Let’s agree, tracking embodied carbon is crucial to reduce emissions

We’ve heard it so many times before — how the built environment is responsible for such a large proportion of global carbon emissions — and we know how much change is required to decarbonise quickly enough to be Net Zero by 2050. So why aren’t we doing it?

I’m not saying there has not been progress — we are making a difference — but there are many issues that remain unresolved; hampering our opportunity to achieve the level of change needed to live in a cleaner, less polluted world.

Let’s start with some basics.

Before we get into the detail of what’s holding us back lets get a few things out of the way so we’re all on the same page.

Net Zero… what does it actually mean?

Net Zero is defined as a balance between the amount of green house gas emissions released into the atmosphere and the amount removed. Therefore, the equation must equal zero — nothing else is Net Zero — and zero embodied carbon (emissions associated with construction, extraction and processing of materials) is virtually impossible to achieve without some form of offsetting.

The rate of change required — it’s big.

According to the UKGBC, between 2018 and 2022 the UK built environment carbon emissions fell by 13%, significantly less that the 19% required to meet the UK’s Net Zero pathway. To put this another way, that’s the equivalent of the annual polluting output of 6.5 million cars. This level of progress means that the built environment needs to decarbonise nearly twice as fast to stay on track to meet the UK’s reduction commitments.

So what’s holding us back?

The Elephant in the Room — We’re still at the Measuring Stage and Tracking Embodied Carbon is Often Neglected

We see these statements virtually every day, “this project was a Net Zero first”. Read deeper and these often refer to operational energy. Whilst this is an achievement of sorts it often neglects embodied carbon — a source of carbon that can represent up to 20% of total building emissions and can be extremely difficult to reduce and almost impossible to reduce to zero.

Perhaps it’s the tools available, perhaps it’s understanding, perhaps it’s just easier to look at renewables, clean energy or energy efficiency to claim Net Zero has been reached. As these reductions improve the remaining proportions of a building’s WLC will be embodied carbon.

What can we do?

Embodied carbon needs to be reduced as much as is practicably possible by using low carbon and re-used materials, designing in disassembly and circular economy principles.

Tracking embodied carbon should be prioritised in the environmental targets at the beginning of every project. This should be continuous and progress should be measured against these throughout the design, procurement and construction stages.

Currently, there is no standardised requirement to track embodied carbon from cradle to grave — meaning when and if it is attempted it is sporadic and often “done for the first time” with a lack of clear direction or ability to continuously measure or understand the impacts of decisions throughout the process — which is critical to successfully reducing embodied carbon.

We don’t have the right tools to do it properly. Let’s be honest, can any of us say we do this well? We desperately lack a cohesive, joined up approach. Without the right toolkit we lack the ability to understand the information and the ability to make the right decisions to successfully reduce embodied carbon to a level, limiting the amount of offsets required to truly achieve a Net Zero building.

Data Dilemma

We love data, don’t we? Data, reporting, tools, transparency… it’s everywhere. We see these terms mentioned as much as Net Zero and decarbonisation, but what do they mean and do they help.

Like it or not, data and Net Zero data strategies are key to achieving our goals of living in a healthy planet. Ensuring that the right information is used in the right way is critical in ensuring we have enough information in front of us to make the right decisions at the right moments.

Data is a double-edged sword though.

Consistent approaches, standardised frameworks, high quality information and the right tools all used in the right way will undoubtedly help us decarbonise our buildings. Data for data’s sake is a dangerous comfort blanket that fools us into believing we’ve made an impact where often the reverse is true.

The inconsistency surrounding data collection and reporting is inevitable in a hugely dynamic and complex ecosystem, such as the built environment. With so many variables and sources of information, it is even more important that standardised approaches with commonality across baselines and databases are prioritised.

Carbon Should be The Decision Maker

How often has this happened? We start a project with exceptionally high levels of environmental criteria and the further we get through the design, procurement and construction stages this ebbs away to a point of nice-to-haves at best, or at worst a total loss of understanding at where we actually are with our initial targets.

Despite huge investments (of time and money) in environmental targets the way our projects are designed and procured often leads to either missed opportunities for carbon reduction or a general slide towards status quo scenarios where other factors are prioritised.

Cost is a common parallel, it is often a struggle to manage project costs through design, procurement and construction stages and carbon is no different — the major differentiating factor is that we lack the understanding and tools to be able to understand and visualise the impact.

Carbon needs to be a decision maker for our buildings. We need the ability to continuously track and check against project or organisational reduction targets in order to maintain total transparency throughout all the critical stages of a project.

Can any of us say we know what happens to our carbon emissions through the different stages of design, procurement and construction? It’s just not acceptable that we can’t do this effectively.

Regulation and Resistance

In a euphoric, parallel world regulatory change would be instantaneous, support the industry in its efforts to decarbonise quickly and naturally abolish change resistance. It’s reasonable to say that this is far from reality — we’re on our own and I think we know it.

The pace of change required is simply too fast for regulation to keep up. If we wait for requirements to tighten, for it to happen in a cohesive and joined up way, if we pin our hopes on being made to change rather than because we want to we can forget cleaning up the planet. It won’t happen.

We Can do This Better

We need to make it happen — and the dial is turning. Just not fast enough.

If I could have one wish (other than solving climate change in an instant) it would be that measuring, tracking and reporting embodied and operational carbon emissions seamlessly and effectively, leading to faster and greater carbon reduction, was a reality. It is possible, it has to be.

So let’s agree on one thing — we can do this better.

Take action in your company. Reach out to us to see how we can help you do better.