The race to net zero (and an increasingly absolutist view of biodiversity) may threaten diapers and other hygiene products.
The current “race” to net-zero greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions is rash, and largely fruitless. Moreover, due to the colossal misallocation of resources it represents, it is likely to hinder rather than help humanity’s efforts to deal with whatever the climate may throw at us. There are signs (such as the recent elections to the EU parliament) that some voters are beginning to realize what, as a practical matter, net zero will mean, and they do not like what they see. To be sure, net zero remains broadly popular — sounds nice and all that — but that enthusiasm starts to wane when voters understand what today’s reckless, command-and-control version of net zero will mean (among other impositions) to their pocketbooks, to their freedom to travel, and, a little way down the road, to choose what to eat.
And now, it seems, the race to net zero (and an increasingly absolutist view of biodiversity) may threaten . . . diapers and other hygiene products.
The EU Commission’s website has details in its section on the Regulation on Deforestation-free products. These rules, maintain Brussels, are designed “to guarantee that the products EU citizens consume do not contribute to deforestation or forest degradation worldwide.”
The regulation is, the Commission explains:
part of a broader plan of actions to tackle deforestation and forest degradation first outlined in the 2019 Commission Communication on Stepping up EU Action to Protect and Restore the World’s Forests. This commitment was later confirmed by the European Green Deal, the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the Farm to Fork Strategy.
The ghost of Gosplan looks on enviously.
To be clear, Europe’s forest cover had increased, by (according to a Washington Post report from 2014), about a third over the previous hundred years. That trend is continuing. The reasons? Europeans use less wood, less land is taken up by farming (thanks to intensive agriculture, helped of course by “artificial” fertilizers) and urbanization.
Brussels, unabashed by any accusations of eco-colonialism, does not want EU citizens buying the wrong sort of wood products from elsewhere. But, as is so often the case with central planners, the EU’s rule-makers have not thought things through.
US paper makers are warning the European Union that a new law requiring them to trace timber to its origins risks disrupting $3.5 billion of trade and raising prices for diapers, sanitary pads and other hygiene products.
It will be impossible to comply with the pending EU Deforestation Regulation because pulp supply chains are too diffuse to track all trees, and there’s often a two-year lag between the time they’re cut down and when they’re turned into fiber, according to the American Forest and Paper Association. . . .
“The EUDR mandates that companies document the geolocation of all relevant plots of land for commodities traded in bulk,” said Adalbert Jahnz, a spokesman for the European Commission. “This requirement is not about tracing each individual wood fiber to a single plot.”
Even so.
The problem revolves around U.S. exports of fluff pulp, much of which comes (originally) from southern bleached softwood kraft (SBSK) from (fast-growing) loblolly pines in the southeast (where, incidentally, reforestation has been going on for a century). For a cheery explanation of how it’s made, check out this video. It’s not an exaggeration to say that many (most?) southeastern loblolly pines are, well, a crop, grown, then harvested. I look forward to reading about the EU’s efforts to put a halt to the carnage in America’s wheat fields.
Fluff pulp is highly absorbent, and, since the 1980s, has been made more so by superabsorbent polymers (something, I’ll admit — to, surely, no one’s surprise — of which I was unaware until about five minutes before typing these words). The good news is that their use reduces the need for fluff pulp itself, just another reminder of how human ingenuity can mitigate our impact on natural resources.
According to Bloomberg, U.S. suppliers of fluff pulp account for about 60 percent of the EU’s demand. Mark Pitts, the executive director of the American Forest and Paper Association, is quoted as saying that the regulation will increase costs “significantly” and contribute to inflationary pressures within the EU. He is calling for the law’s introduction to be postponed, and for the sector to be reclassified as a low risk to global deforestation, which would remove the traceability requirements.
The U.S. government has also asked for a postponement.
Another Bloomberg report goes into more details of what the feds have written, including this:
Officials in Washington identified several “critical challenges” for US producers, including that all countries will initially be categorized as having a standard level of deforestation risk, which could discriminate against more responsible forestry practices.
Companies are also hampered by the lack of an information system, and many EU nations have not designated regulators to enforce the rules. . . .
The Office of the US Trade Representative said America “does not contribute to agriculture-driven deforestation, and the current approach from the EU fails to consider the forestry practices in exporting countries.”
Central planning is what it is.
According to Bloomberg, Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark are the top suppliers of diapers in the EU, while P&G is the leading supplier of menstrual-care products.
The Paper Association’s Pitts is quoted as saying that (even before implementation) the EU law is having an effect on supply chains.
The EU prides itself on being a “regulatory superpower” (well, it beats having to make anything), but on this occasion, it would be well advised to slam on the brakes.