These emissions translate to climate damages valued at over $560 million each year, or roughly $1,715 per ton of exported pulp. By comparison, current pulp prices hover near that same level, effectively wiping out any real economic gain once environmental costs are factored in.
According to CSE President and Senior Economist Dr. John Talberth, “It’s hard to imagine a more wasteful use of carbon-rich forests. In a rational economic system, this should not be happening. The problem is that neither Canada nor the US is putting a price on the climate and environmental damages associated with boreal forest clearcutting and factoring that price into trade and environmental policies. Our report helps lay the groundwork for doing so.”
Amid these findings, policy solutions are gaining traction in Washington. Border carbon adjustments (BCAs), featured in two bipartisan bills (including the PROVE IT Act), aim to reflect the true environmental costs of imports and reward cleaner production methods. These mechanisms would make high-carbon imports less competitive, encouraging domestic producers to innovate and cut emissions.
For the tissue sector, CSE’s analysis suggests that carbon damages alone could justify a 100% tariff on Canadian pulp imports. Such a shift would boost US-based non-wood fiber producers, opening the door for alternatives like hemp, bamboo, kenaf, and agricultural residues.
At the same time, groups like the Environmental Paper Network (EPN) argue that subsidies and tax breaks have long skewed the market in favor of large timber corporations. EPN points to mills like Dryden in Ontario — which clearcuts roughly 13,000 hectares each year — as examples of operations that benefit from policies out of step with today’s sustainability goals.
