As embodied carbon in construction materials becomes a greater proportion of carbon emissions associated with buildings and infrastructure, The New York Embodied Carbon Working Group, a coalition of public and private-sector leaders, is taking action. Two weeks ago, the group released the New York Embodied Carbon Action Plan, a comprehensive set of recommendations to guide state regulators to develop a plan to reduce emissions from building and infrastructure construction.
“This plan really does a lot of the work for policymakers in the sense that it it sets up the argument, it shows the policy precedents, it shows a lot of the work that’s happening already, and it lays out all of the ways that New York could go about achieving reductions at scale,” said Mikhail Haramati, state industrial decarbonization lead at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The authors of the report believe that there is immense opportunity to reduce embodied carbon emissions, and at a low cost, whereas opportunities to reduce operating emissions have begun to dry up.
“We’ve been trying to wring out more and more savings from fewer and fewer opportunities, and it’s getting really expensive. And here, there’s all kinds of stuff that you can do at less than 1% project cost,” said Haramati.
The report has seven recommendations, ranging from policy-based to incentive-based. One is to establish statewide embodied carbon reduction targets and adopt statutory reduction requirements for different types of projects. Another is to incentivize the use of low-carbon construction materials by providing sales tax exemptions, establishing an environmental product declaration grant program and expanding eligibility for the existing R&D tax credit.
“I’m really excited by the sales tax exemption…because I think it’s simple and easy, and builders really like it [and] contractors like it,” said Haramati. “We also recommend an innovation program for developing and testing new materials, and this is a really important piece of the puzzle, particularly for concrete, where about 23% of cement is imported in the U.S…and we don’t have enough cement produced domestically to meet domestic demand.” Haramati says that supplemental cementitious materials are already a part of the future, and being able to test and share data on those new products is critical.
The report centers on four different approaches, not dissimilar to the “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” mentality. The first is, “Build less, reuse more,” which can include adaptive reuse or using the building foundation or using the shell, rather than demolishing and remodeling.
The second is, “Build lighter,” an example of which is the Washington D.C. “waffle” concrete ceilings that use less concrete than a traditional slab ceiling. The third is, “Material and assembly substitution,” which might include using cellulose insulation instead of petroleum-based materials, using local materials or making new aggregate out of spent concrete, as seen at La Guardia Airport where 22,000 tons of concrete were recycled from the demolition of one terminal and a portion was re-used in another. The fourth approach is “Replace carbon-intensive materials and assemblies with alternatives,” which could include using a low-carbon concrete alternative.
Many of the approaches could result in new opportunities for New York State’s economy.
Gretchen Worth, a report contributor and project director at Susan Christopherson Center for Community Planning, said in a statement: “These high-impact strategies, designed to curb embodied carbon and catalyze circular construction, are built upon a foundational economic framework that will revitalize regional commerce and empower New York State neighborhoods to flourish.”
