Making Real Zero Carbon Buildings with Carbon Storing Materials (What is Embodied Carbon?)

The climate emergency requires us to go beyond incremental reductions in GHG emissions and begin drawing carbon out of the atmosphere. And building materials can be an important part of a global drawdown strategy.

We made this short video to explain how carbon-storing building materials — those made from plant-based materials — can turn buildings into carbon banks.

Learn how to calculate the carbon footprint of your building with our BEAM estimator tool.

[dougmcfarlane]

What a brilliant video providing a clear, succinct explanation for how carbon-storing materials in building construction are an important part of combating the climate crisis!

[emrusso]

I love the simplicity of this recording.

In its simplicity, an important point is overlooked... The trees that grow, appear to grow pretty fast. From my understanding, newly planted trees do not begin to store a significant amount of carbon into the forest ecosystem until they are 30 years old. I fully support those who harvest trees intentionally and with respect. What I do not support is the mechanized clear cut logging of naturally grown forests promoted as "sustainable/renewable material." Land defenders who are disrupting the production of "renewable/sustainable" cedar shakes, are jailed on Vancouver Island to preserve the old growth rainforest ecosystems at Ada'itsx (Fairy creek).

How do we account for the loss of annual carbon sequestration from the trees AND the forest ecosystem? Removing trees (& forest ecosystems) that have been sequestering carbon for years is equivalent to selling an asset. The overall carbon sequestration balance goes down. We can not afford this loss.

I suspect there is a formula for true carbon sequestration related to "natural" materials that takes into account time. Straw grows in a season. In who's lifetime are trees "renewable"?

To remove trees, removes their ongoing sequestration from the equation and is the opposite of what we should be doing "to go beyond incremental reductions in GHG emissions, and to begin drawing carbon out of the atmosphere."

[elliotramsden]

Fantastic video. Extremely clear and visually appealing to understand. Thank you!

[crcurran]

Doesn't this assume the buildings made from both types of material only last 60 years? Wouldn't concrete homes like ICF not only survive fire, tornado, and animal, bugs, it would last longer. The thermal mass that is more comfortable to the occupants especially in severe heat like the coming climate change.

We have to ask... how is a house, not really, really well insulated, going to handle the higher temps and powerful storms in 2085? Is a house with a lot more thermal mass in the walls going to bear better when cost of power is much higher and more likely energy outages too due to climate change. Is a house with more thermal mass better for going off grid mid-century? Is it better under war conditions (Yes, this is a thing. THE USA is just lucky that war is almost non-existent on its shores but it's not immune.)

What if an ICF house lasts 100-140 years compared to the 60-100 year old wood home?

Locations that are prone to tornadoes and forest fires should consider 6" ICF so they we are not rebuilding these homes from scratch which has a huge carbon footprint. 2x4 flying in a tornado can go right through normal wood and sheetrock walls but not through an 6" ICF wall and it doesn't burn down easily either in forest fire.

You can build with a carbon intensive material but do it right so it lasts longer and is super high performance requiring less HVAC tonnage installed and only electricity to power it with solar panels.

[michaelenglund]

Wood is great but the amount of climate gases in the atmosphere is already too big when starting to build no matter the material. Building with wood still is a problem, but less of a problem than building with concrete.

[oceancape]

Why choose only 60 years. Maybe take a moment and focus on constructing buildings & homes that last 200 hundred years or more.

[beng]

Two critical things to be clearly checked.

1. Can plants store that much amount of carbon?
2. Additional carbon emission process should be added: plant to carbon storage material.

In the end, can this really offset whole carbon emission in the all value chain of the building construction process? (It stores even more than conventional construction)

[janjongert]

one critical remark: the surface coloring indicates a growing emission and storage in time which isn't true nor necessary to make the point. Here visualisation enthousiasm interferes with the correct meaning of the graph

[jonathancarter]

This is such a brilliant video. Thank you for it. I would like to know - if you produce polyurethane using 100% clean energy, how much carbon is stored / released over its life cycle considering how effective an insulation material it is and space efficient... and I assume energy efficient to transport and install.