Reacción a "Change in building materials could store billions of tonnes of carbon"

The premise of the paper is promising: given the massive volume of infrastructure materials produced annually and their long lifespan in service or landfill, construction materials indeed offer substantial potential for carbon storage.

However, the paper’s assumptions about carbon storage capacity in various building materials appear to favour masonry materials at the expense of wood-based alternatives. The comparison between existing (wood-based) materials and those that do not exist at scale yet is unrealistic. To be accurate, a comparison would need to consider wood-based materials at the same stage of development as other future materials mentioned in the paper.

There is no substantial evidence to confirm these proposed modified non-renewable materials will be commercially available in the future, while wood-based alternatives have long been established as renewable building materials. Timber, for example, has a long history of proven performance, and its benefits as a carbon sink are well documented.

It is crucial to recognise trees are restored by nature, while other building materials are more likely to remain in landfills and the sites mined for minerals will not be restored. It is crucial to emphasise that the use of modified non-renewable building materials in combination with wood-based building materials that sequester carbon long term will help reduce the devastating effect of greenhouse gas emissions.