Does it serve climate protection to build more with wood?

The so-called biodiversity strategy stipulates that the member states no longer farm ten percent of their agricultural land. This includes forests. Von Elverfeldt is convinced: “A managed forest has a higher climate protection potential than an unmanaged forest.” Because the processed wood binds CO2 in furniture and in house construction. Other building materials such as steel, concrete or plastics, on the other hand, caused significantly higher emissions.

The biodiversity strategy is based on the concern that a loss of biodiversity in flora and fauna is just as much a threat to our planet as climate change. The World Economic Forum estimates that more than half of the world’s gross domestic product – in 2021 it was $95 trillion – is dependent or even heavily dependent on nature.

But does one really protect the climate by building with wood? Von Elverfeldt expects serious consequences if around ten percent of the forests are placed under strict protection in the future. From around 11.5 million hectares should then 1.15 million hectaresright are no longer managed.

The wood is already becoming scarce as a result of the Ukraine war

On the one hand, the supply is no longer guaranteed. Instead of around 70 million cubic meters of wood felled in Germany every year, it would only be around 50 million cubic meters. And that at a time when the material is becoming increasingly scarce due to the lack of imports from Russia and Ukraine. Construction companies have been feeling this for a long time.

On the other hand, 1.1 million people are indirectly employed with wood, especially in downstream industries such as sawmills and furniture manufacturers. Closing the gap with wood from abroad would be at the expense of the environment, says the entrepreneur. Because only in this country are 80 percent of the forests certified as sustainable. Then there are the transport routes.

>> Read also: Building without waste – How Interboden builds a recycling office building

Above all, more CO2 would be emitted if other materials such as steel and plastic were used due to the lack of wood. In the production of one ton, up to 600 kilograms of the climate-damaging gas are released. Trees, on the other hand, extract CO2 from the air and store it in their wood.

Von Elverfeldt therefore thinks it is better that more forest is managed sustainably than if some areas are no longer used at all and left completely to nature. That’s controversial, counters Susanne Bergius. The sustainability expert has written a book on biodiversity and also knows the other opinion: “Accordingly, parts of the forest really have to be left to their own devices in order to unfold their full effect on climate and species protection.”

But who is right? Sven Selbert, who is responsible for the topic as a consultant for forests at the Nature Conservation Union (Nabu), observes that the war against Ukraine is increasingly being used as an argument to explain the tense supply situation for wood. “Forest owner associations like that of Elverfeldts are currently torpedoing the European goals for the preservation of biodiversity with the argument of security of supply,” says Selbert.

Both sides agree that durable and sustainable products made of wood can contribute to climate protection. “We should use the limited raw material wood more intensively, but at the same time we must also intensify the ecological processes so that the forests can survive in the face of climate change and continue to supply us with clean water, flood protection and cool air in addition to wood,” says the expert .

At the same time, he points out that too much wood is not used for a long time in this country, but is burned directly after only a very short use or as energy wood – for example in formwork wood in concrete construction, in Euro pallets, packaging or wood chips.

However, since the living forest binds around ten times as much carbon as wood products and is at the same time the basis of all forestry, according to Selbert, stabilizing and strengthening it must now have top priority. In order to avoid a shortage of raw materials, wood must not only be used more efficiently, but the recycling rate must also be improved.

Severe damage from drought and pests

Even if more and more forest companies in Germany are working in a certified sustainable manner, there are still forest owners in von Elverfeldt’s association who “have not learned any lessons from the past and continue to rely on monoculture-type forests instead of natural mixed forests,” says Selbert. The German Aerospace Center has found that there are already 5,000 square meters of bare land in this country where spruce forests previously stood. These too cannot be turned into biodiversity zones in the short term.

According to the Federal Statistical Office, more wood was felled in German forests in 2021 than ever before, at 83 million cubic meters. One reason was the severe damage caused by the drought and the bark beetle infestation. In addition, the forest owners were able to achieve high prices in this long-term business due to the strong demand. After all, the trees grow for fifty years or more before they can be harvested.

In the 1980s, the price of wood was the equivalent of 130 euros per cubic meter, says von Elverfeldt, but then it fell steadily, so that even the Chinese were finally buying wood abroad. Due to beating after the bark beetle infestation, prices have landed at around 40 euros in the last three years.

Prices have only reached a level of around 100 euros since 2021, reports the entrepreneur, who expects further increases. Especially since the federal and state governments also rely on the building material. In Baden-Württemberg, for example, 50 percent of prefabricated houses are built with wood. “We have to use more wood,” warns the head of the association. “It is the only raw material that grows back and binds CO2.”

More: This founder enables forest investments via crypto tokens – how it works and what you should consider