As we electrify everything, upfront carbon emissions dominate.
Published September 22, 2022 08:47AM EDT
I try to distill many of the thoughts discussed on Treehugger into coherent lectures when teaching Sustainable Design at Toronto Metropolitan University’s School of Interior Design and The Creative School. The theme of my teaching this year is the importance of upfront carbon emissions—a subject I talk about often on Treehugger and a term that was actually developed on this site in a 2019 post titled “Let’s Rename Embodied Carbon” to “Upfront Carbon Emissions.” More recently, I wrote a post in which I developed what I called the “ironclad rule of carbon.”
What is the Ironclad Rule of Carbon?
As we electrify everything and decarbonize the electricity supply, emissions from embodied carbon will increasingly dominate and approach 100% of emissions.
This does not just apply to buildings, but to everything from cars to computers. I am increasingly convinced it is an issue that needs more attention, so here is the story again in a series of graphs.
Twenty-five years ago we talked about energy, not carbon. And embodied energy, if it was talked about at all, was not considered very important. As engineer John Straube noted in Building Science Digests, the operating energy was far more important. Buildings were leaky, and the energy supply was dirty.
Straube wrote in 2010: “The on-going consumption of energy to operate, condition, and light a building, as well as the energy embodied in on-going maintenance, is the largest single source of environmental damage and resource consumption due to buildings.”
He continued: “Scientific life-cycle energy analyses have repeatedly found that the energy used in the operation and maintenance of buildings dwarf the so-called ’embodied’ energy of the materials. Cole and Kernan (1996) and Reepe and Blanchard (1998), for example, found that the energy of operation was between 83 to 94% of the 50-year life cycle energy use.”
But a funny thing happened when buildings got more efficient because of tighter building codes and the growth of building certification systems such as LEED: the cumulative operating energy took much longer to overtake the embodied energy. It was such an obscure issue in 2009 that it had to be explained in MIT’s article:
“As the world struggles to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, much attention is focusing on making buildings—both existing and new—operate more efficiently. But John Ochsendorf, associate professor of building technology, thinks mostly about another, less-recognized aspect of the built environment: the “embodied energy” of buildings, that is, the energy consumed in construction, including the entire life cycle of the materials used, from the extraction of raw materials to the manufacture, transportation, and installation of products at the building site.”
John Ochsendorf also questioned the 50 and even 100-year life cycle energy use. “Conventional wisdom says that the operating energy is far more important than the embodied energy because buildings have a long life—maybe a hundred years,” Ochsendorf told MIT. “But we have office buildings in Boston that are torn down after only 20 years.”
While others may view buildings as essentially permanent, he views them as “waste in transit.”
As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rolled out its reports, many people started talking about carbon emissions instead of energy consumption. The IPCC came up with hard carbon budgets that we had to stay under to keep the global average temperature rise below 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius. It determined that we had to cut carbon emissions almost in half by 2030 and to almost zero by 2050. It became immediately obvious that talking about 50-year life cycles made no sense.
In 2019, I wrote “Forget About Life-Cycle Analyses, We Don’t Have Time,” concluding, “We have to concentrate our minds on reducing our carbon dioxide output by half in the next dozen years. That is our life-cycle.”
Also around 2018, Chris Magwood, a green builder in Ontario, released some research he had done on “embodied carbon,” the term many people were beginning to use instead of embodied energy since they were finally realizing that carbon is a bigger problem than energy. It was counterintuitive and jaw-dropping. Because so much greenhouse gas was emitted in the making of foam insulation, even on a life cycle analysis of 30 years, the high-performance building with over twice the insulation had greater emissions than the crappy house built to the conventional building code. As a builder in Boston noted in an article about Magwood: “It was like a light turning on. We’ve been doing everything wrong.”
These carbon emissions, the big orange bar, all happen at the beginning, upfront. And while “embodied energy” made some sense because the energy was going in to making the thing, “embodied carbon” made no sense, because the carbon was going out into the atmosphere. This is why a Twitter discussion among architects Elrond Burrell, Jorge Chapa, and myself came up with “upfront carbon emissions.”
By 2020, a lot of people were talking about different materials and their upfront carbon emissions. Stephanie Carlisle of Kieran Timberlake wrote for Fast Company:
“We’ve come to recognize that it is not enough for architects and engineers to focus solely on operational carbon…. When we look at new buildings anticipated to be built between now and 2050, embodied carbon, also known as “upfront carbon” because it is released before a building is even occupied, is projected to account for nearly half of total new construction emissions. For practicing architects, engineers, policymakers, and anyone who cares about climate strategy, this should give us pause.”
In fact, many people thought that Carlisle is way low at half of the carbon emissions. The Architects Climate Action Network in the United Kingdom did a study, The Climate Footprint of Construction, and concluded that “the embodied carbon of a building can be up to 75% of its total emissions over a typical 60-year lifetime.”
I read this report and had trouble believing it at first, but realized it is not just our buildings that are changing, but also our energy supply. Our electricity is decarbonizing as we get more renewables and the prices of wind and solar keep dropping. Then there is the heat pump revolution, where we can pull heat out of the air or ground and run on rooftop solar. Our storage of renewables is getting better and cheaper. And I had an epiphany, writing in February, 2021:
“It’s obvious: if the building has no operating emissions, then everything is embodied. That’s why when you look at what is being built now, and where codes are going in terms of energy efficiency, dealing with embodied carbon becomes critically important; it will dominate the carbon footprint of our buildings. And the 75% number used in the ACAN report looks not only plausible but conservative.”
A few months later, while writing about the importance of measuring the embodied carbon in everything, I concluded that the issue was even bigger, writing: “As more of our stuff, from cars to tools, run on electricity, as our electrical grids get cleaner, as our building efficiencies get better, then the issues of embodied or upfront carbon become more important. This appears to be a fundamental principle that applies to everything, which I will pretentiously call the ‘ironclad rule of carbon.'”
I kind of buried the lede in that story because I did think calling this an ironclad rule was pretentious, and, at the time, I thought I might be overstating the case for dramatic effect. But I am more convinced than ever that this rule applies—not just to buildings, but to everything.
So forgive the crappy drawing I did last night to make the point, but if you run your house on gas, the operating carbon is significant. If you run your heat pump on dirty electricity, it will eventually catch up. But if you live in hydro-powered Montreal or Seattle and have a heat pump, you have almost no operating emissions. Your home is 100% upfront carbon.
I don’t care if you don’t insulate it at all—well, I do, but I am trying to make a point—your electric bill will, but it won’t be burping out any carbon emissions. But what you build it from matters a lot and how much stuff is in it matters.
The Ironclad Rule Applies to Everything
Buildings are a major source of upfront carbon emissions, but they are not the only source and some things are already approaching 100% upfront. Take my iPhone: Apple publishes the life cycle data and calculates the source materials and make to be 83% and the transport to be 3%, both of which I consider to be upfront carbon. They list the use (the energy consumed to run it) at 12% of the 80 kilograms of carbon emissions. But, according to their footnotes, “Geographic differences in the power grid mix have been accounted for.”
They are probably using the average American carbon estimate for the grid, which according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, is 0.85 pounds of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. But again, if you live in Seattle or Montreal, the upfront carbon approaches 100%. This is why I am not lining up for a new iPhone 14—I want to avoid those upfront carbon emissions.
Then there is the issue of electric cars and trucks. There aren’t a lot of life cycle data available, but Transport and Environment looked at the question of electric cars and found that even though the electric car had upfront carbon of 8.6 metric tons compared to the gas car with 5.4 metric tons, the electric car pulled away in terms of total emissions at just 20,000 kilometers. But I have added a line for the Ford F-150 Lightning, which James Gilboy and Peter Holderith of The Drive estimated to have upfront carbon emissions of 46.5 tons, extrapolating from data published by Volvo for its Polestar. They noted that an electric pickup will obviously be better than a gas-powered truck, but that you have to consider what they call “the carbon cost of entry”—aka the upfront carbon emissions.
They concluded that size matters. A lot.
“There are two main takeaways from all this. One, simply being an EV is not enough to be sustainable. Electric trucks do represent a long-term improvement over pure combustion and even hybrid trucks if they can stay on the road, but their resource-intensive manufacturing and sheer size make them less green than smaller gas-powered cars. And two, while we’ve been able to use what little data we have to better understand the effects of electrification, the lack of information from most OEMs we contacted demonstrates the auto industry has a transparency problem we’d do well to start taking seriously.”
If you have electric cars running on clean power, then again, they are approaching 100% upfront carbon, and there is a lot of it. This is why I continue to write that every car should be electric, but we also need fewer, lighter, and smaller cars and more bikes and e-bikes.
This is why the ironclad rule of carbon affects our design thinking. We have been focused for so long on designing to reduce operating emissions, but in a decarbonizing world with a tight carbon budget, it is the upfront emissions that matter more and matter now.
Obviously, we have to continue to design to reduce operating energy consumption. All that clean energy has to come from somewhere, and there are the costs and upfront carbon emissions that come from decarbonizing the grid. But if we haven’t ignored upfront carbon emissions, we have certainly just paid lip service to the issue. And as Gilberth and Holderith noted, we need transparency. We need to know what the upfront carbon emissions are for our toasters and our Teslas to make intelligent decisions about them, and to encourage the manufacturers to reduce them.
Then, as the World Green Building Council noted in words that apply to everything, we have to:
- Question whether we need this at all.
- Reduce and Optimize to “minimize the quantity of new material required to deliver the desired function.” This includes “prioritize materials which are low or zero carbon.”
- Plan for the Future, designing for disassembly and deconstruction.
As one of my students noted in a paper, “As designers, we need to approach design efficiently and simply, with carbon in mind from the beginning. This means using less of everything; tools, space, and materials.”
And as I have noted many times, we need to think about sufficiency, simplicity, and efficiency.