Buildings are something most of us rely on and use every day. We live in them, work in them – even spend our holidays in them.
So they're clearly more than just structures. They’re the backbone of our daily lives, from our homes and workplaces to the landmarks that define our cities in countries all over the world.
And now comes the irony – the very buildings that enable our modern existence are major contributors to climate change. The numbers speak for themselves, with the built environment alone being responsible for 39% of global energy-related carbon emissions.
Estimates also suggest 80% of today’s buildings will remain in use beyond 2050 – which effectively means most of what we'll need in the foreseeable future has already been built. So addressing their carbon footprint isn't just an environmental concern, it’s a pressing economic and societal challenge, with renovation also likely to become ever-more important.
The obvious question is, what can we do about it? Well, there is a solution. We need to transition to a whole-lifecycle approach, which won't simply involve a technical shift, it needs to be embraced by the built environment as a strategic imperative.
Let's look at the background to all this. Traditionally, when tackling building-related emissions, the focus is on operational carbon. This includes emissions from energy use such as heating, cooling and lighting. More recently, the scope of carbon emission assessments has expanded to also include embodied carbon. This refers to the emissions associated with the production, transportation and construction of building materials.
Thanks to the efforts of organizations such as the World Green Building Council and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, this expanded focus complements ongoing efforts to manage operational carbon, rather than replacing it. It's an evolution which has also led to improvements in green building certifications, like LEED and BREEAM, which now include embodied carbon in their assessments.
However, acknowledging embodied carbon is not enough. It's crucial that green building certifications adopt a whole-lifecycle approach as a mandatory criterion. This means integrating both operational and embodied carbon into every aspect of building design, construction and renovation. The built environment must evolve to embrace this holistic perspective if we're to meet our climate goals and safeguard the future of our planet.
A whole-lifecycle approach in green building certifications will ensure that we don’t just address emissions in isolated phases, but tackle them comprehensively across the entire lifespan of a building. It will drive innovation, encourage the use of more sustainable materials and promote practices that significantly reduce our carbon footprint. The time for half-measures is over. We must demand that green building certifications mandate this approach to make a tangible impact on climate change and build a more sustainable future.
The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) advocates for a whole-lifecycle perspective. This approach goes beyond the linear model of “cradle-to-gate” (covering material extraction to the completion of construction) to “cradle-to-grave” (from material extraction through end-of-life).
Whole-lifecycle thinking involves considering the entire lifespan of a building. Although transitioning to low carbon building materials – such as recycled and bio-based options – is feasible, there are challenges related to the cost differences between premium and standard solutions. To address these challenges effectively, a mandatory whole-lifecycle approach should be adopted, involving coordination among building owners, designers, construction companies, government bodies and urban planners.
As it pertains to the paints and coatings industry, one example could be to consider two types of paint for a high-rise building – a standard paint and a premium paint. Under the current linear lifecycle assessment (LCA) model, the premium paint appears to have a 20% higher carbon footprint than the standard paint. However, when applying a whole-lifecycle approach, the premium paint results in a 5-10% lower carbon footprint over a 30-year lifecycle of the building.
A more premium paint contains more high quality raw materials, which means fewer repaints over the lifetime of a building. For example, a paint product containing white pigment and resin that enables longer protection of the coated surface often has a higher carbon footprint than products made from standard, or low tier, raw materials. This explains why a premium paint has a higher cradle-to-gate carbon footprint per liter. However, over time, it has a lower carbon footprint versus a standard paint.
Circularity is another key component of this approach. It involves designing products and systems that maintain their value over time, minimize waste and reduce the need for new virgin materials. For the building sector, this means selecting materials that are durable, require less frequent replacement and can be reused or recycled.
Our exterior powder, coil and wood coatings exemplify how circularity and durability can enhance a building’s environmental performance in the long run. From a climate perspective, as our planet continues to warm up, it means cities located in hotter climates can benefit from incorporating durable coatings into their design. But how can we ensure that products are up to the task of coping with extreme heat? You test them in one of the most unforgiving environments on the planet.
Florida in the US serves as a benchmark for outdoor exposure testing, due to the harsh weather conditions it experiences. The sub-tropical climate ensures that one year of Florida’s sunshine equates to several years of weathering elsewhere. That's why, for example, some customers insist that products have been rigorously tested in Florida. It ensures that they can withstand moisture, sunlight, corrosion and other environmental stresses over time, and extend the life of the structures they protect.
The transition to a whole-lifecycle approach and circular design is not just a technical shift, but a strategic imperative for the construction industry. By providing the right data in embracing these principles, our stakeholders can make more informed decisions that significantly reduce carbon emissions and enhance the sustainability of buildings.
At AkzoNobel, we're committed to advancing sustainability through the adoption of circular design principles and durability. By continuously monitoring and adapting to evolving circularity requirements, we aim to support a more sustainable built environment. One which embraces the benefits of renovation. We must challenge entrenched practices and demand that green building certifications not only adopt but enforce a whole-lifecycle approach. The path forward requires collaboration across the built environment, from our material suppliers, architects and builders to building owners and policymakers.
By working together, we can seize the moment to lead with conviction and transform the built environment into a future where our structures not only serve as long-term, resilient staples in our communities, but also align with our environmental goals and secure a sustainable legacy for generations to come.
For more insights into implementing whole-lifecycle practices and circular design, visit Green buildings | AkzoNobel.
Wijnand Bruinsma is the Director of Sustainability at AkzoNobel, where he leads the global sustainability agenda for the company. In this role, he's responsible for the development, implementation and positioning of the sustainability strategy. AkzoNobel is also an active member of the World Green Building Council.
