone if there is false advertising happening.
If I buy wood from someone saying everything is ethically sourced, and it’s not, that’s more than enough for a lawsuit.
The “damage” I suffered is that now I need to rebuild my house because it doesn’t use the wood I thought I bought. (Obviously no one would do that in practice, but that’s how these lawsuits work)
Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239, 129 N.E. 889 (1921).
In Jacob & Youngs, the homeowner contracted for a house with Reading-brand pipes but received a house with pipes of equal quality from a different manufacturer. The homeowner argued that they had suffered a “damage” because the builder failed to deliver what was specified. However, the court ruled that the cost to completely replace the pipes (tearing down walls, rebuilding, etc.) was disproportionate to the actual harm suffered, as the non-conforming pipes were functionally identical. Instead of awarding the cost of replacement, the court awarded damages based on the difference in value, which was negligible.
Applying this principle to your hypothetical: • If you contracted for ethically sourced wood but received non-ethically sourced wood, courts would first examine the actual damage caused by the substitution. • If the wood is of the same quality and functionality, courts might determine that the damages are limited to the difference in value (if any) between the ethically sourced wood and the non-ethically sourced wood, rather than the cost of rebuilding the house.
While a lawsuit for false advertising could succeed, the remedy would likely not extend to the drastic measure of requiring a house rebuild unless the difference in the wood’s sourcing directly caused a significant, material harm (e.g., structural failure or a substantial decrease in value).
The case emphasizes that remedies for breach of contract or misrepresentation are not always as sweeping as they might seem; they are often tempered by considerations of fairness and proportionality.
In Jacob & Youngs, the homeowner contracted for a house with Reading-brand pipes but received a house with pipes of equal quality from a different manufacturer. The homeowner argued that they had suffered a “damage” because the builder failed to deliver what was specified. However, the court ruled that the cost to completely replace the pipes (tearing down walls, rebuilding, etc.) was disproportionate to the actual harm suffered, as the non-conforming pipes were functionally identical. Instead of awarding the cost of replacement, the court awarded damages based on the difference in value, which was negligible.
Applying this principle to your hypothetical: • If you contracted for ethically sourced wood but received non-ethically sourced wood, courts would first examine the actual damage caused by the substitution. • If the wood is of the same quality and functionality, courts might determine that the damages are limited to the difference in value (if any) between the ethically sourced wood and the non-ethically sourced wood, rather than the cost of rebuilding the house.
While a lawsuit for false advertising could succeed, the remedy would likely not extend to the drastic measure of requiring a house rebuild unless the difference in the wood’s sourcing directly caused a significant, material harm (e.g., structural failure or a substantial decrease in value).
The case emphasizes that remedies for breach of contract or misrepresentation are not always as sweeping as they might seem; they are often tempered by considerations of fairness and proportionality.
Note that the linked website is about wood used for flooring, so a house would not need to be rebuilt. Only pointing it out because I was wondering how it could possibly be economical for 2x4s used for construction to be imported into the US from Asia when the US and Canada has a robust timber industry.
I would also guess new wood flooring installations has long constituted a very small proportion of flooring installation, with the more common material being some kind of plastic/laminate/synthetic or even tile.
I would also guess new wood flooring installations has long constituted a very small proportion of flooring installation, with the more common material being some kind of plastic/laminate/synthetic or even tile.
I would guess this stuff is laminate/plywood. That is the typical wood floor these days. Only the top veneer is the hardwood or exotic wood.
Actual solid wood plank floors would only be found in high-end custom homes now (though it was common in even middle-class tract/spec homes up until the 1970s or so, when wall-to-wall carpet became popular. For example my parent's suburban bi-level which was an extremely common middle-class house built in the 1960s has solid oak flooring except for the kitchen.)
Actual solid wood plank floors would only be found in high-end custom homes now (though it was common in even middle-class tract/spec homes up until the 1970s or so, when wall-to-wall carpet became popular. For example my parent's suburban bi-level which was an extremely common middle-class house built in the 1960s has solid oak flooring except for the kitchen.)
Solid oak was still surprisingly cheap as late as 2018. We picked up a bedroom's worth for $300 or so, and it will last as long the house stands. The installation is more expensive than the material.
I know of at least one New England house with softwood pine floors from the 1850s that still look gorgeous. They needed a serious sanding about 50 years ago, and they have been revarnished a few times the half century since. Give 'em five good coats of varnish every 20 years, and put rugs on the high-traffic walkways, and they'll last for generations.
Meanwhile, linoleum starts looking sketchy after a decade and carpet is just awful.
I know of at least one New England house with softwood pine floors from the 1850s that still look gorgeous. They needed a serious sanding about 50 years ago, and they have been revarnished a few times the half century since. Give 'em five good coats of varnish every 20 years, and put rugs on the high-traffic walkways, and they'll last for generations.
Meanwhile, linoleum starts looking sketchy after a decade and carpet is just awful.
> The installation is more expensive than the material.
That's exactly the problem, isn't it? If any middle class person can afford high-quality wood flooring for their middle-class house, you need something exotic for your mansion. Right?
You know what's crazy? I've got stacks of white oak and black walnut firewood. No furniture maker or woodworker will touch a felled tree in suburban or urban areas because it might have a nail somewhere in it. People will cut it into log lengths with a chainsaw and then beg others to come take it - as much as you can fit in your truck. For free.
PS - unless I'm missing something, solid oak flooring is still in the same pricing ballpark as engineered wood flooring, often times a bit cheaper. It's the labor cost for installation and then finishing that makes it pricier overall?
That's exactly the problem, isn't it? If any middle class person can afford high-quality wood flooring for their middle-class house, you need something exotic for your mansion. Right?
You know what's crazy? I've got stacks of white oak and black walnut firewood. No furniture maker or woodworker will touch a felled tree in suburban or urban areas because it might have a nail somewhere in it. People will cut it into log lengths with a chainsaw and then beg others to come take it - as much as you can fit in your truck. For free.
PS - unless I'm missing something, solid oak flooring is still in the same pricing ballpark as engineered wood flooring, often times a bit cheaper. It's the labor cost for installation and then finishing that makes it pricier overall?
>You know what's crazy? I've got stacks of white oak and black walnut firewood. No furniture maker or woodworker will touch a felled tree in suburban or urban areas because it might have a nail somewhere in it. People will cut it into log lengths with a chainsaw and then beg others to come take it - as much as you can fit in your truck. For free.
Nails aren't a big deal. Everyone is running carbide blades these days and you won't even know you hit nails. Nail content is more of a long term wear problem.
What pisses sawmill operators off is gate hardware and/or stupid ornate cast iron plant pot hanger that someone stuck up there 100yr ago.
The real problem with getting wood from suburbia isn't the metal it's that the cost of operating everything you need to operate to work efficiently just doesn't pencil out unless you're getting full truck loads of logs. Second, the lumber you'l get is rarely in a good shape. Suburban trees tend to have lots of space to grow and find sun. They're not shooting straight up at the canopy like forest trees are. Demand for ornate slabs is tiny compared to good straight grained lumber.
Milling lumber doesn't really pencil out except as a giant industrial operation or small scale cash only side gig.
Nails aren't a big deal. Everyone is running carbide blades these days and you won't even know you hit nails. Nail content is more of a long term wear problem.
What pisses sawmill operators off is gate hardware and/or stupid ornate cast iron plant pot hanger that someone stuck up there 100yr ago.
The real problem with getting wood from suburbia isn't the metal it's that the cost of operating everything you need to operate to work efficiently just doesn't pencil out unless you're getting full truck loads of logs. Second, the lumber you'l get is rarely in a good shape. Suburban trees tend to have lots of space to grow and find sun. They're not shooting straight up at the canopy like forest trees are. Demand for ornate slabs is tiny compared to good straight grained lumber.
Milling lumber doesn't really pencil out except as a giant industrial operation or small scale cash only side gig.
Only the trunk from a tree is useful for lumber. The branches have more wood overall, but they are firewood only because they twist so much.
> Meanwhile, linoleum starts looking sketchy after a decade and carpet is just awful.
Linoleum is a high quality product made from natural materials, you’re thinking of vinyl flooring. Well maintained linoleum flooring can last 40 years easily.
Linoleum is a high quality product made from natural materials, you’re thinking of vinyl flooring. Well maintained linoleum flooring can last 40 years easily.
We can live without exotic hardwood species splattering our floors. The look and feel of laminate/engineered wood can be quite good and it will only improve with time.
I’m not a conservationist but I don’t think it’s proper to cut down trees only to waste it on flooring if the replenishment of the tree species cannot be accomplished.
With that said, I think all floors should be made out of bamboo.
I’m not a conservationist but I don’t think it’s proper to cut down trees only to waste it on flooring if the replenishment of the tree species cannot be accomplished.
With that said, I think all floors should be made out of bamboo.
In the northeastern US and eastern Canada, pine, oak and maple are definitely renewable resources. Pine is easier and quicker than the local hardwoods, to be fair.
Using renewable wood for flooring is a carbon sink for the lifetime of the building, which can be a hundred years or more in New England. And like I said, I know of one softwood floor from the 1850s that's still gorgeous enough to photograph. And that wood had been abused over the century plus—it had been painted badly, and the building had been outright abandoned for a while.
Laminate and engineered wood is unlikely to see more than a quarter century without clever care, because you can't actually sand the wood. If you never let it wear down to the wood, I suspect you can carefully hand-sand, and bond varnish to varnish, and buy an extra 20 years each time if you never delay a refinishing. But that's just a guess.
Using renewable wood for flooring is a carbon sink for the lifetime of the building, which can be a hundred years or more in New England. And like I said, I know of one softwood floor from the 1850s that's still gorgeous enough to photograph. And that wood had been abused over the century plus—it had been painted badly, and the building had been outright abandoned for a while.
Laminate and engineered wood is unlikely to see more than a quarter century without clever care, because you can't actually sand the wood. If you never let it wear down to the wood, I suspect you can carefully hand-sand, and bond varnish to varnish, and buy an extra 20 years each time if you never delay a refinishing. But that's just a guess.
> If I buy wood from someone saying everything is ethically sourced, and it’s not, that’s more than enough for a lawsuit.
I don't expect most contractors to have any wording around ethical sourcing, and I expect they'd balk at me trying to add an ethical sourcing guarantee to our contract.
I don't expect most contractors to have any wording around ethical sourcing, and I expect they'd balk at me trying to add an ethical sourcing guarantee to our contract.
I would assume there'd be an actionable warranty of merchantability attached to the sale. The wood can't be fit for sale if the seller doesn't have a legal claim to the product.
[deleted]
What were the damages you sustained? That's probably the key question you must ask yourself. Whoever is responsible for those damages would be the target you should go after.
IANAL, but if you want to successfully sue someone, you have to show the court that you have suffered damages because of that someone.
If you got the flooring you paid for and it is of the promised quality, you don't have a legitimate complaint.
If the authorities were to seize your flooring because it's made of illegal wood, or fine you because of that situation, then you would have damages.
If you got the flooring you paid for and it is of the promised quality, you don't have a legitimate complaint.
If the authorities were to seize your flooring because it's made of illegal wood, or fine you because of that situation, then you would have damages.
> If you got the flooring you paid for and it is of the promised quality, you don't have a legitimate complaint.
I would think provenance is part of the promised quality.
I would think provenance is part of the promised quality.
> E.g. what if the liability was solely with the person who sold me the wood (even if they’re actually “innocent” and simply bought from a fraudulent distributor).
Why would the liability stop with them and not you? If only the last person in the chain is liable, the shouldn’t it be you who is sued by the people whose land was exploited for lumber?
Why would the liability stop with them and not you? If only the last person in the chain is liable, the shouldn’t it be you who is sued by the people whose land was exploited for lumber?
Because you didn't order the illegal Acacia?
It's not like elephant ivory - the wood can come from a number of places and look about the same. As an end user you asked for "wood floors" and you got wood floors, and it was up to the supplier to select the wood used in the flooring, while the supplier is also lying about the source so all parties post-supplier have deniability here, no?
It's not like elephant ivory - the wood can come from a number of places and look about the same. As an end user you asked for "wood floors" and you got wood floors, and it was up to the supplier to select the wood used in the flooring, while the supplier is also lying about the source so all parties post-supplier have deniability here, no?
How do you know the supplier didn't order "legally harvested" wood? If they did, then why is it more appropriate to hold them liable than the end user?
If you sell your house, would the new owner be able to sue you, then?
In NYS, you can sue the seller mostly based on what representations/disclosures they made at the time of sale [0]
If you disclose it as a material defect, then no they can’t sue you.
[0] https://dos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/03/dos-1614-f...
If you disclose it as a material defect, then no they can’t sue you.
[0] https://dos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/03/dos-1614-f...
IANAL but self-reporting would not likely benefit you; I would try to be as ignorant as possible about the wood type and its source. Knowing and not reporting might also be a crime. Unfortunately much of the US federal bureaucracy is more interested in prosecution than in justice.
Complex questions. Everyone intelligent has their own journey to, “People have agency, and obeying laws is cultural.”
>If I just built a house, and if there were some definitive test to know the wood came from somewhere illegally, who would I sue?
Or: who could sue you, to return the wood?
Or: who could sue you, to return the wood?
Or, who could bust in your door with a dozen SWAT team members at 5am some morning and drag your family out into the front yard in their pajamas, terrified, making them sit for hours. All because you tried to do the right thing.
[deleted]
> “They [Nature Flooring] themselves don’t know what it is that they’re selling,” a timber industry insider told Mongabay, adding that minimal testing is done to check the species or origin of the wood.
> When contacted, AHF told Mongabay in an emailed response that it “does not use any illegally harvested wood products.” “We have a rigorous supplier vetting and compliance program to verify all wood products are legally sourced. Any inferences to the contrary are simply not true,” AHF said.
There's a bit of a he-said/she-said thing going on here. It seems like it would be pretty easy to verify samples whether the wood came from a plantation or not.
> When contacted, AHF told Mongabay in an emailed response that it “does not use any illegally harvested wood products.” “We have a rigorous supplier vetting and compliance program to verify all wood products are legally sourced. Any inferences to the contrary are simply not true,” AHF said.
There's a bit of a he-said/she-said thing going on here. It seems like it would be pretty easy to verify samples whether the wood came from a plantation or not.
It's double-speak. Neither company cares; they're just relying on plausible deniability while burying their heads in the sand. They will change only if there's sufficient pressure (financial, regulatory, social or some combination thereof).
The "rigorous supplier vetting" of any corporation consists of checking which supplier is charging the least.
Notice they say supplier vetting, rather than "product vetting". Aka, they're vetting just the supplier, and is not vetting the product itself. This simply means the supplier could lie, and there'd be deniability!
I could see importing some exotic hardwood from Cambodia (if they have any), but why is is cost effective to make shitty plywood with anything other than cheap locally sourced timber ?!
It's not construction plywood - it's manufactured flooring. So you need fancy hardwoods for the veneer.
Because of collusion. Believe it or not, it's cheaper on the US west coast to buy some types of Russian* and Vietnamese plywood than it is US sourced sheets. The US plywood cartel is alive and well, apparently.
* sanctions, you say? what are sanctions?
* sanctions, you say? what are sanctions?
That cartel was apparently involved in Trump's tariffs on Canadian lumber. They increased the cost of building a new house around here by over 20%. We have a few $100 sheets of plywood laying around from back then.
People often associate illegal logging with general environmental destruction, loss of specific species (esp. long-lived hardwoods) and exploitation of protected national parks - which is all true.
The reality on the ground is just like any lucrative illegal activity, such as drugs: it is run by violent mafia cartels. The cartels bribe senior national politicians, terrorize/bribe local officials and threaten communities. Rival gangs often have shoot-outs in remote forest areas. Many poor/desperate young men who join the lumberjack crews never come back. The bodies will never be found.
The reality on the ground is just like any lucrative illegal activity, such as drugs: it is run by violent mafia cartels. The cartels bribe senior national politicians, terrorize/bribe local officials and threaten communities. Rival gangs often have shoot-outs in remote forest areas. Many poor/desperate young men who join the lumberjack crews never come back. The bodies will never be found.
> The reality on the ground is just like any lucrative illegal activity, such as drugs: it is run by violent mafia cartels.
Not always. Sometimes corruption is enough for the business to trive. (see eastern europe).
Not always. Sometimes corruption is enough for the business to trive. (see eastern europe).
This reminds me of the rampant fraud in the labeling and sourcing of seafood. See https://spu.edu/about-spu/press-room/Press/delgado-salmon-mi... For a recent example
Somewhat related, I just listened to this series about Cambodian art smuggling during the Khmer Rouge days. https://dynamitedoug.com/
I hope to visit Cambodia someday (I was about to do it in 2 weeks but then somehow I got tricked into taking a new job :-\).
I hope to visit Cambodia someday (I was about to do it in 2 weeks but then somehow I got tricked into taking a new job :-\).
I've traveled a huge amount of that part of SE Asia by motorbike. Super interesting country.
100% do not bother with going to Sihanoukville or Koh Rong... totally ruined eco disasters.
Frankly, I found the towns in Northern Laos to be more enjoyable, but the roads are so terrible it makes getting anywhere a real challenge and it isn't like you can go exploring off the beaten path there... tons of unexploded bombs.
100% do not bother with going to Sihanoukville or Koh Rong... totally ruined eco disasters.
Frankly, I found the towns in Northern Laos to be more enjoyable, but the roads are so terrible it makes getting anywhere a real challenge and it isn't like you can go exploring off the beaten path there... tons of unexploded bombs.
In August (2024) the US increased the softwood tariff coming from Canada from 8% to 15% so I'd say US wood corp buyers are desperate for cheaper wood.
It's a big place here in Canada and the crown (aka the gov) owns all the land not owned by private owners, First Nations peoples, corporations do not. The US government hates that so they set a tariff.
Funny there are no US tariffs on Canadian oil drilled for on crown land though. Even Trump said no to that. lol
It's a big place here in Canada and the crown (aka the gov) owns all the land not owned by private owners, First Nations peoples, corporations do not. The US government hates that so they set a tariff.
Funny there are no US tariffs on Canadian oil drilled for on crown land though. Even Trump said no to that. lol
We'd much rather give away our tax dollars to the military-industrial complex to go get the oil than risk consumers having to pay more at the pump on tariffs.
>give away our tax dollars to the military-industrial complex to go get the oil
Two problems with that line of thinking:
1) US is a net exporter of oil, so why engage in dastardly invasions to get it from elsewhere?
2) Talk of military industrial complex is often backed u by how much the US spends on defence. However, absolute dollar amounts are a really dumb way to compare defence budgets. They ignore country sizes, GDP sizes and purchasing power. Now, if you compare defence spending per person as a percentage of GDP, accounting for purchasing power parity, you get a much less flawed way to compare between countries. In other words, it's not enough to compare $100 of spending between US and Russia, for example, without accounting for the difference between what $100 buys in the US vs Russia, and how much of a person's annual output that $100 amounts to. US cracks the top 10 on that metric BTW, but just about.
Two problems with that line of thinking:
1) US is a net exporter of oil, so why engage in dastardly invasions to get it from elsewhere?
2) Talk of military industrial complex is often backed u by how much the US spends on defence. However, absolute dollar amounts are a really dumb way to compare defence budgets. They ignore country sizes, GDP sizes and purchasing power. Now, if you compare defence spending per person as a percentage of GDP, accounting for purchasing power parity, you get a much less flawed way to compare between countries. In other words, it's not enough to compare $100 of spending between US and Russia, for example, without accounting for the difference between what $100 buys in the US vs Russia, and how much of a person's annual output that $100 amounts to. US cracks the top 10 on that metric BTW, but just about.
If you want to go into that level of detail to compare relative military spending, there are going to be other factors to consider. Its a huge rabit hole trying to normalize data between countries with entirely different currencies, economics, political structures, etc.
For example, the US has the benefit of printing money in ways that other countries don't. I'm not even sure how you'd adjust military spending to account for the benefit of printing fiat as the world reserve currency, its more like you're playing a game that no other country is allowed to play.
For example, the US has the benefit of printing money in ways that other countries don't. I'm not even sure how you'd adjust military spending to account for the benefit of printing fiat as the world reserve currency, its more like you're playing a game that no other country is allowed to play.
This type of argument is frankly outdated. The US is net exporters of crude. We only import because of structural issues (for example for California it's cheaper to ship in oil as they refused to allow a pipeline to be built, or for example shipping in heavier crude that's cheaper and easier to make margin on in more advanced US refining plants).
And what about all the illegal old growth being logged in sanctioned areas in bc Canada?
once the lumber becomes my house I’m calling it successfully laundered
what isn't ending up in the west ?
Cambodia is mostly exporting their sand to Singapore as part of land reclamation projects. Environmentalists are super mad about it because the easiest sand to harvest is from sensitive Cambodian wetlands, which then gets shipped about 4 days south to Singapore.
The west's garbage?
Not sure if you were being sarcastic, but garbage is handled locally. Some garbage is sold to other countries, but they pay for it because they want it, it's not dumped on them.
Zero garbage is just sent elsewhere to be dealt with in some random way.
Zero garbage is just sent elsewhere to be dealt with in some random way.
10 years ago someone would be proposing how the blockchain could solve this problem.
I just sold an NFT of this comment.
That's clearly stupid. What we should do is use AI, this is a much better idea
I'll be launching my new app, Block Chainsaw, shortly.
Don't give them any ideas.
[deleted]
I'm okay with it if it's for guitars. Flooring, no way. That's just going to end up demolished in a decade or two, which is a waste.
What a crazy time that was. Gibson got raided by heavily armed agents, got wood seized, became viewed as the victims of political intimidation, paid a fine while refusing to admit guilt, got the wood back, made limited edition guitars from it, and sold out in minutes.
I find it somewhat ironic and hilarious that Americans depend on wood from across an ocean when Canada is right there and is covered by trees on at least 80% of its land
Canada is the largest foreign source of wood for the US, so I’m not sure where the irony is. They don’t grow much acacia or eucalyptus as far as I’m aware.
https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/wood-products...
https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/wood-products...
Why import at all? The US has more forested area than Canada does.
[deleted]
Use DNA and a blockchain to track the wood from plantation to store. This would be more transparent and harder to circumvent. Still potential for corruption at the first stage where it is entered into the ledger but then it should be reasonably resilient.
How would a blockchain help compared to a regular db maintained by a trusted party?
Lol and the blockchain NFTs were encoded urls because a compressed image is too heavy for the chain, but millions of DNA samples, logged into perpetuity. I don’t see how the original comment provides a sincere evaluation of the goodness of fit for that played out solution.
Then what about running the wood genetic sequencing labs in source countries. Explain how these developing countries are going to undertake a DNA based quality system for a highly fungible commodity so we can feel good about wood flooring.
Then what about running the wood genetic sequencing labs in source countries. Explain how these developing countries are going to undertake a DNA based quality system for a highly fungible commodity so we can feel good about wood flooring.
We pass all these struct labor and environmental rules in the US, then just import goods made with far worse labor and environmental treatment. This is why we need high tariffs.
Maybe we need the political will to credibly threaten with high tariffs, but you could scratch the same itch by sequencing the lumber's genome on receipt and checking it against a registry of plantation-grown species maintained by companies known to have paid for whatever environmental auditing we require of our lumber imports.
Trying to do that with tariffs creates a situation where only domestic companies are able to break the rules--which of course they're going to do domestically. I don't want to buy things that are harming Cambodia, but substituting them with things that are harming America is not any better.
Trying to do that with tariffs creates a situation where only domestic companies are able to break the rules--which of course they're going to do domestically. I don't want to buy things that are harming Cambodia, but substituting them with things that are harming America is not any better.
Requiring companies to sequence the genome on every lumber that they buy would seem a bit expensive, especially if they are liable if they get sequencing the genome wrong and sells products produced with illegal wood. The Government could do this as a vetting service for companies, paid through a tax on imported wood, but that would look very much like a tariff. That said, why not give companies and the free choice.
If we are considering domestic companies that are willing to break the law, neither tariffs nor regulations works. A company can smuggle to bypass tariffs, and they can ignore regulations.
If we are considering domestic companies that are willing to break the law, neither tariffs nor regulations works. A company can smuggle to bypass tariffs, and they can ignore regulations.
At any significant scale the sequencing cost would be much lower than the tariff. You wouldn't have to do it for every tree since they're all clones.
It's just nice because it's verifiable at any point in the supply chain without requiring oversight at every point. You'd only have to pay for the sequencing:
- when adding a new cultivar to the list of ones that are legal to sell
- during sting operations
The threat of being fined/jailed should be enough to get the market to police itself. No need to add bureaucracy in the middle.
It's just nice because it's verifiable at any point in the supply chain without requiring oversight at every point. You'd only have to pay for the sequencing:
- when adding a new cultivar to the list of ones that are legal to sell
- during sting operations
The threat of being fined/jailed should be enough to get the market to police itself. No need to add bureaucracy in the middle.
I think realizing that you're a large landowner who owns a company employing hundreds of people easily informs many of the opinions you espouse on your account.
Doubling the price of everything we buy is gonna be just GREAT for the economy. What do you mean my salary isn't also doubling?
Like the parent I have a hard time processing the narrative that environmentalism is an existential issue except when we need cheap Asian goods to undercut American workers.
I guess it’s a dead horse though since clearly this kind of cognitive dissonance has handed all branches of US government to those advocating for tariffs and the same populist sentiment is well on its way in the EU.
I guess it’s a dead horse though since clearly this kind of cognitive dissonance has handed all branches of US government to those advocating for tariffs and the same populist sentiment is well on its way in the EU.
I don't see how doubling the price of a product that will STILL be cheaper does anything except drive inflation.
I have family in the furniture industry. Most of these goods imported from overseas are only 10-20% than American made with the side effect of trashing the environment in the race to the bottom. 20 years ago it was all made in the USA. Building a coffee table is not like building a chip fab.
People will buy less of it. This is literally the degrowth approach for climate change mitigation put into practice.
In the US, you would sue the person you paid (who would then sue the middleman company who sold them the wood, and so on down the chain until the chain eventually ends).
It’s interesting to think what a market would look like if we removed indemnity and limitation of liability from contracts (which allows liability to easily be passed down to vendors) in certain cases. I think that’s how it works in certain other countries.
E.g. what if the liability was solely with the person who sold me the wood (even if they’re actually “innocent” and simply bought from a fraudulent distributor).
I can easily see how it would help to keep all liability at the closest link to the consumer in the chain, but then again how realistic is it that any home builder is going to (reasonably) be able to do enough vetting of distributors and suppliers to know exactly how and where everything was made.