Hacker News Reader

Comment by flexie | Hacker News Reader

36 percent of the US is covered by forest (1). 38 percent of the EU is covered by forest. That's EU with Britain. Without Britain, the percentage is higher (2).

I realize I use different sources, and that maybe all forests are not equally good for lumber production. But Europe has as much forests as the US. Yes, a lot of it is concentrated in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, so traditionally, that would have been less accessible to most central and western European countries. Also, traditionally, there was far more farm land. But nowadays, Europeans could access lumber as easily as Americans.

1:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_of_the_United_States#:.... 2:https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statis...

View on HN

US: 818,814,000 acres (3,313,622 square kilometers).

EU: 161,000,000 ha

ha = ac / 2.4711

818,814,000 / 2.4711 = 331,356,076

Ok, the US has roughly double the forested surface area.

EU pop is 448m compared to US' 328m. So with 30% more population and half the forested surface area wood does seem scarser in the EU.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=E...

Didn't check the numbers but I'd guess including European Russia or non-EU Balkans or Norway would totally change your results.

Then again, including Canada would probably as well.

I just used the parent comment numbers converted to same unit with the first DDGed population result. Comparing pct land forested seemed an odd ratio to me. Population seemed to be a better proxy for housing demand. Pop density and other factors would probably confound but tree per capita seems to matter than tree per surface area.

And that's why the US market is eating most of Europe's construction wood supply at the moment? Which, by the way, is sourced to a significant degree from the former Soviet Union. So comparing EU forest surface with the US is somewhat misleading.

If "at the moment" is the past year and a half then it's because lumber prices have tripled or quadrupled so of course it makes sense to buy far afield and ship if the price is lower.

Prices increased because the US and China are buying up everything, not the other way round.

Yes increased demand drives increases in price if the supply is limited. Production has been constrained everywhere for the past year and a half so buyers have had to source material from further away than usual.

Canada is right next door as well, with trees that can just float down the river

Unsurprisingly a lot of houses are built from wood in Nordic countries and Eastern Europe. It's just tradition limiting its use in some parts.

"Tradition", I think, understates things a bit.

In any region, there are going to be specific factors of soil, climate, infrastructure, etc. that all affect how you would build homes. Transporting materials is expensive, so the availability of local materials is also a factor, though less of a factor than it used to be.

Builders and skilled tradesman in any region are going to have knowledge and practical experience with these local factors, and with the techniques and materials that address those factors. And to some degree, you're better off with the type of house that they're really good at building than the type of house that they're less experienced with.

If you're comparing the US and EU though, I think you also need to account for culture and language barriers. Construction techniques and materials across the US are more similar because builders and tradesmen from Oregon, Arizona, Texas, and Florida can all communicate more easily than builders and tradesman from across Europe.

> Europe has as much forests as the US. Yes, a lot of it is concentrated in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe...

I'm pretty sure Scandinavian houses do tend to use wood. Likewise, less forested parts of the US, like Arizona, tend to have fewer wooden houses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com