I'm trying to understand the carbon footprint of buildings, and I always hit a mental roadblock when I see negative numbers. This just struck me on a list of insulation materials where wool was sticking out of the wrong side of the graph. There are also negative carbon footprints for cellulose fibre and cork. This negative accounting applies not only to insulation products but also structural materials such as wood.
Wood is certainly a great material to build with, and is definitely going to emit less carbon into the atmosphere than concrete, steel or glass. It also contains more carbon, and any atom of carbon in the building is one less molecule of carbon dioxide or methane in the atmosphere. But does that make its impact negative?
I have a couple of thought experiments that make me skeptical. First, what if you used twice as much wood on a building project?
If wood is carbon negative, then more wood would reduce the carbon footprint of the building. So just sticking a load of extra planks around the building would make it more "green", even if you use the same amount of concrete, steel and glass. Or you could just deliver the wood to the site and leave it in a pile on the ground. But you've cut down twice as many trees, so how can that be better?
Next thought experiment: what if every man-made structure used wood?
Wood is certainly a great material to build with, and is definitely going to emit less carbon into the atmosphere than concrete, steel or glass. It also contains more carbon, and any atom of carbon in the building is one less molecule of carbon dioxide or methane in the atmosphere. But does that make its impact negative?
I have a couple of thought experiments that make me skeptical. First, what if you used twice as much wood on a building project?
If wood is carbon negative, then more wood would reduce the carbon footprint of the building. So just sticking a load of extra planks around the building would make it more "green", even if you use the same amount of concrete, steel and glass. Or you could just deliver the wood to the site and leave it in a pile on the ground. But you've cut down twice as many trees, so how can that be better?
Next thought experiment: what if every man-made structure used wood?
This would be impossible because human structures outweigh biomass. You would run out of trees, and all other living things. The planet is not a factory and you can't just increase production because there is more demand. Tree growth is limited by the amount of sunlight that falls on the trees, the area their roots have to grow into, and their access to water. Trees can take decades to grow and absorb the carbon stored in them. We have to be careful with our applications of economic calculations on natural systems.
So I'm starting off sceptical of a negative carbon impact for wood, which is made from plants that spend their life absorbing carbon from the atmosphere. What about wool? That comes from animals which spend their life emitting carbon dioxide and methane. But wool is also listed on the negative side of the carbon impacts.
Of course wool contains carbon and that carbon comes from grass, and the grass has captured the carbon from the atmosphere. So I guess you could argue that the carbon is being sequestered and stored in the building rather than being left in the atmosphere. That's lovely, but at what cost?
Sheep are warm-blooded animals, which means that most of the calories they consume go into maintaining their body heat. Even though they are wearing highly insulating fleeces over 80% of their calorie intake goes into keeping warm. Given that they are walking around and growing fat and muscle, it's hard to imagine more than a couple of percent of those green carbs they are eating going into wool.
I could do some calculations on the back of an envelope, but instead I looked at published research papers. Brock et al. (2013) looked at a farm in New South Wales and estimated 25 kg of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) per kg of wool at the farm gate. A study on farms in Patagonia by Peri et al. (2020) estimated around 8-19 kg CO2e per kg of wool.
So I'm starting off sceptical of a negative carbon impact for wood, which is made from plants that spend their life absorbing carbon from the atmosphere. What about wool? That comes from animals which spend their life emitting carbon dioxide and methane. But wool is also listed on the negative side of the carbon impacts.
Of course wool contains carbon and that carbon comes from grass, and the grass has captured the carbon from the atmosphere. So I guess you could argue that the carbon is being sequestered and stored in the building rather than being left in the atmosphere. That's lovely, but at what cost?
Sheep are warm-blooded animals, which means that most of the calories they consume go into maintaining their body heat. Even though they are wearing highly insulating fleeces over 80% of their calorie intake goes into keeping warm. Given that they are walking around and growing fat and muscle, it's hard to imagine more than a couple of percent of those green carbs they are eating going into wool.
I could do some calculations on the back of an envelope, but instead I looked at published research papers. Brock et al. (2013) looked at a farm in New South Wales and estimated 25 kg of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) per kg of wool at the farm gate. A study on farms in Patagonia by Peri et al. (2020) estimated around 8-19 kg CO2e per kg of wool.
CO2 is made up of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms, so burning a kilogram of carbon will give us about 3.7 kg of carbon dioxide, or living things will turn 3.7kg of atmospheric carbon dioxide into one kilogram of biological carbon. So even on a good day, assuming that sheep's wool is 100% carbon, taking the lowest figure in those studies, and ignoring manufacture and transport, for each kg of wool in the building there would be well over two kg going into the atmosphere. Am I missing something?
I was only thinking about sheep working to produce wool, but of course they produce meat as well. Both papers note that meat production changes the estimate, which accounts for some of the range in the second study.
Sheep not only produce wool and meat, they also have other effects for land management. They are excellent at deforestation. Even if they cannot cut down trees, they will eat any saplings before they can grow and make sure that the trees never grow back.
I was only thinking about sheep working to produce wool, but of course they produce meat as well. Both papers note that meat production changes the estimate, which accounts for some of the range in the second study.
Sheep not only produce wool and meat, they also have other effects for land management. They are excellent at deforestation. Even if they cannot cut down trees, they will eat any saplings before they can grow and make sure that the trees never grow back.
 |
| Sheep farming: Causing deforestation for at least six millennia |
Of course using wool insulation in a building is going to lead to less energy use in your house, like any other insulation. Using insulation is almost certainly a better choice than not using insulation, which would force the inhabitants of the building to use more energy to stay warm or cool. But that is a choice between two different energy uses. You can use all the insulation in the world, and your heating bills are never going to be negative.
And wool may be a lower-carbon option than other insulation materials such as polyurethane or extruded polystyrene. But you may not want to use wool underneath your foundation, and you may find that higher performing insulators can be thinner, which may reduce the need for other building materials.
I don't want to suggest that wool is a bad insulator. Just let's be honest about its carbon impact, think a bit more about the ecological impact of sheep farming and give up with the brownie points.
Sequestering carbon is a good idea, and if we can find places to store carbon, that will help keep it out of the atmosphere. But negative numbers don't exist in the real world. I don't think we can ever make a truly carbon-negative building, any more than we can generate energy by taking carbon out of the atmosphere.
We can just try to reduce the impact as much as possible.
References
Photo from:Campaign for Wool (2020). Why use wool insulation in your home? http://www.campaignforwool.org/why-use-wool-insulation-in-your-home/
Jan Zalasiewicz, Mark Williams, Colin N Waters, Anthony D Barnosky, John Palmesino, Ann-Sofi Rönnskog, Matt Edgeworth, Cath Neal, Alejandro Cearreta, Erle C Ellis, Jacques Grinevald, Peter Haff, Juliana A Ivar do Sul, Catherine Jeandel, Reinhold Leinfelder, John R McNeill, Eric Odada, Naomi Oreskes, Simon James Price, Andrew Revkin, Will Steffen, Colin Summerhayes, Davor Vidas, Scott Wing, & Alexander P Wolfe (2016) Scale and diversity of the physical technosphere: A geological perspective. The Anthropocene Review, vol. 4(1), 9-22. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053019616677743
Yinon M. Bar-On, Rob Phillips, & Ron Milo (2018) The biomass distribution on Earth. PNAS, 115 (25) 6506-6511; first published May 21, 2018; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1711842115 https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506
Brock, Philippa M., Graham, Phillip, Madden, Patrick, & Alcock, Douglas J. (2014). Greenhouse gas emissions profile for 1 kg of wool produced in the Yass Region, New South Wales: A Life Cycle Assessment approach. Animal production science, 53(6). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268631844_Greenhouse_gas_emissions_profile_for_1_kg_of_wool_produced_in_the_Yass_Region_New_South_Wales_A_Life_Cycle_Assessment_approach
Jan Zalasiewicz, Mark Williams, Colin N Waters, Anthony D Barnosky, John Palmesino, Ann-Sofi Rönnskog, Matt Edgeworth, Cath Neal, Alejandro Cearreta, Erle C Ellis, Jacques Grinevald, Peter Haff, Juliana A Ivar do Sul, Catherine Jeandel, Reinhold Leinfelder, John R McNeill, Eric Odada, Naomi Oreskes, Simon James Price, Andrew Revkin, Will Steffen, Colin Summerhayes, Davor Vidas, Scott Wing, & Alexander P Wolfe (2016) Scale and diversity of the physical technosphere: A geological perspective. The Anthropocene Review, vol. 4(1), 9-22. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053019616677743
Yinon M. Bar-On, Rob Phillips, & Ron Milo (2018) The biomass distribution on Earth. PNAS, 115 (25) 6506-6511; first published May 21, 2018; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1711842115 https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506
Brock, Philippa M., Graham, Phillip, Madden, Patrick, & Alcock, Douglas J. (2014). Greenhouse gas emissions profile for 1 kg of wool produced in the Yass Region, New South Wales: A Life Cycle Assessment approach. Animal production science, 53(6). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268631844_Greenhouse_gas_emissions_profile_for_1_kg_of_wool_produced_in_the_Yass_Region_New_South_Wales_A_Life_Cycle_Assessment_approach
Pablo L. Peri, Yamina M. Rosas, Brenton Ladd, Ricardo Díaz-Delgado, & Guillermo Martínez Pastur (2020). Carbon Footprint of Lamb and Wool Production at Farm Gate and the Regional Scale in Southern Patagonia. Sustainability,12(8), 3077. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/8/3077
