So America imports wood from Canada.
Does Canada have to pay the 34% tariff on the wood Canada exports to America?
Americans pay the tariff when importing the wood.
Wouldn’t this stop Canada from exporting its wood to the States because it’s now more expensive? America needs the lumber for building.
It will be more expensive for Americans.
America would have to start harvesting its own wood or pay more for Canadian wood?
They do harvest their own wood. The problem is that our wood is better for building homes with, because our wood has tighter growth rings (due to shorter growing seasons). That means the wood is structurally stronger and less likely to warp or twist.
Wouldn’t the tariff hurt America more than it hurts Canada?
Wood is much cheaper than concrete block, and is much faster to build with. A standard house wall, say 20ft long and 8 ft high (1 storey) would require approximately 20 2x6 and 4 sheets of plywood. Thats approximately $220 in materials at big box store prices (so much less for builders). In comparison, just the blocks for the cinder block wall (8"x16") are $900, plus mortar.
To cut studs, nail, raise the wall, and add plywood is a two man job for ~2-4hrs, assuming no windows or doors. That is easily a job for a few days if you use cinder blocks.
North America is where wood is cheap and plentiful. It’s also more sustainable anyway. There’s even been some moves to go back to wood in larger structures, using processing techniques that reduce its flammability.
Also since South America is the only other place in america, it might be more insightful to frame the question around that.
There is Central America and South America, both use concrete.
I can’t get my head around the fact that wood is cheap in North America? Is it because is a different kind of wood that the one you can find in the Amazon for example?
I can’t speak to the construction value of wood species that grow in the Amazon, aside from it being home to some species that are prized for high-end uses but are most definitely not sustainable or even economical to harvest at the scale needed for construction anyway.
But North America is covered with temperate forests loaded with a mix of hardwood and softwood, and boreal forest above that that are predominantly softwood. The hardwood species available have really good structural and furniture making properties while growing relatively fast (for large hardwoods). Most (virtually all) of the construction lumber is softwood, which grows very fast. It has no value for furniture nor is great for large beams and such, but it’s quite suitable for plywood, studs, and leftovers that make good structural sheet goods, paper products, etc. It also gets used as a substrate for hardwood veneers, stretching the dearer hardwood way farther.
What’s more, harvesting softwood is super easy. The ground is mostly firm and relatively flat, so large machinery can just roll in and start yoinking trunks, which are also pretty straight and tall. It’s relatively trivial to pile them onto a truck for transport to the nearest sawmill. The only processing done in-situ is stripping the branches which don’t make up much of the material – I don’t know if the branches are even collected for byproduct inputs.
Boreal and temperate forests can replace sustainably harvested softwood in as little as 30 years. Even shitty clear cutting methods are ready for the next clear cut in 50 years if seedlings are actively planted. That’s how a company like Irving can lay waste to the countryside and then brag about what great environmentalists they are because they plant so many trees. 🙄
Might be because North America is dominated by two very geographically large countries, so transportation is a big factor in our construction. Could also be tradition, and work experience.
Americans pay the tariff when importing the wood.
It will be more expensive for Americans.
They do harvest their own wood. The problem is that our wood is better for building homes with, because our wood has tighter growth rings (due to shorter growing seasons). That means the wood is structurally stronger and less likely to warp or twist.
Yup, but Trump is an idjit, so …
Thanks for explaining. Crazy.
Why is it that North America is the only place In america that builds with wood instead of cement?
Wood is much cheaper than concrete block, and is much faster to build with. A standard house wall, say 20ft long and 8 ft high (1 storey) would require approximately 20 2x6 and 4 sheets of plywood. Thats approximately $220 in materials at big box store prices (so much less for builders). In comparison, just the blocks for the cinder block wall (8"x16") are $900, plus mortar.
To cut studs, nail, raise the wall, and add plywood is a two man job for ~2-4hrs, assuming no windows or doors. That is easily a job for a few days if you use cinder blocks.
North America is where wood is cheap and plentiful. It’s also more sustainable anyway. There’s even been some moves to go back to wood in larger structures, using processing techniques that reduce its flammability.
Also since South America is the only other place in america, it might be more insightful to frame the question around that.
There is Central America and South America, both use concrete.
I can’t get my head around the fact that wood is cheap in North America? Is it because is a different kind of wood that the one you can find in the Amazon for example?
I can’t speak to the construction value of wood species that grow in the Amazon, aside from it being home to some species that are prized for high-end uses but are most definitely not sustainable or even economical to harvest at the scale needed for construction anyway.
But North America is covered with temperate forests loaded with a mix of hardwood and softwood, and boreal forest above that that are predominantly softwood. The hardwood species available have really good structural and furniture making properties while growing relatively fast (for large hardwoods). Most (virtually all) of the construction lumber is softwood, which grows very fast. It has no value for furniture nor is great for large beams and such, but it’s quite suitable for plywood, studs, and leftovers that make good structural sheet goods, paper products, etc. It also gets used as a substrate for hardwood veneers, stretching the dearer hardwood way farther.
What’s more, harvesting softwood is super easy. The ground is mostly firm and relatively flat, so large machinery can just roll in and start yoinking trunks, which are also pretty straight and tall. It’s relatively trivial to pile them onto a truck for transport to the nearest sawmill. The only processing done in-situ is stripping the branches which don’t make up much of the material – I don’t know if the branches are even collected for byproduct inputs.
Boreal and temperate forests can replace sustainably harvested softwood in as little as 30 years. Even shitty clear cutting methods are ready for the next clear cut in 50 years if seedlings are actively planted. That’s how a company like Irving can lay waste to the countryside and then brag about what great environmentalists they are because they plant so many trees. 🙄
Might be because North America is dominated by two very geographically large countries, so transportation is a big factor in our construction. Could also be tradition, and work experience.