Confusion around the difference between embodied carbon and whole life carbon assessments can make it difficult for individuals to identify a clear path for taking action. Clients don’t know what to ask for. Whilst designers and specifiers may struggle to identify an obvious first step where they can make a difference.
Even when someone – client or designer – does make a step, it’s easy to encounter a roadblock soon after that stalls further progress. In addition, the construction industry and its supply chains struggle to embrace change, especially when it comes to using new and unfamiliar construction materials and techniques.
However, while the entire construction industry is not going to change how it operates overnight, there are signs of collective movement in the right direction.
On an individual level, choosing to address whole life carbon and engage with whole life carbon assessments on a live project is an important first step.
The next step is to then acknowledge the impossibility of reducing the environmental impact of every single product and component on that one project. Attempting too much change in one go is overwhelming, and potentially counterproductive.
Instead, it is a process of learning through action; of understanding what works and what doesn’t and applying the lessons from one project to the next.
The construction industry has embarked on that journey with operational carbon. There are still challenges to overcome, not least in reducing performance gaps on site. Generally speaking, though, it can be said that we’ve learnt how to reduce the operational energy demand of our built environment.
Now, as an industry, we need to go through that same process with embodied carbon, so that we can deliver low whole life carbon projects consistently. The principal difference is the urgency of the climate emergency, which means we need to go on this particular journey faster than we might otherwise have done.
The good news is that the first steps along this new path have the power to deliver substantial reductions in embodied carbon. And once a big step change like that is made, it’s impossible to unlearn it – meaning the lesson is carried over onto future projects.
In operational carbon terms, a building’s performance is affected by its occupants. An ‘efficient’ building can be operated relatively inefficiently, and vice versa.
Embodied carbon is not subject to the same potential variation. It can’t be affected by occupant behaviour. Whether the embodied carbon is lower or not is entirely down to the design and specification decisions that are made.
Looking at all the different life cycle stages where carbon can be accounted for, it might feel daunting to wonder how you’ll address each one. However, there is a clear and obvious starting point.
About 50% of all embodied carbon is accounted for in the extraction of raw materials and the manufacture of construction products. Big step changes therefore come from selecting different materials, and then communicating those differences in specification so that the supply chain has to adapt to meet new requirements.
As such, the power to lower embodied carbon arguably rests with individuals in the first instance, and then collectively as everyone works towards a new shared goal or target.
Darren Evans is dedicated to making a difference, and our team has a track record of reducing embodied carbon and operational carbon.
We are also experienced in assessing whole life carbon, and companies and organisations across the construction industry recognise us as market leaders and come to us for advice – including major contractors like Bouygues UK. Our work is tailored to suit our clients’ needs and their sustainability targets.
Download our whole life carbon white paper to learn more on this topic, or contact us to discuss your project.
