Use of concrete, foam, and other high embodied carbon materials in buildings
Please help me here. I am having difficulty following all of the advice on helping reduce our environmental impact through the use of foam and concrete and steel in buildings. This seems very contradictory to me. Data I see says concrete produces between 7 and 10% of GHG’s that cause climate change) and foam has a pretty heavy embodied carbon data sheet as well.
I don’t understand why the Green Building Advisor is not recommending approaches that will sequester carbon . For example Chris Magwood seems to have some pretty credible research….’http://endeavourcentre.org/’ and Project Drawdown….has 10 Solutions to Reverse Global Warming.
Number 10 is – Build with wood
’10. Build with Wood
With the Industrial Revolution, steel and concrete became the main materials for commercial construction. Wood use declined, relegated to single-family homes and low-rise structures. But that is beginning to change with high-performance “mass timber” technologies, namely glued laminated timber (glulam) and cross-laminated timber (CLT). In cities around the world, they are being used to construct tall buildings that are strong, fire safe, quick to put up, and aesthetically appealing.
Building with wood has a double climate benefit. First, as trees grow, they absorb and sequester carbon. Dry wood is 50 percent carbon, so a building can become a longstanding carbon sink. Second, the process of producing glulam or CLT generates fewer greenhouse gases than manufacturing cement or steel, each roughly 5 percent of global emissions. To be a true climate solution, wood must be sourced through sustainable forestry, and the less transport the better. Check out: http://www.metsawood.com‘
Cellulose, wood fibre and even Hemp batts make a great alternative to foam.
Please help me.. What am I missing.
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part