Building Materials Could Store Over 16 Billion Tons of CO2 Annually, Study Finds

By Nidhi DhullReviewed by Bethan DaviesJan 21 2025

A recent study has examined the potential of building materials to store carbon dioxide (CO₂) on a large scale.

Study: Building materials could store more than 16 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually. Image Credit: ArieStudio/Shutterstock.com

The study found that replacing conventional materials in new infrastructure with carbon-storing alternatives could sequester up to 16.6 ± 2.8 billion tons of CO₂ annually. This figure represents approximately 50 % of the CO₂ emissions attributed to human activities in 2021. Interestingly, the research showed that the scale of material usage played a more critical role in storage potential than the mass of the materials themselves.

Why Building Materials Matter

The vast quantities of materials used in construction and their long lifespan make them ideal candidates for carbon storage. By engineering these materials to act as carbon sinks, the need for alternative carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems—which often rely on specialized and potentially risky underground infrastructure—could be reduced or even eliminated.

Currently, the production of building materials accounts for an estimated 10-23 % of global greenhouse gas emissions. Manufacturing processes for materials like cement contribute roughly 5 % of global CO₂ emissions through process emissions alone. Adjusting the composition and production methods of these materials presents an opportunity to reverse some of this impact, turning materials into net carbon sinks.

This study explored the global potential for common construction materials—brick, asphalt, concrete, plastic, and wood—to store carbon.

Methods Overview

Researchers began by quantifying the annual consumption of key building materials: brick, asphalt, concrete, plastic, and wood. For wood, they focused on sawn wood and wood-based panels. Carbon storage potential was calculated based on the carbon content of these materials.

The study evaluated materials such as:

• Cement made from calcium silicate clinkers and magnesium oxides.
• Aggregates resembling sedimentary rocks, formed via enhanced weathering.
• Bricks with up to 15 % biomass fiber substitution.
• Asphalt pavement, replacing all traditional aggregate with carbonate-based aggregate.
• Plastics, assessed by their carbon mass fraction.

To determine CO₂ removal potential, stoichiometric relationships were applied to woods, plastics, aggregates, and bricks. The analysis also included the emissions associated with the production of these materials and a resource availability assessment to evaluate the feasibility of widespread adoption.

Finally, the team compared the calculated carbon storage potential of these materials against the CO₂ removal targets needed to meet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) goals for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 °C and 2 °C.

Results and Discussion

Among the materials studied, bio-based plastics exhibited the highest carbon storage potential per kilogram. However, their relatively limited production volume diminished their overall contribution to global carbon storage. On the other hand, aggregates used in concrete showed the lowest storage potential per kilogram but had the highest total potential due to their massive demand worldwide. This highlights a crucial insight that the scale of material used is a more significant factor in carbon storage potential than the material's individual efficiency.

Concrete production, for instance, involves enormous quantities of aggregate and cement, making these materials pivotal in driving both carbon storage and emissions reduction. The study emphasized that the sheer mass of materials consumed—particularly for aggregate, cement, brick, and asphalt—makes them essential to any strategy focused on construction-based carbon sequestration.

The researchers also assessed the resource requirements for transitioning to carbon-storing materials. For example, replacing 15 % of bricks with biomass fibers, all plastics with bio-based alternatives, and all asphalt bitumen with bio-oil would utilize only 5 % of annual agricultural residue. Additionally, substituting 15 % of cement with biochar would require about 24 % of these residues.

Even after implementing these strategies, 71 % of agricultural by-products would remain available for other applications. Importantly, biochar production via pyrolysis could generate valuable by-products like bio-oil and syngas, further enhancing its economic and practical appeal.

Partially substituting conventional building materials with carbon-storing alternatives could significantly advance global climate goals. For instance, replacing 10 % of aggregate with carbonate-based alternatives, 6–15 % of cement with biochar, and 15 % of bricks with biomass fibers could substantially reduce emissions. A complete transition to bio-based plastics and bio-oil-based asphalt is projected to help meet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) targets, reaching the 1.5 °C threshold by 2045 and the 2 °C target by 2090.

These findings suggest a promising path forward for integrating sustainable practices into the construction industry, with the dual benefits of reducing emissions and storing carbon in widely used materials.

Conclusion

This research highlights the untapped potential of construction materials to serve as large-scale carbon sinks. By partially substituting conventional materials with carbon-storing alternatives like biochar, biomass fibers, and bio-based plastics, the construction industry could play a critical role in addressing climate change.

The findings offer a clear path forward, particularly in terms of leveraging widely used materials to reduce emissions while simultaneously storing CO₂. These strategies not only advance climate goals but also provide a sustainable way to meet the growing demand for construction materials.

Journal Reference

Roijen, E. V., Miller, S. A., & Davis, S. J. (2025). Building materials could store more than 16 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually. Science, 387(6730), 176–182. DOI: 10.1126/science.adq8594, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq8594

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author expressed in their private capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of AZoM.com Limited T/A AZoNetwork the owner and operator of this website. This disclaimer forms part of the Terms and conditions of use of this website.