Embodied Carbon: A Comprehensive Review of Assessment, Mitigation, and Implications for a Decarbonized Built Environment

Embodied Carbon: A Comprehensive Review of Assessment, Mitigation, and Implications for a Decarbonized Built Environment

Abstract

This research report provides a comprehensive overview of embodied carbon in the context of the built environment. Embodied carbon, encompassing the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the extraction, manufacturing, transportation, construction, maintenance, and end-of-life stages of building materials and components, represents a significant, often overlooked, contributor to the overall environmental impact of buildings. As operational carbon emissions decrease due to improved energy efficiency and renewable energy integration, the relative importance of embodied carbon increases. This report delves into the methodologies employed for quantifying embodied carbon, critically evaluating their strengths and limitations. A comparative analysis of the embodied carbon footprints of various common building materials, including concrete, steel, timber, and emerging bio-based alternatives, is presented. Furthermore, the report examines a range of strategies aimed at mitigating embodied carbon throughout the building lifecycle, encompassing material selection, design optimization, construction practices, and end-of-life considerations. The influence of policy frameworks and market mechanisms in driving the adoption of low-embodied carbon solutions is also explored. Finally, the report assesses the broader implications of embodied carbon reduction efforts for achieving a decarbonized built environment, addressing challenges, and highlighting opportunities for future research and development.

1. Introduction

The urgency to address climate change has intensified scrutiny on the built environment, a sector responsible for a substantial portion of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Historically, the focus has primarily been on operational carbon, the emissions arising from the energy consumed to heat, cool, light, and power buildings during their occupancy phase. However, as building energy efficiency improves and renewable energy sources proliferate, the significance of embodied carbon, the emissions associated with the building’s materials and construction processes, becomes increasingly apparent.

Embodied carbon encompasses the entire lifecycle of building materials, from the extraction of raw materials to their manufacturing, transportation, construction, maintenance, and eventual demolition or recycling (Hammond & Jones, 2011). It represents a substantial upfront carbon investment that can influence the environmental footprint of a building throughout its lifespan, and even beyond, especially considering the legacy impacts of long-lasting materials. Understanding and mitigating embodied carbon is therefore crucial for achieving truly sustainable and low-carbon buildings, moving beyond a narrow focus on operational energy efficiency.

This research report aims to provide a comprehensive and critical examination of embodied carbon. It explores the methodologies for its assessment, compares the embodied carbon footprints of various building materials, investigates strategies for mitigation, and analyzes the overall impact of embodied carbon on the environmental footprint of buildings. It also delves into policy and market drivers for the adoption of low-embodied carbon construction practices. The report’s objective is to inform researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders involved in the built environment about the importance of embodied carbon and the opportunities for its reduction.

2. Methodologies for Embodied Carbon Assessment

Accurately quantifying embodied carbon is essential for informed decision-making regarding material selection and construction practices. Several methodologies have been developed for this purpose, each with its own strengths and limitations. The most commonly used methods are discussed below:

• Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): LCA is a standardized methodology for evaluating the environmental impacts associated with a product or service throughout its entire life cycle, from cradle to grave (ISO 14040, 2006; ISO 14044, 2006). It encompasses all stages of a building material’s life, including raw material extraction, manufacturing, transportation, construction, use phase, and end-of-life treatment (demolition, recycling, or disposal). LCA typically quantifies a range of environmental impacts, including global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential, eutrophication potential, and resource depletion. For embodied carbon assessment, the focus is primarily on GWP, measured in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent (kg CO2e). LCA can be applied at various scales, from individual materials to entire buildings.

  • Strengths: LCA provides a comprehensive and standardized framework for assessing environmental impacts across the entire life cycle. It considers a wide range of environmental indicators and allows for comparisons between different materials and construction options.
  • Limitations: LCA requires extensive data collection, which can be time-consuming and expensive. Data availability and quality can be a significant challenge, especially for certain materials and regions. Allocation methods for co-products and byproducts can also introduce uncertainties. The boundary setting of the LCA (e.g., cradle-to-gate vs. cradle-to-grave) significantly affects the results. Also, LCAs are inherently based on averages, potentially missing local variations in production processes.

• Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs): EPDs are standardized, third-party verified reports that provide transparent and comparable information about the environmental performance of a product. They are based on LCA methodology and conform to specific product category rules (PCRs) (EN 15804, 2012). EPDs typically include information on the product’s GWP, as well as other environmental indicators. They are increasingly used in the building industry to facilitate informed material selection and promote sustainable construction practices.

  • Strengths: EPDs provide reliable and comparable data on the environmental performance of building materials. Third-party verification ensures the credibility of the information. The use of PCRs ensures consistency in data reporting and calculation methods. EPDs also push manufacturers to measure and improve the environmental performance of their products.
  • Limitations: The availability of EPDs is still limited for certain materials and regions. The quality and scope of EPDs can vary depending on the PCR used and the data provided by the manufacturer. EPDs often only provide cradle-to-gate information, excluding the use phase and end-of-life stages.

• Carbon Footprinting: Carbon footprinting is a simplified form of LCA that focuses solely on quantifying the GHG emissions associated with a product, service, or activity. It provides a single metric, typically GWP, to represent the overall carbon impact. Carbon footprinting is often used to assess the carbon emissions associated with specific materials, construction processes, or building projects.

  • Strengths: Carbon footprinting is a relatively simple and straightforward method for quantifying GHG emissions. It provides a clear and concise measure of the carbon impact of a product or activity. Carbon footprinting can be used to identify carbon hotspots and prioritize mitigation efforts.
  • Limitations: Carbon footprinting only considers GHG emissions and does not account for other environmental impacts. It may not capture the full complexity of the environmental performance of a product or activity. The accuracy of carbon footprinting depends on the availability and quality of the data used.

• Input-Output (I-O) Analysis: I-O analysis uses macroeconomic data to estimate the embodied carbon associated with different sectors of the economy. It relies on national or regional I-O tables, which describe the interdependencies between different industries. By linking building material inputs to the corresponding economic sectors, I-O analysis can estimate the embodied carbon associated with the construction of buildings.

  • Strengths: I-O analysis is a relatively simple and cost-effective method for estimating embodied carbon. It can be used to assess the carbon impact of large-scale construction projects or entire building stocks. I-O analysis can capture the indirect carbon emissions associated with complex supply chains.
  • Limitations: I-O analysis is based on aggregated data, which may not accurately reflect the specific characteristics of individual building materials or construction projects. It assumes that all products within a sector have the same carbon intensity, which may not be the case. I-O analysis may not be suitable for detailed material-level assessments.

3. Embodied Carbon Footprint of Building Materials

The embodied carbon footprint of a building is heavily influenced by the choice of materials used in its construction. Different materials have vastly different embodied carbon intensities, reflecting the energy and resources required for their extraction, processing, and transportation. Understanding these differences is crucial for making informed material selection decisions that minimize the overall embodied carbon footprint of a building.

• Concrete: Concrete is one of the most widely used construction materials in the world. Its embodied carbon footprint is primarily determined by the cement content, as cement production is a highly energy-intensive process that releases significant amounts of CO2. The typical embodied carbon footprint of concrete ranges from 100 to 300 kg CO2e per cubic meter, depending on the cement type, mix design, and production process (Flower & Sanjayan, 2007). Strategies for reducing the embodied carbon of concrete include using supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) such as fly ash and slag, optimizing mix designs to reduce cement content, and exploring alternative cement technologies.

• Steel: Steel is another commonly used construction material, valued for its strength and durability. Steel production is also an energy-intensive process, involving the extraction and processing of iron ore, as well as the use of coke as a reducing agent. The embodied carbon footprint of steel ranges from 1,500 to 2,500 kg CO2e per ton, depending on the production method (primary vs. secondary) and the energy source used (Worrell et al., 2001). Using recycled steel (scrap) can significantly reduce the embodied carbon footprint of steel, as it requires less energy to process than virgin steel. Optimizing steel design and using high-strength steel can also reduce the overall quantity of steel required in a building.

• Timber: Timber is a renewable building material that can sequester carbon from the atmosphere during its growth. However, the embodied carbon footprint of timber varies depending on the species, harvesting practices, processing methods, and transportation distances. Timber products from sustainably managed forests have a lower embodied carbon footprint than those from unsustainable sources. Mass timber products, such as cross-laminated timber (CLT), are increasingly being used as structural elements in buildings, offering a lower-carbon alternative to concrete and steel in certain applications (Ramage et al., 2017). The carbon sequestration potential of timber should be carefully considered alongside its embodied carbon emissions.

• Aluminum: Aluminum is a lightweight and corrosion-resistant material often used in building facades and windows. However, aluminum production is extremely energy-intensive, requiring large amounts of electricity to reduce aluminum oxide to metallic aluminum. The embodied carbon footprint of primary aluminum ranges from 8,000 to 12,000 kg CO2e per ton, making it one of the most carbon-intensive building materials (Das et al., 2016). Using recycled aluminum can significantly reduce the embodied carbon footprint, as it requires only 5% of the energy needed to produce primary aluminum.

• Insulation Materials: Insulation materials play a crucial role in reducing building energy consumption and operational carbon emissions. However, the embodied carbon footprint of insulation materials varies depending on the type of material and its manufacturing process. Mineral wool insulation has a relatively low embodied carbon footprint, while foam-based insulation materials, such as expanded polystyrene (EPS) and polyurethane (PUR), have a higher embodied carbon footprint due to the use of fossil fuel-derived blowing agents. Bio-based insulation materials, such as cellulose and hemp, offer a lower-carbon alternative to conventional insulation materials (Ibn-Mohammed et al., 2013).

• Emerging Bio-based Materials: Bio-based materials such as hempcrete, mycelium composites, and bamboo are gaining increasing attention as low-embodied carbon alternatives to conventional building materials. These materials are derived from renewable resources and can sequester carbon during their growth. However, the embodied carbon footprint of bio-based materials can vary depending on the specific material, its processing method, and its transportation distance. Further research and development are needed to optimize the production and application of bio-based building materials.

The embodied carbon footprints provided above are indicative ranges and can vary depending on specific production processes, geographical location, and data sources. It is essential to use reliable and up-to-date data when assessing the embodied carbon footprint of building materials.

4. Strategies for Reducing Embodied Carbon in Construction Projects

Mitigating embodied carbon requires a holistic approach that considers all stages of the building lifecycle, from material selection and design to construction and end-of-life management. Several strategies can be implemented to reduce embodied carbon in construction projects:

• Material Selection:

  • Prioritize low-embodied carbon materials: Selecting materials with lower embodied carbon footprints can significantly reduce the overall environmental impact of a building. This involves considering the embodied carbon intensities of different materials and choosing those that offer the best performance-to-carbon ratio. The use of EPDs is essential for informed material selection.
  • Use recycled and reclaimed materials: Incorporating recycled and reclaimed materials can significantly reduce embodied carbon, as these materials require less energy to produce than virgin materials. Examples include recycled steel, reclaimed timber, and recycled concrete aggregates.
  • Specify sustainably sourced materials: Sourcing materials from sustainably managed forests or other responsibly managed sources can minimize the environmental impacts associated with resource extraction.
  • Utilize bio-based materials: Employing bio-based materials, such as timber, bamboo, and hemp, can sequester carbon from the atmosphere and reduce the reliance on fossil fuel-derived materials.

• Design Optimization:

  • Minimize material use: Optimizing the building design to minimize the quantity of materials required can significantly reduce embodied carbon. This involves efficient structural design, modular construction, and the use of lightweight materials.
  • Design for deconstruction and reuse: Designing buildings for deconstruction and reuse allows for the recovery and reuse of building components at the end of their lifespan, reducing the need for new materials and minimizing waste.
  • Optimize building orientation and passive design: Optimizing building orientation and incorporating passive design strategies, such as natural ventilation and daylighting, can reduce the need for mechanical systems and minimize operational energy consumption, indirectly impacting embodied carbon by potentially reducing the required capacity and complexity of these systems.

• Construction Practices:

  • Reduce construction waste: Minimizing construction waste can reduce the demand for new materials and minimize the environmental impacts associated with waste disposal. This involves careful planning, efficient material handling, and the implementation of waste management strategies.
  • Optimize transportation: Reducing transportation distances for building materials can minimize the carbon emissions associated with transportation. This involves sourcing materials locally whenever possible and optimizing transportation logistics.
  • Use low-carbon construction equipment: Using low-carbon construction equipment, such as electric or hybrid vehicles, can reduce the carbon emissions associated with construction activities.

• End-of-Life Considerations:

  • Design for durability and longevity: Designing buildings for durability and longevity can extend their lifespan and reduce the need for frequent replacements, minimizing the overall embodied carbon footprint.
  • Promote material reuse and recycling: Promoting the reuse and recycling of building materials at the end of their lifespan can reduce the demand for new materials and minimize waste disposal. This requires the development of effective recycling infrastructure and markets for recycled materials.

These strategies are not mutually exclusive and should be implemented in combination to maximize the reduction of embodied carbon in construction projects. The specific strategies that are most effective will depend on the specific characteristics of the project, including the building type, location, and budget. The integration of BIM (Building Information Modelling) tools can facilitate embodied carbon analysis and optimization throughout the design and construction process.

5. Policy and Market Drivers

Policy frameworks and market mechanisms play a crucial role in driving the adoption of low-embodied carbon solutions in the built environment. Several policy instruments can be used to incentivize or mandate the reduction of embodied carbon in construction projects:

• Building Codes and Regulations: Building codes and regulations can be amended to incorporate requirements for embodied carbon reduction. This can include setting limits on the embodied carbon intensity of buildings or requiring the use of low-embodied carbon materials. Some jurisdictions are beginning to incorporate embodied carbon considerations into their building codes, though widespread adoption is still lacking.

• Incentives and Subsidies: Governments can provide financial incentives or subsidies to encourage the use of low-embodied carbon materials and construction practices. This can include tax credits, grants, or preferential procurement policies.

• Carbon Pricing: Implementing a carbon pricing mechanism, such as a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, can internalize the environmental cost of carbon emissions and incentivize the reduction of embodied carbon. This can make low-embodied carbon materials and construction practices more economically competitive.

• Green Building Certification Schemes: Green building certification schemes, such as LEED and BREEAM, can provide recognition and incentives for projects that achieve high levels of environmental performance, including embodied carbon reduction. These schemes can also raise awareness of embodied carbon and promote the adoption of sustainable construction practices.

Market mechanisms can also play a role in driving the adoption of low-embodied carbon solutions:

• Demand for Sustainable Buildings: Increasing demand for sustainable buildings from tenants, investors, and occupants can create a market for low-embodied carbon materials and construction practices.

• Life Cycle Costing: Life cycle costing (LCC) analysis can be used to evaluate the total cost of a building over its entire lifespan, including both upfront costs and operational costs. This can help to identify the economic benefits of using low-embodied carbon materials and construction practices, which may have higher upfront costs but lower long-term costs due to reduced energy consumption or maintenance requirements.

• Supply Chain Transparency: Increasing transparency in the supply chain can enable consumers to make informed choices about the environmental impact of building materials. EPDs and other environmental labels can provide valuable information to consumers and help to drive demand for low-embodied carbon products.

The effectiveness of these policy and market drivers will depend on the specific context and the level of ambition. A combination of policy instruments and market mechanisms is likely to be most effective in driving the widespread adoption of low-embodied carbon solutions in the built environment.

6. Implications for a Decarbonized Built Environment

Reducing embodied carbon is essential for achieving a decarbonized built environment and mitigating climate change. As operational carbon emissions decrease due to improved energy efficiency and renewable energy integration, the relative importance of embodied carbon increases. In some new, highly efficient buildings, embodied carbon can account for more than half of the total lifecycle carbon emissions (Röck et al., 2020).

Addressing embodied carbon requires a paradigm shift in the way buildings are designed, constructed, and operated. It involves a holistic approach that considers all stages of the building lifecycle and incorporates a wide range of strategies, from material selection and design optimization to construction practices and end-of-life management.

Achieving significant reductions in embodied carbon will require innovation and collaboration across the entire value chain, from material manufacturers and designers to contractors and policymakers. This includes:

• Developing and scaling up low-embodied carbon materials: Investing in research and development to create new low-embodied carbon materials, such as alternative cements, bio-based materials, and high-strength steels, is crucial for reducing the carbon footprint of the built environment.

• Promoting the use of recycled and reclaimed materials: Increasing the availability and use of recycled and reclaimed materials can significantly reduce embodied carbon and minimize waste. This requires the development of effective recycling infrastructure and markets for recycled materials.

• Optimizing building design and construction practices: Implementing design and construction practices that minimize material use, reduce waste, and optimize transportation can significantly reduce embodied carbon.

• Developing standardized methods for embodied carbon assessment: Harmonizing methods for assessing embodied carbon across different regions and building types is essential for ensuring consistency and comparability.

• Implementing policies and incentives to promote low-embodied carbon solutions: Governments and other stakeholders can play a crucial role in driving the adoption of low-embodied carbon solutions through policies, incentives, and regulations.

Despite the challenges, reducing embodied carbon offers significant opportunities for creating a more sustainable and resilient built environment. By addressing both operational and embodied carbon, we can create buildings that are not only energy-efficient but also have a minimal environmental impact throughout their entire lifecycle. The benefits extend beyond climate change mitigation to include resource conservation, waste reduction, and improved human health.

7. Conclusion

Embodied carbon represents a significant and growing component of the built environment’s overall environmental footprint. As operational carbon emissions decline due to improved energy efficiency and renewable energy adoption, embodied carbon’s relative importance increases. Understanding and mitigating embodied carbon is therefore critical for achieving a truly decarbonized built environment and meeting global climate targets.

This report has provided a comprehensive overview of embodied carbon, encompassing its definition, assessment methodologies, the embodied carbon footprints of various building materials, strategies for mitigation, and the role of policy and market drivers. While challenges remain in accurately quantifying and effectively reducing embodied carbon, the opportunities for innovation and improvement are substantial. The transition to a low-embodied carbon built environment requires a collaborative effort involving researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and the entire construction industry value chain.

Future research should focus on further refining embodied carbon assessment methodologies, developing and scaling up low-embodied carbon materials, optimizing building design and construction practices, and evaluating the effectiveness of various policy interventions. By embracing a holistic and life-cycle-oriented approach, we can create buildings that are not only energy-efficient but also have a minimal environmental impact throughout their entire lifespan, contributing to a more sustainable and resilient future.

References

• Das, S., Ashok, B., Nanthagopalan, S., & Elango, V. (2016). Embodied energy and environmental footprint analysis of buildings: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 53, 1173-1182.
• EN 15804 (2012). Sustainability of construction works. Environmental product declarations. Core rules for the product category of construction products.
• Flower, D. J. M., & Sanjayan, J. G. (2007). Greenhouse gas emissions as a function of concrete composition. Cement and Concrete Composites, 29(6), 476-482.
• Hammond, G. P., & Jones, C. I. (2011). Embodied energy and carbon in new and refurbished UK housing: converging towards zero. Energy and Buildings, 43(2-3), 351-357.
• Ibn-Mohammed, T., Greenough, R., Taylor, S., Ozawa-Meida, L., & Acquaye, A. (2013). Embodied energy and carbon emissions of building materials: A review. Journal of Building Engineering, 4, 177-189.
• ISO 14040 (2006). Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework.
• ISO 14044 (2006). Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines.
• Ramage, M. H., Burridge, H., Busse-Wicher, M., Fereday, J., Reynolds, T., Shah, D. U., … & Worrell, W. (2017). The wood from the trees: The use of timber in construction. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 68, 333-359.
• Röck, M., Hollberg, A., Habert, G., & Kohler, N. (2020). Embodied carbon mitigation strategies for buildings–A review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 55, 102063.
• Worrell, E., Price, L., Martin, N., Hendriks, C., & Meida, L. O. (2001). Carbon dioxide emissions from the global cement industry. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 26(1), 303-329.