Tag Archives: Wood

Trumping it along

That is the setting as President Trump proclaimed publicly “We don’t need Canadian lumber” and then Canadian wood product (lumber and utensils too) got a tariff hike. So as American lumber is needed in construction it would not be starting at a 25% depletion of that market (12 billion board feet) is now going somewhere else, Canada has had enough of this bully tactic and that is going to cost America a lot more than ever considered. It is about to cost America well over an additional $23 billion (source: Capital Briefs) and that was merely the start of this. Now the Financial Times gives us ‘Canada to reroute lumber exports as Trump’s tariffs bite’ (at https://www.ft.com/content/e56e8bb0-6dc0-4447-a907-e95164cec8e5) where we see “Canadian producers are seeking to divert around 10 per cent of the lumber normally sent south of the border to new buyers in the UK, EU and Middle East after the US president in September added a 10 per cent tariff on lumber, on top of an existing 35 per cent duty. The aim to send some 1bn board feet to alternative markets — enough to build at least 75,000 average size American homes — underscores how Trump’s tariffs are starting to reshape some global supply chains, although tensions between the US and Canada over wood exports have simmered for more than half a century.” With the added ““The US simply needs to fact-check better before they end up with a large shortage of lumber that may cause further housing shortages,” said Rick Doman, chair of the Forestry Innovation Investment board of British Columbia, which produces over half of Canada’s lumber. Washington’s escalating trade measures towards Ottawa have led to shutdowns and job losses in Canada’s C$87bn ($63bn) forestry industry, one of the country’s largest employers.” We see that Canadians have had enough of the voice from Washington DC, with Canada shifting towards Europe and Asian Markets, as well as stocking up on renewable products the setting becomes a global setting where America can now no longer fuel its own softwood needs driving housing prices through the roof (except for Florida where the Canadian snowbirds are putting their  houses up for sale, leaving in excess of 175,000 houses empty and deserted). That is the setting America no faces and whilst America accuses Canada itself as a dumping ground, they better come up with the evidence and as we see “Zoltan van Heyningen, executive director of the US Lumber Coalition, a lobby group, said the American timber industry could replace 1bn board feet of Canadian imports “without batting an eyelid”” that person better prove to be true to his word, because as it stands Canada is withdrawing over 3 billion board feet of wood. And the NAHB gives us that  “With American sawmills operating at just 64 per cent of capacity it “will take years” for US domestic lumber production to expand to meet industry demands” and in that meantime it will be shredding nearly every environmental document it has, because as I see it, the nearest place it can go to is Washington State and I reckon it will cost a few more pennies to get all these trucks up and going. In the meantime we see that “the US relies on a further 12bn board feet of softwood lumber from Canada for use mostly in housebuilding. Even allowing for spare US sawmill capacity and average recent American exports of 1.3bn board feet a year, the US is currently 3.2bn board feet short of meeting current demand, according to analysis by Fastmarkets, a price reporting agency.” And the ‘graphs’ all show that America depends on almost 30% Canadian wood, when that all falls away its own wood export collapses to zero. And that gives America a new mess to deal with, because Canada is eager to make long term agreements with Europe and Asia, which means that the next administration inherits this mess in 2028 and there is no going back. And as I see it, the bill will be passed on to Weyerhaeuser, West Fraser and Sierra Pacific Industries who will have to increase their produce by almost 50%, to make up for the shortages it faces, so in what reality did you ever see that happen? 

It might sound like an amazing option for these three, but in the American setting it does mean that nearly every environmental agreement will have to be torn up to even make this work. In the meantime Canada is expertly drilling into a $280 billion market and is seemingly doubling that within the next decade, as Canada is now moving from a resource player to more highly valued products, its margins will increase nearly exponentially and is becoming the new innovator on the block and that will ease the pressures that America thought they would hand them, their plan for Canada becoming the 51st state is blowing up in the faces of Politicians in Washington DC and that is the short and sweet of it for Canada. The hardship handed by president Trump is becoming the opportunity for PM Mark Carney. And Canada is loving the outcome of this setting, because as such high value products are to be made in Canada, giving them the setting from $255.20 towards a more then doubled market that is to come and as China replaces America as the number one export country, there will be additional settings there too. An opportunity that Canada will handle with care while in the same time increasing its export to Europe. As I see it, America merely shot itself in the foot (yet again) and that setting is to be crowned as the number one achievement for the Administration carrying that royal crown. It tried to diminish the economic footprint of its northern partner, instead it opened a new revenue handle and increased its export standing with both the EU and China. And as I see it, at no significant initial loss to Canada and over the next few years it will show a significant surplus to boot. 

A setting the Commonwealth prices and a big round of applause is handed in the direction of Prime Minister Mark Carney who is now seen as the big winner (perhaps he will accept a Nobel peace price in 2026?)

Well, you all have a great day and special mention for Capitol Brief and the Financial Times for their support in this. It is 02:00 now. Time for me to introduce myself to the procedure of snoring.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation

As I stated yesterday, lets take a look at the Emissions Gap Report 2020, I wanted to see where the lifestyle change to the super wealthy would solve the environmental issue as Tim McGrath rote in his BBC article, which I covered in ‘Hatred of Wealth’ Yesterday. There we saw in the BBC article ‘Climate change: Global ‘elite’ will need to slash high-carbon lifestyles’ the mention of  “And for the top 10% of earners, this would mean cuts to around one tenth of their current level. But for the richest 1%, it would mean a dramatic reduction”, in this he also makes mention of his friend at chapter 6, who was a contributor, as such we should look there. When we get there we get a few facts. As we see “Average consumption emissions vary substantially between countries. For example, current per capita consumption emissions in the United States of America are approximately 17.6 tons CO2e per capita, around 10 times that of India at 1.7 tons per capita. By contrast, the European Union and the United Kingdom together have an average footprint of approximately 7.9 tons per capita (see chapter 2).” Here we need to take a little gander. ‘per capita’ gives us a Latin term that translates to “by head”, and the UN does nothing without a reason, so why not ‘per person’ does it seemingly looks ‘more intelligent’? You see India has well over 1.3 billion people, America has 325 million people. Which now implies that one nation has a different pattern when we take the whole look. Anyhow, they come to the conclusion of “A range of estimates point to a strong correlation between income and emissions, with a highly unequal global distribution of consumption emissions. Such studies estimate that the emissions share of the top 10 per cent of income earners is around 36–49 per cent of the global total, whereas the lowest 50 per cent of income earners account for around 7–15 per cent of all emissions”, this is not a bad view, I do not agree, but their report does not need to give in to my considerations. It is here that we introduce the data from the European Environmental Agency (EEA) where we get “Half the damage is being done by just one percent of industrial plants”, as such in Europe 50% is done by 147 industrial plants? Where in this view do the wealthy users of private jets stand? You see on page 84 we see the only two mentions of Jet in the entire report, it is “IEA estimated that the mean production costs of aviation biofuels in 2018 were approximately two to three times that of fossil jet kerosene (IEA 2018)”, it is not precise, it is an estimation, and it reflects on cost, not on pollution, as such where did Tim McGrath get his data? I found mine in two minutes, and the BBC let him. So as we consider the impact of this report (which is better then I expected), as such I wonder what the issue was with the lifestyle of the wealthy when in Europe alone, 147 factories would have set the marker of 50% of the damages in Europe, so which (or how many) factories have a similar view in the US and India? I would add China to that equation as well, optionally Russia, so how much improvement can we get if we go after the right targets and not waste our time on the wealthy jet owners (as Tim McGrath want). 

It took two hours to look into the report, less than an hour to look at the EEA and when we consider this against the BBC article, how much time did they spend (read: waste) on something a person without clear present knowledge could debunk in a matter of minutes? It took me 5 times longer to type this point of view against me making the case. 

But this is not enough, Tim McGrath was making his point coming from the graphs on page 89, where we see “Per capita and absolute CO2 consumption emissions by four global income groups in 2015”, you see the chart looks really clever, but here is the data? And when we see the EEA stage where we see that 50% of the damage is allegedly DONE by 147 plants, who owns those 147 plants? This all matters as the report is optionally ‘hiding’ behind “Ivanova and Wood (2020) find that a large share of the emissions of the top- emitting European Union households are transport-related”. This might be true, yet the larger stage is not merely on the transport related part, it is how much of that emission problem is mass transport? Trains, metro’s, busses, how much of the transport emissions are they a part of? You see, the data their will be found lacking. Consider Spain, Italy and Greece alone, this against the UK. Are you seeing the larger picture and how convoluted the setting of ‘transport-related’ emission issues are seen when the EEA gives for Europe a clear stage of 147 industrial plants and 50% of the damage, in all this the entire wealth setting is merely a smoke screen, like the ones we see way too often and in this case the BBC is optionally a co-conspiror of the created smoke.

It is merely my point of view and feel free to disagree, but in this you need to make up your own mind on what is there and what is debatable.

 

12 Comments

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science