There are two impacts. One is the direct market impact in terms of projects that may switch over to wood. I can't say we've seen an enormous amount of that happening yet, but it's still pretty early, despite the fact that this policy has been around for a while. Our other speaker from the wood industry talked about the educational catch-up component of a lot of these proposals. I think we're just starting to see an industry now that is a little bit more capable in the area of wood construction. We would expect to see some direct market impacts from a “wood first” policy that requires wood over other materials.
I think the more important impact is that we think it takes some of the sophistication out of the conversation around reducing carbon from the built environment. There is now this message out there that wood is by default the optimum choice if you're worried about climate change.
We contest that notion on a number of bases. Our product is moving very quickly in the area of low-carbon innovation. I firmly believe that in my lifetime we will have carbon-neutral concrete. We don't want to do anything to disrupt that, and we want people to understand that it's a process that's going on. We also want people to understand that it's not simply a matter of materials; it's a matter of materials, design, and all sorts of considerations that have to work together to give you the optimum carbon outcome. That might look different depending on whether you're building a house, a multi-residential facility, a commercial facility, an industrial facility, a school, or a hospital. A whole bunch of things need to be considered. To try to turn this into a black-and-white issue is a real disservice to the broader effort that we're trying to build. We really need to build a low-carbon and climate-resilient built environment. It's complicated. It's not as simple as material choice.