There remain many in Idaho that hope a rebirth of the state’s timber industry can provide a base for its rural economy in the forested region that starts in Boise and runs to the Canadian border.
For this to go beyond biomass, the construction industry is going to have to recover in North America. But Canada had taken much of the former markets away from the Pacific Northwest even before the housing market died.
If Idaho’s timber industry is to become a rural job producer again it will likely come from serving the China market. China has few forests and certainly not enough to meet the needs of its income-rising middle class.
Chinese lumber imports are expected to double over the next five years to 12 billion board feet. Canada is already gearing up to meet this surging market and so are Idaho companies.
Idaho is in a good position to tap into this new market. Its new trade representative in China Xu Fang, was a long time representative of the American Forest Products Industry Association in China. Idaho has had exports over more than $50 million in forest products over the last three years though it had dropped.
Don Dietrich, Department of Commerce Director said the state is helping Idaho wood companies build the long term ties that are necessary to do business in China. But the same political fears that erupted over Chinese investment that I reported Sunday , will complicate the state’s efforts.
Delicious
Digg
Yahoo
What about Canada?
It is still cheaper to get your lumber from Canada, as far as I know. That is a major reason why we don't have a timber industry in Idaho anymore. Don't get me wrong, I would welcome a revived Idaho timber industry, I just don't know if increased Chinese demand automatically turns into increased Idaho production.
For that matter, Siberia has a pretty good supply of timber, and great proximity as well.
Truth is hard to come by
garbage
The Rocks writes, "China has few forests and certainly not enough to meet the needs of its income-rising middle class.
***
Few forests???????? wthaytab?
Barker, try to read a little about your topic instead of writing something just because you didn't see many trees when you were there...
***
China forest land as a percentage of total-18% (and increasing!)
US forest land as a percentage of total - about 33%
China forest acreage- 426million acres
US Forest acreage - 747million acres
***
Their demand for imported lumber has to do with lots of things other than "not enough [forests] to meet the needs of its middle-class".
***
Maybe this is why Dietrich, director of the Idaho Department of Commerce said,“But what they are reading is in some cases nonsense.”
It's because some of them are reading YOUR nonsense!
Usable timber?
I guess you're right again, pimp boy. That must be why they are looking to buy logs in Idaho.
virgin Newbie 2
----------
Too literal? I'm sorry you feel I have a Literal Agenda!
expansion
try to expand your perspective beyond the canyon HC.
They are looking at buying Idaho timber and from other places too.
One place they are not importing much from much any more is Russia. Therefore, the previous Russian supply is being replaced with supplies from sources such as Canada and the US.
China's industrial complex is where ours was during the industrial revolution. Despite their huge production of everything the United States consumes, everything outside of those electronic production "centers" is severely lacking.
To think of China having efficient forest management is wrong. Only in recent years has it even been an issue- hence their forest acreage is increasing.
Hi-tech lumber mills like we have in the US- not so much.
From a strategic standpoint, is it better to use one's resources or buy others affordable resources. Hmm, let's look at the recent US oil policy to use our national reserves, to help on that question.
Their production is behind demand but it's not because they "have few forests".
Maybe you and your alter ego (Rocky) could learn to ask important questions such as "does that make sense"?
Drain America First policy sure didn't work
That was our domestic oil policy until 1972. It left us depleted and weak.