HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2021-08-17 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca,New York 14850
Tuesday,August 17,2021
Members of the public are welcome to attend in-person at Town Hall(masks required)or virtually
via Zoom(httys://us06web.zoom.us/*/83643764382).
AGENDA
7:00 P.M. Continue SEQR Determination: Cornell University Multidisciplinary Building, 350
Tower Road.
7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Continue consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit for the proposed Cornell University Multidisciplinary Building project,
located east of Rice Hall on the Cornell University campus along Tower Road, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 67.-1-13.2,Low Density Residential Zone. The project involves
the construction of a 100,000+/- square foot,4-story building that will replace an existing
parking lot adjacent to Rice and Bruckner Halls. The new building will house Cornell's
Centers for Cancer Biology and Immunology, Department of Computation Biology,
Masters of Public Health Program, and the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future. The
project will also include the installation of small plazas,pathways, gardens, stormwater
facilities, outdoor lighting, signage, and landscaping. Cornell University, Owner;
Ramnath Venkat, Cornell University Infrastructure,Properties&Planning,
Applicant/Agent.
7:15 P.M. Consideration of whether a Veterinary Office/Clinic use is considered substantially
similar to a use(or uses)identified in Section 270-126(A) of Town Zoning,in
accordance with Section 270-127 (K) of Town of Ithaca Code. This consideration is
specific for Briar Patch Veterinary to extend services at 702 Elmira Road(Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 33.-2-6.22). WM B &Patricia Kerry, Owner; Dr. Ingrid Rhinehart,
Applicant.
4. Persons to be heard.
5. Approval of Minutes: July 20, 2021 and August 3, 2021
6. Other Business
7. Adjournment
Susan Ritter
Director of Planning
273-1747
NOTE:IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND,PLEASE NOTIFY
CHRIS BALESTRA AT 273-1747 or CBALESTRAna TOWN.ITHACA.NY.US.
(A quorum of four(4)members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
Accessing Meeting Materials Online
Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town's
website under"Planning Board"on the"Meeting Agendas"page(http://www.town.ithaca.nv.us/meeting-a2endas).
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday,August 17,2021
By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board,NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing
will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday,August 17,2021, at the following time
and on the following matter:
7:00 P.M. Continue consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed
Cornell University Multidisciplinary Building project,located east of Rice Hall on the Cornell
University campus along Tower Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 67.-1-13.2, Low
Density Residential Zone. The project involves the construction of a 100,000+/-square foot,
4-story building that will replace an existing parking lot adjacent to Rice and Bruckner Halls.
The new building will house Cornell's Centers for Cancer Biology and Immunology,
Department of Computation Biology, Masters of Public Health Program, and the Atkinson
Center for a Sustainable Future. The project will also include the installation of small plazas,
pathways,gardens, stormwater facilities, outdoor lighting, signage,and landscaping. Cornell
University, Owner; Ramnath Venkat, Cornell University Infrastructure, Properties &
Planning,Applicant/Agent.
Members of the public are welcome to attend in-person at Town Hall(masks required) or virtually via Zoom
(https://us06web.zoom.us/*/83643764382).
Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections
thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments,hearing impairments
or other special needs,will be provided with assistance as necessary,upon request.Persons desiring assistance
must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing.
Susan Ritter
Director of Planning
273-1747
Dated: Friday,August 6,2021
Publish: Wednesday,August 11,2021
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
August 17, 2021
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox, Vice Chair; Greg Lindquist, Cindy Kaufman, Ariel
Casper, and Margaret Johnson
Town Staff: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Marty Moseley,
Director of Codes; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Dan Thaete, Director of Engineering;
David O'Shea, Engineer; Becky Jordan, Deputy Town Clerk
Mr. Wilcox opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Agenda Item 1 Consideration of whether a Veterinary Office/Clinic use is considered
substantially similar to a use (or uses) identified in Section 270-126 (A) of Town Zoning, in
accordance with Section 270-127 (K) of Town of Ithaca Code. This consideration is specific
for Briar Patch Veterinary to extend services at 702 Elmira Road (Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 33.-2-6.22). WM B & Patricia Kerry, Owner; Dr. Ingrid Rhinehart,Applicant
Dr. Rhinehart gave an overview, saying that her practice has outgrown their current space and
when the neighboring property (formerly Stellar Stereo)became available, it was the perfect
opportunity to expand. During the process, it was discovered that although the property is zoned
Neighborhood Commercial, there was the need to determine if the use was allowed under current
Code.
The board asked about plans for architectural changes or increased parking.
Dr. Rhinehart responded that interior renovations will happen and there are no plans for
additional parking being added.
PB Resolution 2021-021: Determination of"Substantially Similar" Use
Veterinary Clinic/Office Use
702 Elmira Road
Tax Parcel No.33.-2-6.22
Town of Ithaca Planning Board, August 17, 2021
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of whether a Veterinary Office/Clinic use is considered
"substantially similar"to a use (or uses) identified in Section 270-126 (A) of Town Zoning,
in accordance with Section 270-127 (K) of Town of Ithaca Code. This consideration is
specific for the Briar Patch Veterinary Hospital to extend services at 702 Elmira Road (Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33.-2-6.22). WM B &Patricia Kerry, Owner; Dr. Ingrid Rhinehart,
Applicant; and
PB 2021-08017 (Filed 9/2) Pg. 1
2. The Planning Board has reviewed a narrative provided by the applicant, along with an aerial
location map, a staff-prepared memo, and an excerpt from Town Code Section 270-126 (A)
that lists the permitted uses in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board hereby finds that the proposed veterinary clinic/office use is
substantially similar to a business, professional, or administrative office (Section 270-126 (C)),
which is listed as a use permitted as of right in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The
proposed veterinary clinic/office will not have greater adverse effects upon traffic, noise, air
quality, parking, or any other attribute reasonably relevant than the uses permitted as of right.
Moved: Greg Lindquist Seconded: Cindy Kaufman
Vote: ayes—Wilcox, Kaufman, Lindquist, Casper, Johnson
Agenda Item 2 Continue consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit for the proposed Cornell University Multidisciplinary Building project,
located east of Rice Hall on the Cornell University campus along Tower Road, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 67.-1-13.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The project involves the
construction of a 100,000+/- square foot, 4-story building that will replace an existing
parking lot adjacent to Rice and Bruckner Halls. The new building will house Cornell's
Centers for Cancer Biology and Immunology,Department of Computation Biology,
Masters of Public Health Program, and the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future. The
project will also include the installation of small plazas, pathways, gardens, stormwater
facilities, outdoor lighting, signage, and landscaping. Cornell University, Owner; Ramnath
Venkat, Cornell University Infrastructure, Properties & Planning,Applicant/Agent
Ram Venkat, Project Manager; Steve Beyers, University Facilities Engineer; Jared Pittman,
University General Counsel; David Cutter, University Landscape Architect; and Andrew Herdeg,
Architect were present for questions.
Mr. Venkat gave a summary of activities since the last appearance, saying that they have taken
the feedback from the Planning Board and the Community and updated the project narrative
submission to include contains a noise analysis with all exhaust fans associated with the future
basement lab fit out, as well as working with Mr. Moseley and Ms. Balestra regarding energy
code compliance efforts.
Mr. Venkat introduced Ryan Yaden, an Associate Partner in Lake Flato Architects who are
nationally recognized as a High Performance Building Design Firm who has received numerous
awards for their sustainability designs, including the Committee on the Environment (COTE)
Top 10 award.
Mr. Yaden introduced Paul Erickson, AEI Mechanical Engineer; Dondi Harper, Civil Engineer;
Joe Keefe, Acoustical Engineer, who were also available for questions from the Board.
PB 2021-08017 (Filed 9/2) Pg. 2
SEQR DETERMINATION
Mr. Wilcox asked for a response to the concerns regarding sound in the event of a full build out.
Mr. Keefe explained that the fans on the buildings have been changed to less noisier ones and the
calculations were rerun and the noise level was reduced. He stated that they will ensure that the
sound levels for all fans that we are using for our analysis are specified as the maximum
allowable for the project so that nothing louder gets installed, and the calculations would remain
as the highest or not to exceed level.
Ms. Kaufman stated that the comments about architecture are subjective and personally, she
believes the architecture is beautiful, fits in well within the site, enhances the experience on
campus, and will stand the test of time.
Mr. Lindquist asked for confirmation that any federal grant funds would be solely used for
equipment in the lab and not the construction of the project.
Mr. Venkat confirmed that statement to be accurate and true.
Mr. Wilcox commented that the repaving of Route 366 in 2022 will impact truck traffic and
Cornell should take every necessary measure to keep traffic from turning down into Forest
Home.
SEQR Determination
No further comments from the Board.
Ms. Brock suggested a change on Part 111,page 7, item 15 "Impact on noise and light". Where it
reads: "the sound would taper off to around 45 decibels at the closest residences at McIntyre PI
and Forest Home" add, which is about the same as the existent ambient background sound level.
The study found that it would be difficult to detect project noise at these residential receptors.
PB RESOLUTION 2021-022: SEQR
Preliminary Site Plan Approval & Special Permit
Cornell Multidisciplinary Building
Tax Parcel No. 67.-1-13.2
350 Tower Road
Town of Ithaca Planning Board, August 17, 2021
WHEREAS:
1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit
for the proposed Cornell University Multidisciplinary Building project, located east of
Rice Hall on the Cornell University campus along Tower Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 67.-1-13.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The project involves the
PB 2021-08017 (Filed 9/2) Pg. 3
construction of a 100,000+/- square foot, 4-story building that will replace an existing
parking lot adjacent to Rice and Bruckner Halls. The new building will house Cornell's
Centers for Cancer Biology and Immunology, Department of Computation Biology,
Masters of Public Health Program, and the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future.
The project will also include the installation of small plazas, pathways, gardens,
stormwater facilities, outdoor lighting, signage, and landscaping. Cornell University,
Owner; Ramnath Venkat, Cornell University Infrastructure, Properties & Planning,
Applicant/Agent;
2. This is a Type I Action pursuant to the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 148-
Environmental Quality Review;
3. At its meeting on September 3, 2019, the Planning Board proposed to establish itself as
Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above-referenced proposal,
and on April 29, 2021, notified potential Involved and Interested agencies of its intent to
serve as Lead Agency;
4. The Planning Board, on August 17, 2021, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full
Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, Parts 2 and 3,
prepared by Town Planning staff, a binder titled"Multidisciplinary Building Site Plan
Review," dated April 2021, a revised narrative, dated August 9, 2021, a set of drawings
titled"Cornell Multidisciplinary Building, Tower Road, Ithaca, New York,"prepared by
Lake Flato Architects, Inc., including the following sheets dated 04-16-2021: G200,
G300, C100, C201-C203, L101, L302-L303, L400-401, A400-A402, E100-E101, E711,
the following sheets dated 03-18-2021: A200-A204, revised sheets dated 06-14-2021:
G410, C102-C103, L100, L103, L200, L300-301, and other application materials; and
5. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposal;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from other involved
agencies, establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above-
described proposal;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law
and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced
proposal, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF
Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
Moved: Greg Lindquist Seconded: Ariel Casper
Vote: ayes—Wilcox, Kaufman, Lindquist, Casper, and Johnson
PB 2021-08017 (Filed 9/2) Pg. 4
PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
Joe Wilson, Dryden expressed his disappointment in the lack of Cornell and the Board not
addressing any of the substantive and highly competent comments made by members of the
public with any specificity. He was surprised nothing specific was asked about greenhouse gas
emissions that are going to be generated by this building.
Irene Weiser, Caroline stated that she shares Mr. Wilson's concern about the lack of inquiry
into the energy dimensions of Cornell's proposal. Cornell has stated in their proposal that they
will comply with the New Energy Code Supplement, however, there are four different pathways
to compliance. She asked if they are they doing the LEED compliance with 17 of 35 points?
Greenhouse emissions using combined heat and power?
Brian Eden, Sara Hess, Doug Brittain and Elmer Ewing spoke to state they had submitted written
comment.
(All written comments are Attachment 1)
Caroline Arms,President, Forest Home Improvement Association spoke, expressing the
concerns for impacts on traffic through Forest Home, the need for signage on Tower Rd and
Judd Falls Rd, and the importance of detours and routing during the repaving project of Route
366 next Spring.
Ms. Arms requested the Board require Cornell to work with Town highway Superintendent to
provide signage on the Tower Road/Judd Falls Road intersection making it clear that
construction traffic should not turn down Judd Falls Road.
Bruce Brittain stated he was pleased with Mr. Keefe's explanation for why adding a noise source
would make things quieter but would feel more comfortable with a performance standard rather
than relying on ever changing predictions for what the noise level will be. Each new building on
campus makes the noise noticeably louder.
Ms. Brock clarified that Section 201.2 of the Code states that plan specifications and other
materials relating to the components of the building under the Energy Code Supplement shall be
submitted to the Code Office in conjunction with an application for a building permit, therefore,
all references to "the application" are referring to the building permit application not the site plan
or special permit application.
Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:22 p.m.
DETERMINATION
Mr. Wilcox asked if Cornell has made a commitment in terms of color temperature?
PB 2021-08017 (Filed 9/2) Pg. 5
Mr. Yaden responded that they are following Cornell standards and suggestions for consistency
with the surroundings.
Ms. Kaufman suggested having exterior lighting at 3500k or 3000k even if surrounding lighting
is at 4000k to set the tone for future installations of lighting.
Mr. Lindquist suggested using the language, shall not exceed 3500k color temperature.
Ms. Kaufman inquired about guaranteeing Cornell's intent to comply with the energy code
supplement and Mr. Moseley asked about the typical timeframe for LEED certification.
Mr. Beyers responded that the LEED application process is quite lengthy and certification is
almost never given until long after occupancy.
Mr. Yaden added that LEED certification can take 6-12 months after occupancy for a building of
this complexity. There are a There are several post occupancy credits that they pursue that
onboard the users, allow for the building HVAC system to go through a cycle, especially in cold
months, which accounts for some of that delay.
Mr. Venkat added that the project currently does intend to have enhanced HVAC commissioning
and building envelope commissioning. The project does have an independent consulting team
that is independently reviewing both designs and providing considerable feedback throughout
each phase of design and construction.
PB RESOLUTION 2021-023: Preliminary Site Plan Approval & Special Permit
Cornell Multidisciplinary Building
Tax Parcel No. 67.-1-13.2
350 Tower Road
Town of Ithaca Planning Board, August 17, 2021
WHEREAS:
1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for
the proposed Cornell University Multidisciplinary Building project, located east of Rice Hall
on the Cornell University campus along Tower Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 67.-1-
13.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The project involves the construction of a 100,000+/-
square foot, 4-story building that will replace an existing parking lot adjacent to Rice and
Bruckner Halls. The new building will house Cornell's Centers for Cancer Biology and
Immunology, Department of Computation Biology, Masters of Public Health Program, and
the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future. The project will also include the installation of
small plazas, pathways, gardens, stormwater facilities, outdoor lighting, signage, and
landscaping. Cornell University, Owner; Ramnath Venkat, Cornell University Infrastructure,
Properties & Planning, Applicant/Agent;
PB 2021-08017 (Filed 9/2) Pg. 6
2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency
in coordinating the environmental review with respect to this project, has on August 17,
2021, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed
and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the
applicant, Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Town Planning staff, and other application materials;
and
3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing held on August 17, 2021, has reviewed and accepted
as adequate a binder titled"Multidisciplinary Building Site Plan Review," dated April 2021,
a revised narrative, dated August 9, 2021, a set of drawings titled "Cornell Multidisciplinary
Building, Tower Road, Ithaca, New York,"prepared by Lake Flato Architects, Inc.,
including the following sheets dated 04-16-2021: G200, G300, G410, C100-C103, C201-
C203, L100-L101, L200, L300-L303, L400-401, A400-A402, E100-E101, E711, the
following sheets dated 03-18-2021: A200-A204; and revised sheets dated 06-14-2021: G410,
C102-C103, L100, L103, L200, L300-301, and other application materials;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board hereby finds that the Special Permit standards of Article XXIV Section
270-200, Subsections A—H, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, specifically that:
A.The project will be suitable for the property on which it is proposed, considering the
property's size, location, and physical site characteristics.
• The property is large enough to accommodate the proposed building and other
improvements, particularly because the project has been designed and shaped to fit the
former parking lot layout. The site characteristics are suitable for another campus
structure located on the Cornell University campus.
B. The proposed structure design and site layout are compatible with the surrounding area.
• The proposed structure is a modern building that fits in with the variety of architecture
that exists on Tower Road on the Cornell campus. The proposed site layout largely
follows the existing parking lot layout, with only minor changes to access and site
elements. Overall, the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area.
C. Operations in connection with the proposed use do not create any more noise, fumes,
vibration, illumination, or other potential nuisances than the operation of any permitted use
in the zone.
• The noise, illumination and other nuisances that will occur on the site will be temporary
and associated with construction of the Atkinson Center building, which would be the
case with any construction in the zone. These nuisances will cease upon completion of
the building.
D.Community infrastructure and services, such as police, fire and other protective services,
roadways, schools, and water and sewer facilities are currently, or will be, of adequate
capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
PB 2021-08017 (Filed 9/2) Pg. 7
Cornell will be utilizing their own infrastructure and services, all of which are of
adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
E. The proposed use, structure design, and site layout will comply with all the provisions of the
Town Code and with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, provided that the proposed
building will receive a height variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
F. The site layout, with proposed vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access, traffic circulation,
and parking and loading facilities, is sufficient for the proposed use and is safely designed
for emergency vehicles.
• The project involves the removal of a parking lot that will not be replaced. However,
Cornell University will accommodate the loss in parking through their Transportation
Demand Management program, which encourages multi-modal transportation. There will
be an increase in pedestrian and bicycle facilities on site. All accessways have been
safely designed for emergency vehicles and either have been or will be approved by the
Codes Department and the Ithaca Fire Department before final site plan approval.
G.The project includes sufficient landscaping and/or other forms of buffering to protect
surrounding land uses. Existing vegetation is preserved to the extent possible.
• There will be some tree and vegetation loss associated with the project. Unfortunately,
many of the very large oaks that front on Tower Road along the project will be removed,
as they are unhealthy. The project will include tree preservation where possible. All lost
trees will be replaced with additional trees and other vegetation. The portion of the
building that will be located along the slope will be partially screened by existing tall
trees. The surrounding land uses are other Cornell campus structures and uses, which
will not be affected by the building.
H.To the extent deemed relevant by the Planning Board, the proposed use or structure
complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Chapter 270, Zoning.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary
Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary Site Plan Checklist, having determined
from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration of neither
the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board;
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for
the proposed Cornell University Multidisciplinary Building project, located east of Rice Hall
on the Cornell University campus along Tower Road as described in the materials listed in
Whereas #3 above, subject to the following conditions:
a. Before final site plan approval, granting of any necessary variances from the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals,
PB 2021-08017 (Filed 9/2) Pg. 8
b. Before final site plan approval, submission to the Town of`Ithaca Engineering
Department of the additional details related to the Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) noted in the memo written to Cornell University by David O'Shea and
Daniel Thaete, dated 5118/202 1, revised T"131202 1; and approval of the SWPPP by
the Town Engineer,
c. Before final site plan approval, submission of calculations and other information,
satisfactory to the Town Engineer, outlining any associated impacts and/or changes at
the Town of'Ithaca potable water interconnect,
d. Before final site plan approval, submission of documentation from the Ithaca Fire
Department indicating that the proposed access and site layout are adequate for
emergency purposes,
c. Before the issuance of a building permit, inclusion of the Multidisciplinary Building
project into the campus-wide Stormwater Operations, Maintenance, and Reporting
agreement between Cornell University and the Town of Ithaca, and
f. All outdoor lighting shall conform to the requirements of the Town of Ithaca Outdoor
Lighting Law and all outdoor LED lighting shall not exceed 3500K color
temperature.
Moved: Ariel Casper Seconded: Greg Lindquist
Vote: ayes Wilcox, Kaufman, Lindquist, Casper, Johnson
Minutes were not available for approval. Meeting was adjourned upon motion by Mr. Casper,
seconded by Ms. Kaufman, unanimous.
Submitted by in
Becky Jord puty Town Clerk
PB 2021-08017 (Filed 912) Pg. 9
Chris Balestra
From: Brian B. Eden <bbe2@cornell.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 2:42 PM
To: Chris Balestra
Subject: Atkinson Center Public Comments
Attachments: Atkinson Center Public Comment.docx; Maplewood Redevelopment Project Findings
Statement.docx; Reducing Embodied-Carbon in Buildings.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Chris,
Please circulate my comments to the members of the Planning Board for consideration at the
August 17t" meeting. Thank you.
Brian
Chris Balestra
From: Bruce Brittain <brucebrittain@verizon.net>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 2:31 PM
To: Chris Balestra
Cc: Susan Ritter
Subject: Noise Impact of Atkinson Hall Multidisciplinary Building
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Chris--
Could you please forward this to members of the Planning Board?
Thank you! Have a nice weekend.
--Bruce
DATE: August 13, 2021
TO: Town Planning Board
CC: Sue Ritter, Chris Balestra
FROM: Bruce Brittain
RE: Noise Impact of Atkinson Hall Multidisciplinary Building
The packet for the August 17 Planning Board meeting includes a revised acoustic analysis conducted
by Ostergaard Acoustical Associates (dated August 9, 2021). This analysis now includes the noise
created by the exhaust fans for the potential future lab fit-out that were not included in the July 8,
2021 analysis that was in the July packet.
You will note that the new noise analysis contradicts the previous analysis. Specifically, the sound
emissions of the building with the additional fans are now predicted to be lower than the sound
emissions previously predicted without the fans. This seems implausible, and does nothing to
enhance the credibility of Ostergaard's acoustical modeling:
Sound Emissions Excluding Emergency Generator
Receptor A (101 McIntyre Place): July Analysis: 45 dB(A); August Analysis: 44 dB(A)
Receptor B (109 McIntyre Place): July Analysis: 43 dB(A); August Analysis: 42 dB(A)
Receptor C (117 McIntyre Place): July Analysis: 44 dB(A); August Analysis: 42 dB(A)
Sound Emissions Including Emergency Generator
Receptor A (101 McIntyre Place): July Analysis: 45 dB(A); August Analysis: 44 dB(A)
Receptor B (109 McIntyre Place): July Analysis: 43 dB(A); August Analysis: 43 dB(A)
Receptor C (117 McIntyre Place): July Analysis: 44 dB(A); August Analysis: 43 dB(A)
In addition, noise levels at Beebe Hall are now predicted to be much lower. (Compare Figures 2 and
3 in the two Analyses.)
i
Clearly, this cannot be true. Adding noise does not make things quieter. Either the information
provided to the Board in the July packet was incorrect, or the information in the August packet is
incorrect. I presume that Cornell would like us to believe that the current analysis is to be trusted, but
the fact that the predicted sound level decreased after Board members expressed concerns about
noise makes one suspicious.
Regardless of the above-mentioned inconsistencies, it appears that the predicted noise generated by
the proposed new building will indeed be noticeable, and will be about as great as all existing
background sources combined. Here are the details:
o Existing background sound level at nearby Forest Home residences is about 45 dB(A). "... the
background sound level at residences near Atkinson Hall is about 45 dB(A)."(p. 34/92)
o The predicted level of noise generated solely by Atkinson Hall, as determined for three houses on
McIntyre Place, will be 42 - 44 dB(A). "Sound emissions excluding emergency generator:A: 44
dB(A); B: 42 dB(A); C: 42 dB(A)."(p. 37/92)
o Thus, the sound generated by Atkinson Hall is expected to be almost as great as all
other existing background sounds combined. "... Atkinson Hall sound emissions are expected to
be about the same as the existing ambient sound level..."(p. 31/92)
o The cumulative sound levels are predicted to be 47 to 48 dB for houses on McIntyre Place,
representing an increase of 2 to 3 dB. See Table on p. 39192.
o Based on information provided by the World Health Organization, sound level in a residential area
should not exceed 45 dB(A). The July analysis summarized this correctly: "Therefore, avoiding sleep
disturbance necessitates an outdoor sound level that does not exceed 45 dB(A)."(p. 31/117) The
August analysis incorrectly infers that the 45 dB limit is for the new building alone, not all sources
combined: "Therefore, to avoid sleep disturbance, outdoor sound levels due to Atkinson Hall sound
sources should strive to not exceed 45 dB(A)."(p. 33/92) In any case, their predicted 47 - 48 dB
cumulative sound level exceeds this limit.
o According to the DEC <Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts, October 6, 2000 Revised:
February 2, 2001 https://www.dec.ny.gov > docs > noise2000>: "Remember, if a new source operates
at the same noise level as the ambient, then 3 dB(A) must be added to the existing ambient noise
level to obtain the future noise level. If the goal is not to raise the future noise levels the new facility
would have to operate at 10 dB(A) or more lower than the ambient."(p. 14-15/28) The DEC goes on
to say, "In circumstances where noise effects cannot readily be reduced to a level of no significance
by project design or operational features in the application, the applicant must evaluate alternatives
and mitigation measures in an environmental impact statement to avoid or reduce impacts to the
maximum extent practicable per the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEAR)."(p. 22/28)
Bottom line: This building will be too loud, even according to Ostergaard's own references. Not only
would sleep disturbance become an issue, but the predicted 3 dB increase would be noticeable, even
during the day.
The University should reduce the sound levels emitted by this building, or reduce other campus
background noises so that the total impact on Forest Home (and the Botanic Gardens) is limited to a
more appropriate level. For example, it could be that replacing old exhaust fans on Rice, Bradfield
2
and/or the Plant Sciences building with new, quieter units could bring the ambient sound level down
to a point where the addition of the noise created by Atkinson Hall would not be detrimental to the
adjoining residential community.
Thank you for your careful analysis and consideration.
3
Chris Balestra
From: Bruce Brittain <brucebrittain@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2021 10:36 PM
To: Chris Balestra
Subject: Atkinson Hall Considerations
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello Chris,
Would you be willing to share this with the Planning Board?
Thank you very much.
-Doug Brittain
Dear Members of the Town Planning Board:
As you consider approval of Cornell's Multi-Disciplinary Building (Atkinson Hall) project, I hope that
you will weigh the following concerns:
-- The design of Atkinson Hall leaves something to be desired. Yes, it is better than the worst
buildings on campus, but there is still considerable room for improvement. It is taller than the
neighboring Cornell buildings, and exceeds the Town's height limit. The fact that it includes so many
rooms with no windows makes a mockery of the claim that it "uses daylight strategically" to reduce
the need for electric lighting. And as SHPO states,"...the new construction does not reflect the
materials or design details of the surrounding historic structures. We recommend that alternatives
be explored regarding the design of the elevations visible from the road."(p. 91192) Perhaps Cornell
should have hired a different architectural design firm. It's not too late.
-- The location is far from ideal, in spite of claims to the contrary. Who would want to put a BSL-3 lab
right in the middle of a busy campus, next to a natural area and a residential neighborhood, when
there are other alternatives available? Cornell owns a good deal of land in the vicinity, including on
top of Hungerford Hill (where some Covid research is reportedly already being undertaken at Baker
Lab) and on Mount Pleasant (which is even farther from densely populated areas). Either of these
locations would put the BSL-3 exhaust stack at a much higher elevation (thereby ensuring more
dilution before any toxins settle back to earth) and yet would still be within close range of central
campus. Actually, even moving the building to the other end of Wing Drive would be an
improvement.
-- The removal of those four majestic oak trees is completely unnecessary. Cornell bragged about
the formal setting with its iconic mile-long row of century-old oak trees, and then plans to destroy that
which they say attracted them to the site. If Cornell can't be bothered to protect the trees (and their
roots) during construction, then they should build elsewhere.
1
-- Cornell has said both that there will be only a "slight glimpse" of Atkinson Hall from the Botanic
Gardens, and that Atkinson Hall will take advantage of the good views of the Botanic
Gardens. Which is it? Right now, the Botanic Gardens are a secluded oasis, an idyllic world, only a
few steps from the busy campus. But if Cornell surrounds it with taller and taller buildings, it will look
less like a tranquil rural landscape, and more like an urban pocket park. Once the magic has been
lost, it's not coming back. Taller trees to better screen the new building would help some, as would
restricting its height. Relocating it to the other end of Wing Drive would help even more.
-- A fake swamp? Really? How embarrassing. This is an educational institution, not
Disneyland. There are a lot of people on campus who know a thing or two about soils or topography
or geography or geology or hydrology, and know that the high point on campus should not have a
wetland. This feature adds unnecessarily to the impervious area, which is the opposite of what a
wetland is supposed to do. But it gives us an opportunity to celebrate mosquitos. Rather than a
concrete stagnant pond, it might be better to have a larger lawn with shade trees and picnic tables
where students and staff can eat lunch without being bothered by mosquitos.
-- There will be traffic impacts. And whether these impacts are acceptable is a judgment left to the
Planning Board, not the applicant. With "several hundred" new faculty, students, and staff, there will
be several thousand additional vehicular trips distributed around the county. (The national average is
ten trips per household per day.) Many of these trips will be concentrated on the corridors that lead to
and from campus. And that means increased traffic in residential areas, because it is currently
impossible to drive to campus without going through somebody's neighborhood. This is a continuing
problem that needs a long-term solution. (For example, the University owns enough land that it could
construct an attractive commuter route from the Cornell Business & Technology Park in Lansing to
central campus, almost entirely on its own property.) In the short term, perhaps Cornell should
contribute to local traffic calming efforts, for instance by planting street trees in Varna once Route 366
is repaved next year.
The elimination of around 90 parking spaces, and the failure to provide any regular parking for the
new building, means that a significant number of commuters will be dropped off in the morning (by a
spouse, typically) creating one round trip, and then picked up again in the afternoon, creating a
second round trip. The traffic impact created by these employees is doubled compared to driving
themselves and being able to park. (Two round trips instead of one.) People don't all teleport if they
can't park on campus. Instead they cope the best they can, and this sometimes involves round-trip
drop-offs and pickups, or parking in nearby neighborhoods. It's unrealistic to assume that a reduction
in parking spaces automatically leads to a corresponding reduction in commuter traffic. Not everyone
is going to ride a bike in winter, or walk from Trumansburg.
-- Noise is a significant issue, and has been dealt with fairly thoroughly by my brother Bruce in a
separate email memo. I would like to add that we live in the house that is the farthest north in Forest
Home, and yet the dominant noise that we hear at our house (at night, when the traffic dies down) is
already Cornell campus fan noise. Adding to the fan noise will not help matters. We should perhaps
be considering means of reducing noise, rather than debating how much more to add. And as with
many other issues, relocating the building to the less sensitive area at the other end of Wing Drive
would undoubtedly reduce the impact.
If it is difficult for you to accurately judge the actual sound level likely to be emitted by Atkinson Hall,
in light of the ever-changing pick-a-number noise analyses, you might want to consider setting a
performance standard instead. A 3dB increase (a doubling of sound) is problematic, in part because
Cornell seems to apply this doubling standard to every new building project, and it isn't long before
you have four times the sound, and then eight times, and then sixteen. This seems to be what led to
the current situation. Perhaps it's time to put a lid on Cornell's noise levels, and to require reductions
2
in pre-existing sound sufficient to compensate for the new sounds that they are adding. Cornell could
continue its inexorable growth as long as it doesn't increase its acoustical footprint. If Cornell misses
this net-zero target by 1 dB, and you let that error slide, that could still lead to slowly rising background
sound levels, but it would sure be better than continuing with the 3dB doubling standard.
Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to Tuesday's discussion.
Doug Brittain
135 Warren Road
Town of Ithaca
15 August 2021
3
Chris Balestra
From: Irene Weiser <irene32340@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 12:56 PM
To: Chris Balestra
Subject: Comments re Cornell Atkinson MBD
Attachments: IW comments to Town Ith PB re Atkinson 8-16-21.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
HI Chris!
Please forward my comments, below and attached,to the Planning Board, in advance of the Aug 17th meeting. Thank
you.
To:Town of Ithaca Planning Board
From: Irene Weiser, coordinator Fossil Free Tompkins,Town of Caroline resident
Date: August 16, 2021
RE: Cornell Atkinson Center MBD project proposal
I have reviewed the Planning Board agenda packets for June 1,July 20, and August 17, 2021 with submissions by Cornell
regarding the Atkinson Center MBD application.
I am glad to see that Cornell intends this application to comply with the Town's new Energy Code. I am writing to
suggest that Cornell's MBD application is not yet complete and that the Planning Board should request more
information related to the building energy use and compliance with the Town of Ithaca's Energy Code Supplement
before voting on the Site Plan and SEAR determination.
In particular, Section 144-4 Commercial Building Provisions of the Town's ECS, part 144-c401.2-B, Application for
performance-based compliance path/whole building path states that:
As part of the application packet,the applicant shall submit the relevant documentation,which is detailed in
144-C403, which the Town shall use as the basis for verifying and showing compliance with the ECS.
And Subsection 144-C403.1, pertaining to Performance-based and Whole Building Path compliance states that
Until January 1, 2023,to meet the requirements of this subsection 144-C403, a building must comply with any
one of the high-performance building approaches described in 144-C403.2, 144-C403.3, 144-C403.4, and 144-
C403.5,where
• 144-C403.2 relates to LEED-based and Energy calculation-based compliance and describes the requisite
documentation that should be provided with the application.
• 144-C403.3 relates to Passive Haus based compliance and details the requisite documentation. (seemingly
not relevant to Cornell's application.)
• 144-C403.4 relates to Greenhouse Gas Emissions-based compliance and details the requisite calculations
and documentation.
1
• 144-C403.5 relates to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Factors for Electricity for Buildings served by Combined
Heat and Power, and details the requisite calculations and documentation.
While Cornell's application identifies various compliance buzzwords—LEED qualified, GHG emission reductions,
renewable energy, etc. -Cornell's application does not specify which compliance pathway it is pursuing, nor does it
provide the required documentation. Until such information is provided and reviewed by the Town, I suggest the
application is not complete and should not be voted upon.
In addition, I have questions for the Planning Board regarding application of the new law.
1. Per subsection 144-C403.1—Where the ECS states that "a building must comply with any one of the high-
performance building approaches"—which entity—the Town or the applicant-chooses which compliance pathway
is to be pursued?
2. How does compliance with the ECS relate to the overall SEAR evaluation? For example, if Cornell were to
choose the LEED pathway of compliance, does it absolve the Town from evaluating the GHG emissions and Energy
impacts as part of the SEAR evaluation? ( I hope not!!)
3. As part of the PB's"deep look" may it request information/documentation specified in some of the non-chosen
compliance pathways? (IMO the documentation specified in C403.3 -C404.5 is along the lines of what a "deep
look" should entail.)
4. How does the Town plan to evaluate the documentation presented by Cornell "as the basis for verifying and
showing compliance with the ECS?" Under what conditions would the Town consider hiring an expert to assist with
analysis of the documentation and calculations? Under what circumstances would the Town consider hiring an
expert to evaluate energy and GHG impacts of the project as part of the SEAR evaluation?
5. Cornell's statement that this project represents only 0.7%increase in their campus energy use is irrelevant. It is
the cumulative impact of GHG emissions(not energy use)that matters. We have exceeded the amount of
emissions that are sustainable for life on this planet. Any addition of carbon emissions matters. Instead of Cornell's
0.7%figure ask this—how many existing homes in the Town would need to be electrified and converted to
renewable heating and electricity to reduce the GHG impact of Cornell's increased gas use from this project? (and
please ask them to show their calculations)
6. Cornell is promising conversion to a renewable energy heating system when their(still experimental) deep
earth heating project is active. Will SEAR approval be based on the experiment succeeding?or failing? If based on
succeeding and it fails,then what? Can the Town impose some contingencies? For example, if the facility is not
using renewable heat by(some date)then Cornell agrees to pay the established social cost of carbon into an offset
fund to help pay for building electrification of low-income households in the Town?
Thanks for your thoughtful consideration of these comments and of the matter before you.
Sincerely,
/s/
Irene Weiser
334 Brooktondale Rd
Brooktondale, NY 14817
607-539-6856
Irene32340@gmail.com
Irene Weiser
irene32340@amail.com
2
Brooktondale, NY
607-539-6856
Joy to the world
All the boys and girls
Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea
Joy to you and me.19,
3
Chris Balestra
From: Joseph Wilson <wilsonjoe79@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 5:11 PM
To: Chris Balestra
Subject: August 17 Meeting--Comments to Planning Board
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Chris, Please share these comments with the Board. Thank
you.
To: Members of the Ithaca Town Planning Board
Prepared for: August 17, 2021 Meeting
Re. The Cornell Atkinson Building aka MBD
c: Ithaca Town Board
The latest IPCC report to the world, our State's Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act, the Town
and County's Comprehensive Plans and the Town's Climate Smart Community Resolution each call for
reducing the use of fossil fuels—especially methane/natural gas--and cutting global warming greenhouse gas
emissions. Further, as our own experience in Ithaca is telling us, global warming is upon us and accelerating at a
never expected rate.
This building adds--not reduces--the amount of methane gas to be used in our community and adds--not
reduces--the amount of global warming greenhouse emissions to be caused.
As Planning Board members, you are charged to determine whether the environmental impact of the building
and its operation will be Significant or not. Given what appears in the publicly available packets, it does not
seem that you have sufficient information to take the SEQRA"hard look" at the impacts caused by energy use
and emissions in order to make this decision.
For instance:
The latest Program narrative asserts that the building will comply with the Town's Ithaca energy Code
Supplement (IECS). As you know, the IECS calls for 40%fewer GHG emissions than buildings meeting State
code. The narrative, without giving needed specifics, simply asserts that the building will produce "less of an
emissions impact than equivalent buildings built to code minimum requirements" and that there will be "lower
greenhouse gas emissions than a `baseline' building"under the NYS Energy Code. That is not an unequivocal
statement that emissions will meet the 40% standard, and accepting such assertions to justify a SEQRA Finding
of No or Small impact would not be taking a"hard look".
As another justification for a No or Small impact Finding, the narrative tells you that Cornell"is targeting" a
LEED Gold certification for the building. Numerous studies of LEED building energy use and greenhouse gas
emission reductions, however, have found that actual performance of LEED buildings often falls short of claims
and LEED point-based predictions. The most recent of these studies summarizes in its Abstract: "In aggregate,
LEED offices demonstrate 11% site energy savings but only 7% savings in source energy and GHG
emission." Moreover, the authors found that there was only a "minimal correlation"between measured energy
savings and those projected using the LEED point system.
1
In short,you have insufficient information to make a competent SEQRA Finding that the proposed energy
efficiency, operations, and emissions from this building will have No or Small Impact on our community's
environment. It is your right as Board Members--if not your obligation to the community given the Climate
Crisis--to obtain expert guidance on the methane gas and electricity uses, the resulting GHG emissions, and the
most energy efficient building design options.
Possibly the simplest way, but not the only way, to get sufficient information would be to require an
Environmental Impact Statement regarding these issues. Were you to do so,both you and Cornell could receive
the benefit of independent expert advice on how the design of the building and the plan of operation could be
made less methane gas intensive and more energy efficient over the 40 year design life of the building.
Respectfully,
LL1`Energy and Greenhouse Gas Savings for LEED-Certified U.S.Office Buildings",Energies 2021, 14(3),749;
https"//doi.org/10.3390/enl4O3O749
Joseph M. Wilson
75 Hunt Hill Road
Ithaca NY 14850(Town of Dryden)
La nd I i ne: 607-539-1159
2
To: Town of Ithaca Planning Board
From: Caroline Arms
Date: August 17, 2021
Re: Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell University
Multidisciplinary Building
As President of the Forest Home Improvement Association, I am writing to you about truck
traffic during the construction of the proposed Cornell University Multidisciplinary Building.
All Forest Home residents would agree that truck traffic through the hamlet is already a
problem. In particular, large trucks cause dangerous situations on tight bends and at many
intersections. The neighborhood has had problems for years with trucks that disregard the signs
about the 5-ton weight limit on most of the roads in Forest Home. Trucks have problems with
intersections that do not allow for wide turns, including all the intersections on Judd Falls Road
below (to the north of) Tower Road. They cause dangerous situations for pedestrians and
cyclists and sometimes damage to property. For example, on April 12, 2021, a long truck with
empty flatbed took out the Stop sign at the bottom of JFR when negotiating the turn.
The various responsibilities for the roads in and approaching Forest Home was described in
2019:
htt s: fhua,or w -content u Noads 20J.9 03 Guude to Infrastructure in F6 N 20190314, df
P......... .................................g ..........R............................................ .......k ........................... ......................... ............. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ?...........
Since then, Plantations Road has been renamed Arboretum Road.
The nearest intersection on Tower Road to the proposed building is with Judd Falls Road.
Downhill from the intersection on Judd Falls Road, you quickly get into Forest Home and the
road is subject to the 5-ton weight limit. There is currently no sign about the weight limit that is
visible to the trucks going east or west along Tower Road. The weight limit signs on Judd Falls
Road are closer to route 366 and round a curve down Judd Falls Road at the border of the
hamlet. Despite an attempt last year by the Town to get the vendors of GPS systems to
document the weight limit, the frequency of large trucks coming through the hamlet has been
unacceptably high over recent months. Drivers who have been approached by residents often
say that they use the map system on a mobile device rather than subscribing to a system aimed
at trucks.
The situation during the planned construction period for this building is complicated by the fact
that NYS Department of Transportation plans to repave Route 366 next summer, in a project
expected to run from May to October. See.htt.P. tn..th e Ey ( o
.: . ................
. .2.Na icc. .e.ntmeetf.n -.q o to . p.roi€ t for details.
Our experience with the North Campus Residential Expansion during the excavation phase had
been that the trucks carrying the excess excavation material used the designated route
(avoiding Forest Home) responsibly. However, during the construction phase, when trucks
delivering materials or equipment may be coming from or going back to more diverse locations,
they have not always followed the contractor's guidance based on the truck route in the
planning documents. On occasion, trucks have blocked traffic in the community for extended
periods, requiring police intervention to manage traffic while a truck reverses a long distance
and/or turns round in an intersection using multiple operations.
Requests to the Planning Board
I hope that the Planning Board can add a requirement to the list of conditions in the Site Plan
Approval document that Cornell works with the Town's Highway Superintendent to provide
signage at the Tower Road intersection with Judd Falls Road that is clearly visible to traffic on
Tower Road that makes clear that construction traffic should not turn down Judd Falls Road
toward Forest Home. Ideally, permanent weight limit signage should be in place at that
intersection once the new building is open.
Also, when Cornell has a contractor for the project, they should be required to communicate
effectively to trucks (via drivers or companies) coming to the site that they must not come
through Forest Home. Drivers approaching Forest Home from other directions tend to interpret
"Local Delivery Only" as including the Cornell campus.
The community is grateful to Cornell, and in particular to Cornell Community Relations staff and
the primary contractor for the NCRE project, for providing contact information to allow reports
of problems and for responding promptly to individual issues. We hope such support will be
continued for this new construction project. Is this something that the Planning Board can
require?
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Caroline Arms
caroline.arms@gmail.com
Brian Eden
Town of Ithaca Resident
August 16, 2021
Re: Atkinson Center SEAR Review
Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members,
As a member and the former Chair of the Tompkins County Environmental Management
Council and the recently retired Board Chair of HeatSmart Tompkins, I have been addressing
municipal boards and planning boards for more than 10 years in an attempt to encourage the
application of climate focused building science to new construction project decision-making. I
often presented the most recent scientific reports on the climate crisis. For more than 30 years
such reports have been widely circulated and there is now a 234-page chronology of such
climate science reports.Then the assessment as set forth below should come as a surprise to
no one.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its Sixth Assessment Report
on August 9 finding that global warming is dangerously close to spiraling out of control and
warning that the world is already certain to face further climate disruptions for decades, if not
centuries, to come. The panel of scientists conclude that humans are "unequivocally"
responsible. Rapid action to cut greenhouse gas emissions could limit some impacts, but others
are now locked in. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres described the report as a "code red
for humanity". "The alarm bells are deafening," he said in a statement. "This report must sound
a death knell for coal and fossil fuels, before they destroy our planet."
The focus of my comments here will be on the projected energy performance of the
proposed Atkinson Center building. Given that mitigation measures will reduce the ultimate
negative impact of climate change, I believe that the Planning Board should focus its review on
a decarbonization metric. The LEED scoring system has proved to be an inadequate tool to
ensure the development of highly energy efficient buildings.The draft Preliminary Site Plan
Approval document concluded that the project would have only a small impact on the campus
energy system. This is primarily an analysis of the capacity of the energy system to deliver the
energy needed and the efficiency of the delivery system. The logic of this argument escapes my
understanding with regard to the efficiency of the building envelope itself. Neither one of these
metrics directly correlates with greenhouse gas emissions. For example, consider an energy
efficient electric Hummer powered with renewable energy. It will utilize more energy than is
necessary for its primary function of personal transport. Renewable energy is a scarce resource
and should not be squandered on such a vehicle even if efficient. We shall never be able to
construct enough renewable energy projects to meet all our electric demands. Demand
reduction with energy efficient buildings must be pursued in tandem with the development of
increased renewable energy supplies.
The documents distributed with the Agenda demonstrate a fastidious review of some
topics but insufficient information on the building's specifications was provided for me to
conduct a meaningful assessment of the building envelope's efficiency. I would hope that the
applicant would provide the Board and the community with the following information; R values
for the insulation of the envelope, the technical measures utilized to assure airtight
construction, the U values for high-performance window glazing,thermal-bridge-free detailing,
and efficient heat recovery ventilation. Assertions such as "Specifically, the Multidisciplinary
Building will reduce operational energy cost by at least 20% and use at least 10%less energy
than a "baseline"building modeled as stipulated in the latest version of the New York State
Energy Code based on energy modeling."Quantifiable data in support of such assertions should
be submitted.
In the DEIS for the Maplewood Redevelopment Project, a more detailed energy analysis
was provided. Even without a DEIS requirement here, I believe that such information would be
useful to enable Board members to calculate the heating and cooling loads for the building and
to more confidently certify that the proposed building will have small environmental impacts
related to energy use. See the Maplewood Redevelopment Project DEIS (September 15, 2016,
Chapter 5, Effect of the Project on the Use and Conservation of Energy,Table 2 comparing
Baseline Energy Performance Targets with ECM Inputs for Zero Emissions Building Ready. The
extent of information provided there compares very favorably with the Supplemental
Information on Energy Use provided by Cornell on June 18, 2021. Also attached is the
Maplewood Project Findings Statement. Given that we are now more aware of the need to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, why do we not wish to have access to such detailed
information in this review?
Cornell has demonstrated the capability to construct such buildings in the past. The
Cornell Tech Building on Roosevelt Island is a high performing building. Construction costs have
substantially decreased since Cornell Tech was developed and this type of energy efficient
construction has been more widely adopted.
To limit the negative environmental impacts of our energy use, we need to focus on the
opportunities for cost effective mitigation. Newly constructed high performing buildings are
technically feasible and the least expensive mitigation measure. Retrofits are substantially more
expensive. This projected 40+year life building will not meet the efficiency standards required
to achieve our 2050 greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and may need substantial
retrofitting in the future.The options for effective mitigation measures are more expensive and
will increase the necessity for the adoption of community adaptation and resiliency measures.
These latter costs will be funded by municipalities and other government entities. The applicant
is tax exempt and will not be responsible for such funding.
Advanced construction technologies that focus on building design, construction, and
installation (e.g., off-site manufacturing, robotics, digitization, automation, and improved
modeling) to improve affordability, scalability, and performance of energy efficient building
systems and methods are becoming well established. There are several models for all electric
low carbon buildings whose design is focused on energy conservation with optimal
specifications for insulation, advanced window technology, airtightness, ventilation, space
heating, lighting, and highly efficient mechanical systems.
Short-term thinking that downplayed the existential threat of greenhouse gas emissions
has permitted the climate crisis to accelerate. Not taking aggressive action to stem these
emissions over the past 30 years has resulted in ever accelerating negative climate impacts. A
local analogy would be the toxic contamination caused by the Ithaca Gun and Morse Chain
companies. Poor disposal practices of toxic wastes have resulted in numerous, serial costly
remediation projects. The most recent proposal for the clean-up at the Morse site proposed in
the past month is $6M. Postponing a difficult decision to some future date can result in
significant cost increases.
I will not delve deeply into the inadequacy of the SEAR process in general, but I am
concerned given the critical nature of this decision that after extensive discussions between the
Planning Board and the applicant, a completed application, and a draft Neg Dec Determination
of Environmental Significance prepared for approval at the same meeting as the Public Hearing,
renders that hearing a mere formality. We have a very intelligent and technically savvy
community of folks in the Town and the community is not likely to gain the benefit of their
expertise in this format. If there were discussions involving residents held earlier in the process,
ideas such as reducing the embedded carbon in the construction project could have been
considered prior to completing the application. For example, reviewing the extensive
documentation on the use of green building materials in construction. Mass timber (Cross
Laminated Timber) has high structural capabilities with only 50% of the embedded carbon as
concrete and 1%that of steel. Low carbon concrete is also available now, but better products
are undergoing research in the lab (See the attached report on Reducing Carbon in Buildings for
a more detailed discussion).
In summary, these are the major conclusions of my comment:
1. Existing SEAR forms do not collect applicant information on the estimated greenhouse
gas emissions of a proposed project. The focus is on energy use only.
2. The applicant has provided very little data for us to perform detailed energy modeling to
verify that the building will comply with the Town of Ithaca Energy Code.
3. Efficiently delivered fossil fuel sourced energy has no relationship to the building
envelope's efficiency.
4. Relying on the campus portfolio of buildings to demonstrate that a new building will use
only a small portion of campus energy or is more efficient than the average building on a 150-
year old campus has no significance for determining the energy efficiency of the proposed
building's envelope and its potential negative impact on the environment. Private developers
don't have the advantage of spreading their greenhouse gas emissions across those of all the
other buildings in the City or Town.They must demonstrate that their proposed project alone
will satisfy the Code.
It's always been perplexing to me that as the climate crisis worsened there was no more
than a small group of us attempting to influence the outcomes of local decision-making. Is it the
overwhelming nature of the threat that causes folks to psychologically distance themselves
from its implications? Is the threat still not personally sufficiently immediate? Much of future
climate change is already inevitable. Scientists have always been conservative in their analysis
due to the existence of some level of uncertainty. And then there was the fear of discouraging a
constructive public response. I hope that the sense of urgency is sufficient here for Board
Members to request more information to assure that the Planning Board will be able to
conduct a fully informed review.
Unless someone like you
cares a whole awful lot
nothing's going to get better
it's not
Dr. Seuss
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely.
Brian Eden
147 N. Sunset Dr.
Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
Maplewood Redevelopment Project Findings Statement (December 26, 2016)
H. Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Effect of Proposal on the Use and Conservation of Energy
Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
According to the DEIS, the existing Maplewood development generated 1,258,000 kg CO2 per
year in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, utilizing natural gas as the primary energy source. The
proposed development,with more than double the population and a significant increase in the
number of buildings and potential energy usage, will generate 1,388,000 kg CO2 per year. The
DEIS included an analysis of the amount of CHG emissions related to the construction of the
project, including the energy used to prepare the site and construct the buildings, and the
number of vehicular miles traveled by workers coming to and from the site from their
residences.
The DEIS and FEIS state that the developer of the Maplewood project is committed to using
only electricity as the project's energy source and that the project will further incorporate many
of the mitigation measures listed in the NYSDEC's "Guide For Assessing Energy Use And
Greenhouse Gas Emissions In An Environmental Impact Statement." Additionally, the project
will incorporate all of the energy conservation measures listed in Table 5-2 of the DEIS
(Chapters, page 5-4).
The FEIS expands upon the energy commitment by stating that the developer will (1) obtain
Energy Star certification for the project, which includes third party testing and inspections, and
(2) purchase 100% of the energy used for the project from renewable sources, with "renewable
source" defined as a source that is not depleted when it is used, such as solar, wind and hydro
power.
Discussion and Findings
The Lead Agency finds that:
The proposal to commit to obtain Energy Star certification and purchase renewable energy for
100% of the project, combined with constructing buildings to those Zero Energy Building
standards listed in Table 5-2 and incorporating the majority of the NYSDEC's mitigation
measures listed in the guide noted above, will serve to minimize adverse environmental
impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions to the maximum extent practicable. These
mitigation measures will be incorporated as conditions of Planning Board site plan approval.
Rml
Reducing Embodied
Carbon in Buildings
Low-Cost, KlqK-Value Opportunities
ll in/ Il
r"
f
a
f ;
1 % JAM- ;
G f i
//i
Authors & Acknowledgments
Authors
Rebecca lEsau
MattjungcIlaus
Victor 011gyay
Audirey IReimplheir
Authors listed alphabetically, All authors frorn RlMl unless otherwise rioted,
Contacts
Victor Oigyay, v6lgyay@rrinrll.orrg
Rebecca Esau, uresau@irirvil.oirg
Copyrights and Citation
MattjUrigclaus, Rebecca IEsau,Victor Olgyay, and Audrey IRernpher, Reducing I...Mbodied Carbon
in Buildings:Lows-,Ccist, High-Volue Opportunities, IRIMI, 2021,
�lhttli)://vvvvw,,iiroriirni,.oiirg/iiinF,ight/iireduciong-eiinr�iiiIIV�iod' d-,caiirllV�oiin-iiir"i-,IburjiIIIdiiir"igs,
RIMI values collaboration arid airris to accelerate the energy transition through sharing
knowledge and insights. We therefore allow interested par-ties to reference, share, and cite OLAr'
work through the Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4,0 license. Ilhttli)s://ciireativecoiiriiiinriiio�ns.oiirg/
�Ii ice iin ses/by-sa/4.0/.
All images Used are from iStock,cor-ri unless otherwise noted,
Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings www.rmi.org 12
Acknowledgments
r'
We would liken to thank Skarsska for providing material aria cost information based on arionyr-nized
project data,arid for condUcting an EC3 analysis of the three case stUdies included in the report.
r We wuuld liken to recognize the following
r��arn nka�ar�s of the Sk�srnsku tcn�sr�for sharing key insights
arid reviewing the report:
IrVk Chen
Steve Oleim
a� E II it rr°n a IL...all
We thank the following individuals fair their contributions to and review of the report:
�Moinika Heinin, Urban I....urid Institute
Il irlk IlK stneir,Walter F'. IMoore
�Meghan III,,,ewis, Carbon II...cnadersfsifn IForurn
�Mairta Schantz, Urban Il....arid Institute
We thank the following additional individuals and organizations for participating in interviews
during the research phase of this report:
rup
�Bruce Killln a IF E - Ecological Building Network
Thoirinto n Toinrn s ttli
li rain TIlmberll lk
We thank Breaktfsrr:Ugh IEnergy, I....I....0 for its SLAppurt in they prudUction of this report,
About RMI
RIMI is an independent nonprofit fuurnded in 1982 that transforms global energy systearns
tFnrr:rufs rnnsrketrivcnrs sr:rlutir:rrns to ulli;rn with s 1,5'C futuresrsd ser::ure a clean, prosperous,
zero carbon future for all. We work in the worlds r-nost critical geographies and engage
bUsirnesses, policyrrnukerse comrrsursitiies, and INGOs,to identify arid scale energy systern
�R;aMwG�"IPAIo-S�111r—VD interventions that will CLAt greenhouse gas er-nossio ns at least 50 percent by 2030. RI i has
offices in IF asult and BOUldere Colorado; New York City; Oakland, California; Washington, ID.C.,°
and Beijing,
Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings www.rmi.org/3
r�
Ta b l e of Content s
5 Section I Embodied Carbon: A Hidden C111himate ChalIlleinge
6 Executive Surnmary
7 What Is IErnbo¢ ied Carbon, and Why Is It rnportant?
7 T r h e T r I r-ne Value of Carbon
7 1 owering IErnbodied Carbon Can fDriveValue
8 Setting the Stage
9 Section 2 IKey Iftteirlialls Miliviling Embodied Cairboini hni US Buildlings
10 Industry Over-view
11 Cernerit and Concrete
12 Steel
13 T r irriber
13 InSUlation
1 IMoving (Forward
15 Section 3 - Pirovein Sollutriloins and Stimtegiles to IReduce Embodied Carbon
16 Characterizing I ow-Ernbodied-Carbon SOILItions
17 Applying I ow-Ernbodied-Carbon Solutions to the fDesign and Construction IProcess
19 Current"roois for Implementation
20 Sectriloini 4 - Case Studies In the IlEcoiniomics of I ow Eimbodledi-Carboin 1113urildrilings
21 overview
22 Methodology
23 (....imitations of 'rms Sturdy
24 Case Sturdy 1: Mid-Rise Concrete and Steel Construction
25 Case Sturdy 2: (Mid-Rise Stick-BLAilt Consti-LAction
26 Case Sturdy 3: Milt.up Construction
27 Flurther Opportunities to Reduce Ern bodied Carbon in Case Sturdy BLAildings
28 Discussion
30 Section 5 Oppoiiirtuniltriles -to Dirlive Deeper avilinlgs
31 Regional Differences
33 Regional IData Disparity
34 Advanced Materials to Drive Greater,Change
38 Codes arid Flolicy
39 Section 6 Coindusloin
41 Appendix
43 Eindiinr*tes
Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings www.rimi.org/4
/
/ate,
r/
fflfff f,
/
i
0
/
/
o
000
pp//
j
1
f
�Y t
Y
�t
���� N�i �� �� Summary
Embodied Carbon: A Hidden Climate difference associated with |ovv'embodied'carbon
� Challenge solutions and points Lo next-generation so|uLionsthat
could drive even greater reductions.
Buildings accuuntfur at least 3996 of energy-related
g|ubo| carbon ernissiunsonanannual basis.' At least y ��'alkeaways
one-quarLeruf these ernissionsresu|tfrunnembodied
carbon, or the car-bon ennissiuns associated with Up-front embodied car-bon can bereducedbyup
building rnaLeria|s and consLrucLion. The solutions for Lo4G96 in ourcose study bui|ding typologies,with
addressingennbodied carbon in buildings have not less than 196 costprerniurn,
been vvide|ystudied in the United States, leaving
significant knowledge gap for engineers, architects, Optimizing ready-nnix concrete design, choosing
contractors, po|icyrnakers, and building owners, finish materials with low-ernbudied-corbun
footprints, arid considering |ovv-ernbudied-carbun
Ernbodied carbon can be reduced significantly at or carbon-sequestering insulation options are the
little to no additional up-front cost. The case studies rnosL innpactfu| no-cost rneasuresfor reducing
showcased in this report show anennbodiedcarbon ernbodiedcorbun.
savings potential ofZ446-4646oL cost prenniurns
of less than 196. CurrenL practice indicates that Designing for, rnininna| material Usage can
vve can achieve these reducLionsbyspecifying reduce embodied carbon, lower upfrunLcosts,
and substituting rnateria| alternatives with lower and rnaintain o building's sound structure and
ernbodied carbon during the design and specification aesthetics,
process. FargreaLer reductions are possible when a
whole-building design approach is taken, Sourcing reborand structural steel with higher
recycled content, choosing |ovv-ernbudied-carbon
This report highlights the low--cost arid no-cost glazing products, and reducingstructura| sysLern
so|uLionsfor reducingennbodied carbon in buildings material needs are the nnust innpactfu| low-cost
bystudying three bui|ding types and considering rneosures,
design strategies that can reduce ennbodiedcarbon
aL any stage ufa pro|ect's design and construction Currently ernerging materials prurniseLo
phases. The report quantifies the constructioncost significantly furtherreduceernbodiedimpacts.
Exhibit I Top categories for reducing embodied carbon
Concrete Rmbar Insulation Glazing Finish Materials
14%-33%,eductivn 4%-10%,educdvn 16%,eductivn z%reducdvn s"mreduction
None to low cost premium None m low cost premium mo cost premium 1o%cost premium None u`low cost premium
�
Redudngsmbmdied Carbon inBuildings www.,mimrg 6
What Is Embodied Carbon, and Why Is It with energy consurnpLion). As global construction
Important? continues to rise, and existing bui|dingoperations
becurnernore efficient, embodied carbon will becurne
Ernbodied carbon refers to the greenhouse gas an increasingly significant issue--occounLingfor
ernissions resulting fronnextracting, rnonufacturing, approximately 5O46ofglobal bui|ding'secLurernissions
and installing materials and products over the life between now and ZO5O. This growing prob|ernwill
cycle ofa bui|ding.z These ennissionscan also include account for a significant arnounLofuurremaining
the Use phase and treaLnnentof materials aL the end carbon budget for keeping global warming below
of their usefu| lives (e.g., reuse, recycling, |andfiUing), 1,5"C, and iL needs tobe addressed bypu|icyrnakers
and practitioners now Lu drive the most irnpocL.o
It's critical Lo understand which |ife-cyde stages are
being considered in any studyofennbudiedcarbon,
The most cornrnon characterizations are"cradle Lo The Time Value of Carbon
gate"(covering material extraction, transportation,
and rnonufacturing) and"cradle Lu grave"(which also |n the questtureduce the emissions generated
inc|udes the use phase and end'of-|ifeconsidenaLions). from bui|dingcunstruction and operations, the rnost
End-o#ife considerations are important for va|uab|e opportunity for reducing carbon isotthe
developing holistic arid consistent view of the beginning ofo building's |ife. Ernbodied car-bon is
environmental impacts that a material has thruughits critical tornitigating global dinnaLe change, because
disposal ur reuse. Hovveve� end'of-|ifeconsiderations rnusLof these emissions typically uccur LIP front, aL
are often urnitteddueLu data scarcity, uncertainty the start ufo building's life cycle. ArchitectureZO3O
abuuteventua| treatment (will apruductbe |ondfiUed, reports that"[u]n|ike operational carbon emissions,
recycled, urreused7), or other Unknowns, which can be reduced over time with bui|dingenergy
efficiency renovations and the Use ofrenewable
This report will only consider the crod|e+Lu-gate life- energy, embodied carbon ennissions are locked in
cycle stages, orup�runternbodied carbon,These place os soon asobui|dingisbui|L |tis critical that vve
stages correspond to the A]-A3 life-cycle stages get a handle un embodied carbon now ifvve hope to
that are connnnon|y Used for |ife cycle ana|ysis,s phase out fossil fuel ernissionsby the year 2O5O,"
which refer to raw nnateria| supp|\( transport tothe Global construction is booming arid is projected to
rnanufocturingsiLe, and nnanufacturing. Up-front continue to rise for decodes./ It is therefore critical
ernbodied carbon indudesennissions related tothe Loreduceernbodied carbon ernissionsasquicWyas
extraction, transportation (frurn extraction site to possible, because the ernissionsfrurn construction
rnanufocturingsiLe), and rnanufacLureof materials. |t today can remain in the o1rnusphere for hundreds
does riot inc|ude emissions related totransportation of years, Reducing and avoiding both ernbodiedarid
Lo the cunstruction site, the construction or, use operating emissions is our best strategy for reducing
phases, or end-u#ife considerations.Therefore, the overall quantity ufC{]_2e in the atmosphere.
the core conclusions and case study analysis inthis
report do riot address end-o#ife embodied carbon
considerations, a|thuugh the report does discussend- Lowering Embodied Carbon Can
of-life considerations ota high level, Drive Value
Ernbodied carbon is critical for c|irnotennitigabun Embodied carbon reductions can deliver va|uebeyond
because iL accounts for upward of1196 ofg|obo| reducing car-bon emissions,
ernissions4(LIP to2396bysorneesdnnates),' butit
has not been addressed at nearly the same scale Ernbodied carbon reductions can often ireduce project
as operational ennissiuns(the ernissiunsassociated costs. Reducing the arnuuntof material needed ina
Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings www.rmi.org/
project is one of the first steps that bui|dingdesigners Fina||\( reducing ennissions in the extraction,
can take Loreduce embodied carbon, Procuring rnanufocLu ring, and transportation uf|om+ennbudied'
fevverrnateria|svviUcusLtheowneranddeve|oper carbon nnaLeria|simproves allir quaUity and pulbUic
|ess money, Further, carbon'reducdun strategies that IheaUtlhincornrnunities located close toindustria|
reduce the cernent content of many concrete mixes centers. These health arid environnnento| benefiLs
can also reduce cost, ascernenLisa driver of both cost are especio||y important for connnnunitiesufcolor,
and carbon for concrete. Projects that use rnasstinnber inc|uding Black, Lotinx, and Indigenous cornrnuniLies
for structura| components also reduce project costs and people in areas with |uvver incomes, who are most
dueto faster construction times with rnore rnodu|or directly impacted by industrial ernissionsthrough
cunnponenLs and sinnp|erconnections, higher rates ofasthrno and other diseoses,»
Lovv'ernbodied'carbonpruducLsa|su often reduce
einergy consumption in extraction' manufacturing, Setting the Stage
aind/oir transportation. Un|essLheir process is
driven bvcarbon'inLensivechennica| reactions, low- This report vvi|| lay uutofrarnevvurk for reducing
ernbodied'carbonpruductsvvi|[ bynaLure, resu|t embodied carbon inbui|dings and highlight the ways
in energy savings upstreonnofa material's end Use, that the constructiunindustry can cost-effectively
These savings Lypico||yresu|tin operational cost reduce embodied carbon insurneof the nnost
savings for nnoLeria| manufacturers, which rnaybe preva|entbui|dingconstrucdon types in the United
passed onto the end consunner, States today.
Bui|ding projects that reduceernbodied car-bon and/
or include avvhu|e-bui|ding life cycle assessnnent
(VVBL CA) can heUp tommeet green buiUding
certification requiremmeints, Certifications that
incorporate embodied carbon inc|ude the Bui|ding
Research Estob|ishnnent Environmental Assessnnent
Method (BREEAM), Excellence in Design for,Greater,
Efficiencies(EDGE), LEEDv4frorn the US, Green
Bui|ding Cuunci[ arid both the Zero Car-bon arid
Living Building Cha||enge certifications frurnthe
International LivingFuLure |nstituLe ( LF|),u
A low-ennbodied-corbon bui|ding design vvi|| also be
lbetteir prepared for-futumecode or poUicy chainges
that inceintfivize or requireUow emmlbodied carlboin.
|n the near Lerrn, these changes could take the
form ofa carbon tax, bui|ding code requirements,
procurennentpo|icies (e.g, Buy Clean po|icies),
development incentives, or,other regu|aLury
rnechanisrns.A|Lhuugh localities are Unlikely to
irnp|ennenLretrooctive pu|iciesrequiring |ovv-
ernbodied'carbon bui|dingdesign, bui|dingLo o |ovv-
ernbodied'carbon standard vvi|| prepare developers,
designers, arid the cunstrucbunindustry for these
|ike|yfuturescenarios,
�
Redudngsmbmdied Carbon inBuildings ww°^,mimng 8
Section
Key Materials Driving Embodied
Carbon in US Buildings / �%% Sri/� !�� 1✓G ,;;% err,%> r
'
/
!
/%i, r / �rr %//„✓� / r e 'J` %� /G� r r i�%J /o/ii i i,//� l rii
/ /'r,/' // r r,. / /r� � �„� „�,,,�/i�/%r��:✓ i»`�/rr%�/ ;/r 41�,. ,aril, i r
r
G loll
rr r I r
r.,
J ; r � `, ir� rrr% /a rl�i ���✓% �� �� !
I
qer
i
IIIIIIIIIII J
'III 9
Driving
Materials Embodied
��������0�� in
US
Buildings
��� ����� �
� Industry Overview fronn interiors can occounL for a similar arnountof
ernissiuns over the |ifetirneofa building, |n this report,
In urderLu tackle embodied carbon in buildings and vvefocus primarily on structural materials, metals
Initiate osectu�vvide shift toward addressing the (inc|uding steel arid a|unninurn), cement, insulation,
issue, vve first need tu Understand the carbon impact and Lirnber, Each uf these materials has adifferent
of the industries driving embodied car-bon ernissions. embodied carbon content butis critical tuour
VVBLCAs show us that a building's structureand consideration ofstructural systems in this context.
substructure typically constitute the largest source uf
its up-front ennbodied carbon, LAP tu8O96depending VVe can better understand the carbon ennbodiedin
on bui|dingLype.,» However, becauseofthe relatively buildings by looking aLthese materials individually:
rapid renovation ofbui|ding interiors associated with cernent and concrete, stee|, tirnber, and insulation.
tenancy and turnover, the total ernbodiedcarbon
Exhibit 2 Typical high-embodied-carbon structural elements, building envelope
materials, and finish materials
. 2 Building Envelope
Rigid Insulation
Metal Panels
�� t � lions
Beams + Columns , Precast Panels
Floor + Roofs
3. Finishes
Ceiling Tile
Gypsum Wa
I IN
source:Mimun
Reducing Embodied Carbon inBuildings ww°^,mi.o,g 10
Cement and Concrete and someS[IVis are becoming less vvide|yovai|ab|e.
For instance, supp|yof fly ash, abv-pruductufcoal
Concrete is one of the rnustvvide|y used materials power generation, isfo||ingos coal is Used less and less
in the cunstrucLiun industry and aprinnarysuurce aso power generation suurce. High-qua|ityaggregate
of embodied carbon in buildings, |n fact,global Use can also reduce the arnountofcernent needed to
of concrete exceeds the consumption of any other produce concrete due to better adhesion and other
material, aside frornvvaLernA|thuugh each ufconcrete's properties, |nsorne cases, iL can even bevvorthvvhi|eto
constiLuenLrnateria|s offer uppurtunities for reductions irnport aggregate,as the improved strength properties
inernbodied carbon,the high ennbodied carbon uf can outweigh the carbon ernissiuns associated with
concrete isprinnari|y driven bv the rnanufacLureofone Lransportation.,s
key ingredient--ordinarypurdondcernent, Portland
cernentis the most curnrnuncennentitiuus binder Used The rennoining4O96ofcernentpruductionernissiuns
in concrete nnixLuresin the United States, arid the US connefronn the burning of fossil fue|stu heat the ki|ns
cernent industry is one of the largest cuntributorsLo requiredtu produce clinker,The e|ectrificatiunufcennenL
US-borne emissions at683nni||ionrnetrictons(MIMT)uf production, os well os the Use uf alternative fue|ssuch
COze per yeac`z asbiornass and renewable energy, cuu|d help reduce
emissions, but these strategies are currently inearly
VVhi|e the layperson rnay use"cernent''arid"cuncreLe" stages ofdeve|upnnent arid adoption, Researchers
interchongeab|y,they are unique materials, and are exploring carbon copturetechniques that vvou|d
Understanding the difference is key tu the ernbodied capture and store carbon ernissionsfrurn the cennent
carbon discussion,To build bui|ding,cunstruction W|nsasa poLentia| su|ution, but these technologies
professiuna|s buy concrete(which contains cennent), nut are notnnarket-ready Becauseernissionsassociated
the cernenL itself. Cernentis Used with water asabinder with cernenL are so significant(almost 1 kgofCClfor
Lo adhere partidesuf sand arid rock(aggregaLe)together each kgofcernentrnanufacLured), rnanyresearchers
Lofurrn concrete.The rnanufactureufcernenL tends Lo are working onernerging technologies to address this
becentra|ized, and the rnixingofcernenL into concrete issue.mTodoy'stechnu|ogies can he|prnonufacturers
is high|y|uco|izedLu rnininnizethe expense ufnnoving rnake cernent products with substonLia||y|ess ernissions
heavy aggregate. aL competitive prices, and ennergingtechno|ugiesrnay
be able tu pruducezero-ernbodied-corbon cernenL, or
Nearly GO96ofC[1 emissions frurn cement production even net carbon-negative products,,r
come frurnchernica| reactions that occurwhile
producing c|inker, on intermediary cunnponent The building consLructionindustry'sdernandfor
ofcernent,o Since these emissions are the resu|t concrete accuunLs for onestinnoLed5196oftotal pordand
ofchernica| reactions,they cannot bereducedor cement producedin the United StaLes.m Given its
e|inninotedbv increasing energy efficiency urby evident popularity inbui|ding construction, it's essential
switching fue|s.As such, one way toreducethe vve address the high carbon intensity of this rnateria|,
ernbudied carbon content ofcernentisby replacing o Aforthcurning guidebvRM outlines now concrete
portion uf the cennenL with supplementary cernenLiLious ready-mix supp|iers, deve|upers, and contractors can
materials(SCIMs)suchas fly ash and s|agorbv using a |everoge proven arid cost-effective su|utionsto lower the
clinker-free alternative topurt|ondcernent, embodied carbon ufconcrete,
However, SCMs are in high dernand due to their ability tu
reduce the ennbudied carbon ofcernent arid concrete,w
�
Redudngsmbmdied Carbon inBuildings www.,mi�,g 11
Steel of CC)' ennissiunsonnuaUy12becauseE4Fs are effectively
as"c|ean~as their energy source,
The US steel indusLryis responsible for 104,6 IMIMTof
CC)' ernissions annually, acontribubun that makes LAP The rnost straightforward way toreduceembodied
296oftotal US ernissions.mStee| indusLryennissions have carbon fbrsLructura| steel today is to specify steel
dropped bv approximately GO46 since 1g9O, largely due produced in facilities that operate using relatively low-
to technological i rn prove rne rits as well as increased emissions(or zero-ernissions)energy suurcessuchos
recycling of scrap steel 2 11 Even so,steel isasubstantio| hydroelectric, renewable hydrogen, solar, ur wind,1s
source ofernbodied carbon ernissions for the built A|thuughzero-corbon steel may not bemarket-ready
environment that cuu|d theoretically bereducedLozero today, specifying steel pruducedin efficient factories will
either through material substitution or-Lhroughthe ensure less energy is Used inpruduction. |ncombination
production ofc|eonersteel, with cleaner electricity, this step can nnakeasignificant
difference."
|n recent decades,the US steel industry has shifted away
frorn the use of integrated steel rni||s and the primary Structural steel is the predurninanL structural framing
useuf blast oxygen furnoces,toward the Use ofmore rnateria| Used inbui|dingconstrucLiun, holding 4696of
efficient electric arcfurnaces(EAF),Which Use scrap steel the rnarkeL share for structuro|fronning materials for
aso primary input. Qf all the U5 steel rnadein2O16,7O96 nonresidential and nnu|tisLury residential construcLion
was rnanufactured Using efficient electric arc furnace s,z` inZO17 Concrete arid wood held 34%and 1O96ufthe
reflecting a switch that has indeed reduced the carbon rnarket share, respecLive|y,"Steel reinforcing or"rebar,"
footprint of steel, However, steel producdunrennainsan which is typically ernbeddedinstructuro| concrete,can
incredibly energy intensive process, and steel destined also beornaUor Use ofsteel,
for the bui|L environment is still responsible for 4GWIVIT
�
Redudngsmbmdied Carbon inBuildings www.rmiong �z
Timber products are responsibly and sustainab|yproduced,
and specifying p5C-certifiedproductsisapositive
Timber has been Used inbui|ding construction for step toward managing low-carbon wood producLs.21,
Lhuusondsof years and is still one of the rnustwidely However, FSCis riot the un|ysuurceufsusLainab|y
Used bui|ding materials. |nZO17, bui|dingcunsLruction harvested wood,arid groups that du riot pursue
accounted for 6296of wood product end Use inthe certification can also have exce||ent forest management
United States,Although conventiono||y used for practices,When wood is riot harvested susLainob|y,
construction of single-family houses arid low-rise the resulting ecological destruction, increased soil
bui|dings,vvood is attracting interest worldwide for degradation, and use ofpeLro|eunn-based fertilizers can
the consLrucdunofta||erbui|dingsas wood products drosticaUy increase the embodied carbon content of
becorneon effective alternative Lo more carbon- vvoodpruducts,
intensive concrete arid steel,
Asdernand grows for wood products, it will becrucio|
With the introductiunofinnovative design strategies Lo ensure this dennond is rnet with sustoinob|eforestry
arid engineered wood productssuchascruss-|onninated rnanagennent practices, Otherwise,the broader Use
drnber(CLT),wood issLeadi|ybecurninga more viab|e oftirnberasabui|ding product cou|d result inhigher
material option for low-arid nnid'rise bui|dings.The carbon emissions and less ecological diversity.zr
cost-effectiveness uf wood producLs has he|peddrive
interest os costs of steel arid concrete rise, and wood
products offer additional benefiLs for design f|exibi|i�y, Insulation
constructiun speed, and reduced environmental irnpoct.
NthuughcLTis not yet widely Used in the United States, |nsu|ationproducts are essential to creating operationally
the vvood-frarned"pudiunn" building design,which efficientbui|dings.A|Lhough they rnoy represent ore|oLive|y
inc|udes several stories of wood over one story uf snnaU portion ufan overall cunstruction cost budget,they
concrete, is gaining inpopularity, can beo significant cunLribuLortoa building's ernbudied
carbon budget,This category ofnnaLeria|s has producLs
Timber cou|d even be considered aneLcarbon- with a broad range ofennbudied car-bon innpocts,fronn
sequestering material, becouse the car-bon sequestered corbon-inLensive,petrochernico|-based contributors Lo
duringatree's growth can surpass the carbon ennitted corbon-negative options, For,exornp|e,rigid or spray foann
during harvesting arid nnonufacturing. Hovveve�this producLs have the greatest associated ernissiuns,whereas
deternni nation depends on the nneLhudofcu|tivadon bio|ugica|-bosed materials(suchosce||u|ose and cotton
arid harvest osvve|| as the end-of |ifeconsiderations producLs)can cunLribuLe very little ennbodied carbon or
of the material, Considering wood osocarbon- even be considered asnetcorbun'sequesLeringproducts,
sequestering material iso point of contention arnung The insu|aLive capacity ofo product,rneasuredosthermal
industry experts,with debate largely revolving oruund resistance,orR*o|ue,varies between material type,
varying forestry and harvesting practices and their with high values indicating higher performing insu|ation,
effect onernissiuns. Nevertheless, timber istypically Bio|ugica|-bosednnoterio|s tend to have lower R-va|ues
seen osa |uvvepcarbon alternative Lu steel and concrete than corbon'inLensive materials and vvou|drequirea
when used osastrucLuro| material. thicker application uf the product Lu achieve onequivo|ent
|eve| ofperforrna rice, Exhibit 3 demonstrates the relative
|n order tufu||y Understand the irnpoctoftimber up-fronternbudied carbon ennissions associated with
materials, environmental assessments rnusLfirst various insulation materials,
account for variation in forest management and
harvesting practices, because differences inthese
practices produce great disparities in the onnounL
of car-bon sequestered, For,exonnp|e,the Forest
Stewardship Cuunci| (F5[)certifies that wood
�
gedudngsmbmdied Carbon inBuildings www.rmio,g 13
Exhibit 3 Embodied carbon of insulation materials (kg CO 2 e)
Net Carbon Emitting
Extruded Polystyrene (XP5) 1§111111111EMNIMMI= 20,205
Closed Cell SpraVfO8nn (HF{] MENOMONEE= 17,518
[|05ed Cell Spr8\doarn (HFC}) MEIMMI= 9,948
Mineral Wool 4,730
��|
Expanded Polystyrene(EPS) ���� 2,517
��
Fiberglass ��� 2,053
�Met CaiiIboin SequesteirKii,�iiq
3,319 Cellulose
18,2 5 7 H ern p[[ete
2 2,312 Straw Ba le
Note:The amount ofCoze is based on n-20at 234 mz.
Source:Chris Maqwoud. Opportunities for cOz Capture and Storage/n Building Materials,10.1314O/ms�22.3217|39208.2u19.
Moving Forward emissions, 5trucLura| engineers, architects, arid other
specifiers could significantly reduce embodied carbon in
A|thuughernbodied carbon reduction strategies exist new construction projects at little to no additional cost
today,there are several significant barriers tuachieving by Using the tools and resuurces available tothenntoday,
these reductions. Perceptions of high cost, along with detailed in Section 3.
industry resistance to change, have stifled progress.
Misinformation and |uvv product availability have There are rnanyrnure materials and construction
contribuLedLu misconceptions that|uvv'ernbudied- rnethods that can deliver subsLanLia| carbon reductions
carbon products are more connp|icatedto use or in buildings beyond what iscovered in this repurL.The
procure, or-that they are inferior in strength urqua|ity, processes,solutions,and case studies offered inthe
Additionally, nnost industry decision makers and following sections can help developers, designers,
developers remain Unaware of the ennbodiedcarbon and construction professionals achieve low ernbudied
discussion arid therefore do riot know Lo request these carbon inbui|dings based untuday's best practices.
products tu begin with,or they nnight not be aware of
tools that can help thern identify and track their prcyect's
�
gedudngsmbmdied Carbon inBuildings www.rmio,g 14
Sec n 3
Proven S ��' ins and Strategies to
Reduce E ied Carbon
f
r
11
,
/
l
Ire
N
M
it
l r ,
u
m
Y i
f
1 ism i i
f
1
. f
f
i
!r
PI
r
/
r/rr,
,
ollllo
�i U
�� � � ������ ���� 0��� �� ����oven 4����� �� N����� ��� ��� ��� 4�� ��� �� ����������� to
���� Embodied
Carbon
�� ���
� Building common understonding ufsu|uLions
and strategies Lo reduce ernbudied carbon in
buildings is o critical first step to testing the
econonnicva|ue arid technical potential uf |ovv-
ernbodied'carbonconstructiun.
Characterizing Low-Embodied-Carbon
Solutions
Example
Today,there are rnanyso|uLions that can be leveraged MinimizinQ the over-all quantity ofmateria|used inabuilding,
Lo |irniL embodied carbon in new buildings.The totality especially high embodied-carbonmateria|ssuchasconcrete'
of|ov-ennbodied-carbun solutions includes a long list steel,and petrochemica| hased insulation products'can
significantly reduce the overall embodied carbon ofaproject,
of offerings that span a wide range ufconnp|exity,
Impact
Designing for additional levels ofstrucmra|efficiency and
Most simply, |uvv-ennbodied-corbon solutions for materia|savings car)yield^compoundingefficiency,''where
buildings can be broken down into three main lighter structures reduce materia|quantities as well as
requirements for foundations T his can direcdyresult in
cote�ories� w���U�-���U����������' ���~���-��� materia|cost savings,
mmateriaU substitution, arid speci-fication. In genera[
whole-building design so|utions can drive the Key Considerations
11 racking embodied carbon intsmsofki|oQramsof[DJe
greatest embodied car-bon savings, However, material per square foot is key to quantifying the benefit ofmatsia|
substitution arid specification can also resu|t in quantity reductions,Structura|engineers often design for
substantial embodied carbon savings' especially when efficiency automatically based oil economics theyWorkwithintheamin�scheeshared'but because
� m by the architect'
these so|uLionsLar-geL carbon-intensive nnateria|s such engineers arid architects need a collaborative approach to
as concrete arid steel, FurLherrnure,these categories achieve deeper,savings,
are not rnuLuo||yexdusive...........they can be combined
or performed in parallel to drive deeper ernbodied
carbon savings,
The exonnp|es corresponding with each strategy
barely scratch the surface of possible low'ernbodied- Example
corbonso|utions. [hoo$ngceUu|oseasaninsu|adngmateria|in place ofa
petm|eum-based insulation(e,g,expanded po|ystyrene)car)
achieve the same functional need(insu|adon}while dramatically
As the world becomes rnurefluenLin |ovv'ennbodied- reducing the embodied carbon of the over-all po4ect,
carbon construction, new design strategies may prove
Impact
Lhernse|ves more innpocLfu|, some materials may be |n some cases,insulation products car) lead to near-zero or,
produced rnore efficiently,and orchitecturo| styles rnay net negative(sequestering}carbon emissions,
shift�-o|| changing the calculation aruund designing for Key Considerations
low embodied carbon, When considering two materials,it's important toconsider,
their-functiona|performance,For insulation products,this
includes their,thermal properties(e,g,R�o|ue)as well as
their-form factors(e,g,blown product,rigid board,hat*arid
other performance qualities(Whether they also provide all air,
barrier,resist fire,repe|pests,etc�,
Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings www.rmi.org 1
Applying Low-Embodied-Carbon Solutions
to the Design and Construction Process
The rnost effective path tu reducing cost arid carbon un
6xammpUe abui|ding construction or renovation project istoset
A designer car)specify a desired percent reduction ofGVVPin
a given concrete mix,To meet this demand,the manutacmrer ernbodiedcarbon�ua|sondperfornnano|yseseor|yin
could incorporate changes to the concrete mix design that the design process,The initial prioritizaLionufembodied
reduces embodied carbon while meeting the necessary carbon will enable the design tear-n to consider whole-
strength requirerrients."Riese changes may include lowering
the ratio ofpordand cement,incorporating supp|ementary building design solutions,which can yield substontio|
cemenUdousmatsia|s(S[Ms}.or using aggregate that Will reducbunsin embodied carbon, It's important that
result in lower total embodied carbon,
design so|uLions are established early in the process
impact becauseitbecornes more difficu|L and expensive to
Cement often drives the embodied carbon ofa given concrete rnakefundonnento| changes os the project becornes
mix,arid lowering its content will reduce the carbon impact of
thepo4ect, rnuredeMnite.
Key Considerations
ReducinQport|and cement content may lead to notah|e Other interventions,such as nnoLerio| replacement and
changes in process,such as longer-cure times for,agiven specification, naturally occur later in the design process
cement mix,
� ' when the pmqecLisrnurede�ned Substituting and
desiQnteamcanuseopen-sourcetoo|ssuchasE[3orother '
databases(see page 19 for more information on these specifying |ovv'ennbudied'carbun materials alone can
resources)toidentirythe|omepcarbon'cost-comparable have significant impact on the embodied carbon ufo
option for their project,Somesupp|iss may not have
environmenta| product dedaration(EPD}data displaying constructionor renovation project,
the embodied carbon content of the materia|to prove ithas
a lower embodied carbon content than standard products,
Strategies Loreduce embodied carbon exist for
These data limitations are expected to improve asdemand
grows for,low-embodied-carbon materia|s, every stage uf the design process,frurnpredesign
and site selection through occupancy(see Exhibit
4). Implementing these strategies falls under the
responsibility ufnurneruus stakeholders and requires
a level of collaboration beyond standard practice. "To
foster the strong working relationships needed to
execute these strategies, it is critical that the project
owner bring together the architect, engineer, energy
orsustoinobi|iLyconsultant, contractor(if possib|e),
and other rna]urstokeho|ders at the outset of
project tu establish roles and responsibilities arid
set frequent check-ins thruughouL the design arid
cunstructionprocess.
�
Redudngsmbmdied Carbon inBuildings www.rmi.org1`/
Exhibit 4 Strategies to reduce embodied carbon throughout the design and
development process
Primary Roles
AL Architect Contractor Manufacturer Alk Owner Ak Structural Engineer AL Geotechnical Engineer Landscape Architect
1 Consider reusing an existing building before deciding to design a new building.
46 4WL Assess soil type and determine options for the building's foundation.Some types of foundations
Predesign& use greater quantities of materials than others.
Site Selection
aka Consider salvaging or reusing materials from a building that is to be deconstructed.
IL Set an embodied carbon budget for the project based on LCA calculations for similar buildings or
case studies.
2 Ensure structural systems are compact,efficient,and not oversized.
Design flexible and efficient spaces that allow for long-term changes in use.
Conceptual AL Design for future disassembly and reuse.
Schematic
Design AL a,A Consider the embodied carbon trade-offs related to architectural design decisions such as
massing,envelope systems,foundations,and landscaping.
t41hn rM Conduct an initial whole-building LCA(WBLCA)or perform an LCA for"hot spot"materials or
LIu 1dliu•u assemblies with higher carbon intensities.
Desiigirn Select building systems and assemblies that minimize embodied carbon.
Assess availability of local reused and locally sourced materials.
wlaLeii°i„111
Specify material characteristics that result in low embodied carbon.
3 AL
u �`i11'ir d tli r7 Substitute like-for-like materials that offer lower global warming potential
mcuucuuy�rent Design ii
Development hm8 W Consider the embodied carbon trade-offs related to architectural and structural refinements
&Construction and changes.
Documents 4L Update WBLCA as needed.
4 ILIncorporate clear embodied carbon goals in all procurement language and set building system or
material-specific goals.
Bidding& Include requirements for product substitutions in the specifications.
Procurement AL A. Request embodied carbon data,including EPDs,from all vendors.
A Include previous work,experience,and proposed solutions that address embodied carbon in any
procurement selection criteria.
AL Design a subcontractor selection process that incentivizes bidders to offer
lower-embodied-carbon materials and methods.
5 Establish clear guidelines and targets to reduce construction waste.
IV
Hold contractors accountable for delivering low-embodied-carbon design committed to in
Construction
previous phases.
Consider offering monetary performance bonuses for additional embodied carbon reductions
identified and executed during the construction process.
AL Document the as-built embodied carbon content of the building and publish the data.
Update WBLCA as needed.
6 Debrief and apply lessons learned to future projects.
�
Establish embodied carbon reduction targets for future
Occupancy: renovations and tenant fit-outs.
Maintenance,
Renovations&
Tenant Fit-Outs
SoUirce:Partially adapted frrom Fmbodied Carbon Quick Guide,.A Quick Reference Guide for Teams to Reduce their Project's Embodied Carbon,
International I.Wing Future IlnstltUte,2020.
Current Tools for Implementation Redevelopment and Reuse
Anurnberof open-source arid subscriptiun-based When embarking ona building project,the first
tools are available tu Support |uvv-ennbodied- consideration should be whether new construction
carbon design and cunstrucbon strategies,The iS needed ataU.zp The embodied carbon impact
following tools can be used to assess arid reducethe of redeveloping an existing structure iS5O96to
environmental impact ofprojects: 75% lower than the impact ofconstructing anew
bui|ding.s" Bvrepurposing existing assets, both cost
~ TheAtt'ieinaUmmpact Estimmatorr forr Buflidlirigs is a and carbon emissions associated with new bui|ding
free software tool for conductingaconnprehensive materials are avoided, Even if the foundation and
life cycle assessment ofbui|dings. It draws on an structure are the only elements retained, their reuse
ennbedded database uf regionally specific nnateria| will have a sign ifri cant impact on the embodied carbon
life-cycle data.The tool allows for side-by-side of the project, because these components generally
comparisons providing clear visibility into the account for a majority ufabui|ding'5 carbon fro ctprint.
impacts ufvarious design choices,
|fredeveloping an existing building is not aviab|e
~ ��e Cairboill"i Smmairt MateiriMs PaUetteisan option, consider incorporating recycled materials into
ArchitecLure2O3O project that provides"ottribuLe' the design wherever possible, |tiS also important
based design andrnateria| speciMcotiunguidance~ to design with the end of the building's |ifeinmind,
intended tu connect designers arid specifiers with ensuring the systems can be easily decunstructedand
information about key materials and actionable reused or that the building can be easily reconfigured
information about how to reduce ernbodiedcarbon to fill another use,
during the design and construction process,1»
~ The Emmtiodied Carbon lill"i Coinstirructior"I The following section presents case studies that
CaUcuUatoir(EO) is an upen-source database that apply nurnberof|ovv-ernbudied-carbon so|uLions
houses Lhousondsof digitized,third-parLyverified to achieve substantial ennbodied car-bon reductions
Environmental "Iroduct Declarations (EPIDs). This ot less than 146 additional cost,
tool isrnusL useful in providing transparency of
information and connporing the carbon innpactof
different product options across sinni|ar nnoLeria|
types, EC3 also allows Users Lo compare the
Up-front(Al-A3) ennbudied car-bon innpactsuf
different building materials for ogiven project, buL
iLis not intendedasaVVBI CA tool.
~ Oirie CUllc�k I CAisa subscription-based software
productthaL integrates with building Information
modeling(B|M) and an extensive database uf
material EF'Dstu produce o life cycle assessment
in any design stage ofaproject,
~ �aUUyis on application that allows,architects and
engineers tuperfornn highly detailed VVBLCAsof
projects directly within the Revit design platform,
�
Redudngsmbmdied Carbon inBuildings www.,mi�,g 19
i
%�,
r/
/'
i
=r,
l�,
r,
l r
��lf
�,
l
f.::�:
� ,
___
r�
��
r!
/r,,,,
_ .
>/,.
r
rill.
,,
r,�,,,..
> r
i
L
r re �„
rl
F
�f�,
� !%%/, 6x7m�r
%r/0/i
1�1
J '
r
r
I1
,�
��
I
;,
� ; ;
� J
r„i (�;
i I � � U f ,
�) �
r
� ;
��
SSSS 11ti111, �������1I,���1���1� � i,
,'�
j � � �
�;
I,
��' �������i �I�u��liull � �i ul�iYiUo�
i � muu'� ��
�� � ����� li I �� �r i
� ,1,,; l
'','� �,_ � rs� ,
%i ri//rri�;,� rr,
/,��i� J f�� � ' ,
�" `� i III II�-% J�!
/// /rye (1J f` ,; ��� �,
i �_
i� uu
dui ..
��
r ;
��` t ( n
�4i�
.�
r r
i � 1 � � r
..� ,
uu i
r ��4 ' � �
t� f
�' � fur
r� � f, � �
�� r �
1 � J
r, �� 1 ;,
I
r
i
r' � �� � r 1I 1' � V IIIIIII i "'"
r %� � I rr
r; � , �
� rr �
,' - a � �;, >- � r
/ %" /
s
f
,,ij� G ? is � r; a %; % 'f ,� r
/, ,�
lI„ f r i
i � ,r �� �; �'� � � i
�.
�, � `�irr; %/,,, III ' '��i �
j i�./ Ili � / 1/ I f � � 1 �//
i� /: �e
w
e ��
r n.
of rm' '; , ( u„ ',ry �/�° �
r
0
,fi,r r � f
r
( � r � J r / r % � r
1 �/ /�,,
� � l rri r i�,.//,
se Studies in the Economics of
owm Embodied= Carbon Buildings
Overview these r-neasures increased overall project costs by
Iess than 1%, which is within the rnargin of error for
One of the core objectives of the report is to answer rnost construction project budgets,
the question: How much can we reduce ernbodied
carbon in new bLAildings,at no additional cost? Skanska, one of the worid's ieading sustainable
construction fir-irns, provided cost data frorn
In short, this StUdy shows,that eirnbodied car-bon three actual projects In the Pacific Northwest and
can be reduced by 24%-46% in mid-rise commercial condLActed an analysis under the guidance of IRIW to
office, rT1LAItifarTdiy, and tilt-up-style buildings by generate the results Of this, study,
Iever-aging low- arid no-cost r-neaSUres, "Together,
Exhibit 5 Methodology and assumptions for the report's case study modeling exercises
Data-Driven Three Building
Methodology Construction
Types
E E
..................E
Quantity takeoffs from real Skanska Mid-Rise Steel and
Concrete
E E
projects of r
(IIIIII II I I E
Embodied carbon Mid-Rise Stick-Built
coefficient data � i E Construction
from EC3 tool
j%IIIII E
Cost estinmates
based o actual
project data and INS III Concrete Tilt Up
regional pricing
Two Scenarios
Cost-effective low embodied
Business as usual carbon(low or no additional
up-front cost)
Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings www.rmi.org 121
Methodology
Skanska and IRKl chose the three building
construction types included in this sturdy based on the
Use s
r�o.�,t significant building Usety��cs that exist in the
United States today by gross square footage.31 This 1�!
InClUdes bUilding;wlth a steel-re iriforced concrete
slab and steel and concrete above grade case" stud
1), buildings with a steel-reinforced concrete slab aria
traditional tlrriberfrairnin above grade (ease sturdy 2),
and buildings with tilt-LAP construction (case sturdy).
Case studies 1 and ) are representative of traditional � "
raid-rise office and rnultifairnily residential bUilr ingse
whereas case sturdy 3 represents a construction
rnethodology cr:rrnrrionly used for big-box retail, ,f
warehouses, and data centers.
Skanska chose three representative bLAildi g s of
these construction types frorn its recent construction �
portfolio, As a full-service design, crust estimation, o
and construction firm, Skariska was able to produce
quantity
takeoffs grid cast estimates for each of
these ��/��'
buildings, Skariska corribiried the quantity
takeoff information for theses"three projects
y,
with environmental performance data frorn the
Embodied Carbon in Construction alr::ulator°(EC3)
tool to develop a high-level est:irnate of the Up..:frr:rrst
earrikaodied carVar:rrs associated with constructing t:Fsea
structural systernse irssulatir:rrse glazing, and interior
flrsisfs rrsaterials wltFslrs each existing building design.
The original cost arid quantity takeoff information,
combined with the Up-front (cradle-to-gate, or,A1_g3)
eirnkaodied carbon data frorn IF:C3, established r:rur� ,tbaseline case, ��% o�ir� '�
a ��� IN
� �/
Skanska then modified each of these baseline
buildings to develop a "cost-effective eirnb died
carbon reduction"scenario. The rrsairs rnetFsr:dology �r
for this scenario was to sealed rrsaterials that represent
the 80th percentile of carbon dioxide equivalent
established in available environmental prodLA :t.
declarations(F:F'IDs) for they chosen material, IF:If'IDs
are essentially independently verified prodLACt labels
that approximates embodied carbon and other
environmental impacts. Skarsska's rrseatfodology
focused on ones-for-ones material SLAbstltution and
specific tl rs strategies, s performing whole-bUildir ;
Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings www.rmi.org122
design changes Wou|dbedifficu|LtorefecLinthe FinaU\( this study does riot inc|ude any vvho|e-bui|ding
rnude|s. Then, Skansko performed o cost analysis to design strategy changes, A|thuugh these strategies
either affirrn that the chosen nnateria| vvou|dhave (e.g, redesigning obui|dingLu Use different orfewer
no attributab|e cost increase, or-to ca|cu|o1ea cost structural materials) can often achieve significant
prerniurn for the chosen nnaLeriai The nnoLerio|sthat reductiunsat |uvv cost,the scope of this project
were chosen for this"cost-effective~scenario were riot |irniLedour analysis tu Use of the EC3 tool, EC3can
Lo increase total project cost bvrnore than 196, readily nnake specification and une-fur-unennoteria|
substiLuLiun comparisons, but it does riot have the
RM| arid Skonska also intended Loinc|udeadditional capability to inform whole-building design changes,
ernbodied carbon reduction measures that would
drive deeper vvho|e-bui|ding embodied carbon The following case studies detail our key findings for
reductions. Many of the nneosuresin this category each cunstruction Use type.
are Under deve|upnnent or- not widely ovoi|ab|einthe
United States; uLherscou|d riot beaccurote|ycosLed,
Asoresu|t,these advanced material so|utiuns are riot
inc|udedin the scenariosbe|ovv but are addressed
quo|iLative|yinsection 5,
Limitations of This Study
|deoU}\this study vvou|d incorporate data frorn
Lhuusandsof projects across the United States, Such
a sample vvou|d provide o diversity of cost estinnates
frunn construction firms, an understanding of regional
variation in pricing and ovai|obi|it\( and asLabsticoUy
significant sarnp|euf costs arid quantity takeoffs,
The data and the assertions nnade in this sLudy
are based on the scenorius that RIW| and 5kanska
studied. However,they cannot be generalized toall
bui|dingLypo|ugies, or-across every building project,
because they were not drawn frunnostatistically
significant sarnp|e, nor are these cunstructionUse
types perfectly representative uf their respective
construction types.
AddiLionaUy,the case studies only address up-front
ernbodied carbon, which considers |ife-cydestages
A]-A3 (extraction, nnanufacLu ring, and transportation
between those processes), or crad|e-to-gate sysLern
boundary, The case studies do riot consider the
ernissions related tucunstruction, use, or the end of
apruduct's |ife(including any uf the considerations in
|ife-cyc|e stages A4-A5, B, C, or D).
�
Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings www.,mi�,g 2 3
Case Study 1: Mid-Rise Concrete and Steel Construction
In a five-story, 200,000 ft2' rnixed-use office building with as steel-reln-forced concrete slab and steel and
concrete above-grade construction, we identified as potential 46%reduction in up-front ernb(.Aied carbon by
f'ocusing on a wide array of building cornponents,The cost prerniurn for this reduction in ernb(.Aied carbon is less
than 0.5%of the overall project cost,
Embodied Carbon Reduction by
Material Category 46% rota i
32% Reductio i
HIM
I 01MY
lllllllllI Ill Ill Ill lllllllll 0.500% (UM
4,
rr
BaseHne Concrete Rebar Wazing ffisWation Steel Proposed
(e)(d webar)
4.0 N
A
hl
III I
Reducing Embodied Carbon in BOdings wwwxrni.org 124
Case Study 2: Mid-Rise Stick-Built Construction
In a six-story, 125,000 ft2, mixed-use rnultifarnily building with lumber frarrilng above a steel-relnforced
concrete slab, we identified as potential 41% reduction in up.-front ernbodied carbon by focusing on as wide array
of building cornponerits, wrhe cost prerniurn for this reduction in ernbodied carbon is less than 0.5% of the overall
project cost, in line with the results of case study 1.
Embodied Carbon Reduction by ""`°
Material Category % I ota i
lZeductioll
14%
4 0A
41%6
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII2 1%
0 5 W/u 0,400%
7W
Hiseline Insulation Concrete Rebar Flooring/ (I Doors Steel Proposed
Paint IQexcl rebar)
i�flliiii P au an au u, III
Reducing Ernbodied Carbon in BOdings wwwxrri.org/25
Case Study 3: Tilt-Up Construction
In a 360,000 ft'tilt-up concrete warehouse, we identified a potential 24% reduction in up-front ernbodied
carbon by focusing on shell and core rnaterials only, 'rhe cost prerniurn for this reduction in ernbodied carbon is
less than 1% of the pr(.,)ject cost as slightly higher prerniurn as cornpared with case studies 1 and 2 but still within
the rnargin of error for rnost construction projects.
Embodied Carbon Reduction by
Material Category 19% Tota i
I No F%edLJCt III III"
O/b Mo% OJO%
fl
I ZeHl ne Concrete Rebar Gypsum Sted Proposed
(e)(Ld rebaw)
sll
V Ord ma u
Illlllllllppppppp ppi � �ap�j.. ��
Reducing Embodied Carbon in BOdings www.rrni.org/26
Interior Fit-Out Further Opportunities to Reduce
Embodied Carbon in Case Study Buildings
AithoughitiS commonly Understood that the structure
ufa typical building accourtS for the majority uf There are several ernbodied carbon reduction
the bui|ding's up-front embodied carbon footprint, opportunities that gu beyond the specification and
examining the recurring cycle of renovation over a one-for-one material substiLutiunopportunibes
building's life reveals the importance of interior�nish inc|uded in our analysis. These indude:
materials,
� Interior finish andfit-uuL reductions,' including:
|n some cases, the curnu|abve impacts ufmultiple
renovation cycles can surpass the up-front embodied ° Substituting traditional dryvvo|| with lightweight
carbon accunnu|ated during a building's con5truction.sz or a|Lernotive (p|onL'bosed) drywall materials
Arecent report from architecture and design firm
Hawley Peterson Snyder conservatively estimated ° Substituting |ovv'ernbodied-carbon carpet tiles
that building interiors are renovated or replaced on a rnadefrurn alternative materials
15-year cycle, adding to the building's total embodied
carbon each dnne.zs In cities with high frequency of ° Specifying lower-ernbudied-carbun ceiling tiles
tenant improvements, this cycle cou|d be much shorter, and paint products
Building typology also plays a key factor in the relative
impact of interior�t_uuAs. For instance, curnrnerda| s Replacing or redesigning c|addingand structural
and residential buildings are renovated at higher e|ennents,n such as:
frequencies than other buildings, leading to higher
cumulative impacts of embodied carbon. ° Replacing nneLa| decking or light-gouge steel
vva|| pone|svvith wood-based a|ternaLives
In a 2Ol05tud}\ the Carbon Leadership Forum
measured the impacts uf initial construction combined ° Redesigning entire structural systernsto
with mechanical, electrical, and p|urnbing(K4EP)and lever-age |ighLer-vveightrnoteria|s (such as
tenant improvements(T|), recurring at intervals of15 wood) and recalculating the size and nnateria|
year5.The results indicated that when replacements content of slabs and other foundational
ufVIEPand T| accumulate over 60-yearbui|ding structural e|ernenLs
|ife span,the combined impacts exceed the initial
con5trucbon impacts incertain cases.s^ s VVho|e'bui|dingdesign conside rations,ill inc|uding:
Materials used for interior fit-out5 are often made ° Adaptive reuse of existing bui|dings
bvconnpaniesvvith high|yvariab|e product lines, So
providingEPDsforeachpruductcanbednne- and ° Reducing floor area for greater Occupant
cost-prohibidve.zs In a study conducted by the Carbon density or nnore efficient use uffiuor space
Leadership Forum, the material categories that were
found to carry the highest global warming potential
(GVVP) in interior ht-outs, such a5a|unninurn-franned
store frants, HV4C components, interior partitions, and
wood flooring and under|aynnent, lacked essential L[A
data.s«These current data limitations are expected to
improve as demand grows for low-embodied-carbon
fit-out nnateria|S. Design practitionersShou|d reduce
the quandtyofhigh-ennbodied-carbon materials ifa
low-impact alternative is not available in their region,
�
gedudngsmbmdied Carbon inBuildings www.rmi.orgz`/
Discussion Northwest, we can note thern as strong anecdotal
evidence, natherLhanbruad|yapp|icab|econc|usions,
These resu|ts lead us to afevv puvverfu| observations,
Even though the strategies ennp|oyeddo not inc|ude VVe had hoped to draw stronger condusionsfrurn
comprehensive vvhu|e-bui|ding design strategies, these case studies about the cost, carbon, and
they still yie|da24%-4696 reduction inup-fronL material impacts ofsubsLituting more strucLura| steel
ernbodied carbon through specification and material and concrete with wood, but becauseof the limits uf
substitution measures. Given that these conclusions our study(narne|y the fact that vve were nut ab|e to
are based on three case sLudiesin the Pacific redesign bui|dingstructura| sysLenns), vve were Unable
Lo draw suchcunc|usions,
/ Interior finish and fit-out reductions were included tualimited extent in case studv2;they were excluded from the other case studies
because interior fit-out and finish materials were not included in the oiNuf materials for the original projects.
v These changes weire not considered in the case studies because they would have required a level of strUctural redesign beyond the scope of
the project.
a BecaUse this analysis was based on buildings that had already been designed and specified,these changes fell OUtside the scope of
the project.
Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings www.rm�.org/28
Exhibit 6 The categories in which a project's embodied carbon can be reduced for little
to no cost
Concrete
i
ff 14%-33% reduction
i
Illlllmm. None to low-cost premium Rebar
See case studies 1,2,and 3
4%-10%reduction
3 3/e None to low-cost �✓/ iii�uuioi
premium
See case studies 1,2
Insulation
i a
16%reduction
No cost premium
See case study 2
Glazing3%
P � k
Finish r;/ o
Materials 3/o reduction
e case study premium2 Se b,
�., �NNNhn1g1
o
n 911i ii I�uuullVuum umoi IVuu m u � i�.
5% reductions l
None to low-cost
p
remium
See case study 2
Reducing Embodied d Carbon in Buildings www.rmi.org/29
Seption 5
rtn
0 ppor ', s to Drive r
Savings
%!% f06,
/
"
r�
rid
���/i
������ ,, i/�%%`%�.�1r; �!, ��ill/ri%� �+)�iG�%'�ri✓/�/y,! / !i �'i�� "' �w�M!r� �wu�. �lu i
Y� I I I' Idll I
q WJO
W i III I v { I
7
��,r`��,r� Sri �ir J��� r` rrr✓�r�✓vr
o i� � r:r � s, l Ir„FF'1 �'r''I�r r7rrrrJTl+fIG+✓dx�i�yl d
r � �r 11114 ar�i�r�r✓r;r a� ��
r/ ur rl 1
r j� rrsr Ow,
r r+����`rl'r f�✓
r �nr��rld
r
,,r
portunities to Drive Deeper
ings
� The case studies in Section 4 demonstrate that targets, ThisWill in turn reducecusLs as result
the technology and solutions available today can of greater rnarkeL penetration, familiarity, and
economically lower the ennbudied carbon ofbui|dings. production of critical products,
Although riot part of this study, there are several
additional financial levers that could furtherImprove As the business case for |uvv-ernbudied-carbon
the econornics of|uvv-ennbodied-corbun buildings: construction continuesto grow and more
practitioners adopt reduction strategies asstandard
s UinterinaUcarlboin priciling: Applying omonetary practice, iLis important tu acknowledge key factors
cost to carbon via o carbon Lax or self-induced that can influence now low-ennbodied'corbon
corporate carbon pricing cuu|d drannaLico||y opportunities are approached in any given project,
increase the vo|ueof |ovv-ernbodied-carbun
design tothe developer-. Companies like Re&naUdifferences and data d�spariitliesrnay
Microsoft have Implemented an Internal cost enable certain |ovv-ernbudied-carbunso|uLionsand
of carbon that is used to influence decisions prohibit others, Emmergiling Uowm-emmbod�ed-carlboin
toward reducingcorbon ennissions, induding mmateriaUs and techniques can nnoke |irniting
cunstructiun carbon ernissions. embodied carbon sirnp|er, less expensive, or, more
innpactfu| as they becorneavailable. Fino||\( low-
s Consumer sav�ngs: Scaling producbonoflow- ernbodied-carbonbuiUding codes arid pofic�esare
ernbodied'carbon nnoLerio|s could result in cost gaining nnonnenLurn across the United States and will
savings being passed ontu the consurnecSavings Increase rnarkeLdennond for |ovv-ennbodied'corbon
fronnreducingport|andcennentino concrete rnix, materials arid constructiun.
for instance, rnoy today be realized only bythe
reody'rnixsupp|ier, butvvith added transparency
and growing dennond for concrete with lower Regional Differences
cennent content,these savings may beconnea
benefit for the purchaseraswell, Regional variations in labor force, material supply
availability, carbon intensity uf energy grids, and other
s IMarlket commpetWon: Increasing the producLion factors can significantly alter the econonnicviability,
of|uvv-ernbodied-carbunnnateria|sislikely availability, and workforce capabilities oruundspecific
Loreduce the cost of the nnaLeria|s. Thisrnay low-ennbudied'carbonso|utions.
also be accelerated by increased dernandfrurn
preferential purchasingpolicies. Electricity Used during rnanufocLuring can curnefronn
regional sources with varying degrees ofcarbon
s DeveUopMg and reducing embodied carlboin intensity. For, instance, surne steel products nnode
targets: Requiring the rneasurernentofembodied in factories Using electric arc furnaces can bevery
car-bon for new bui|dings arid renovation projects low in embodied carbon if the electricity cornes
alone will lead to greater dernandsfor low- fronn hydropower or other zero-carbon sources. In
ernbodied'carbon nnoLerio|sond construction regions Using coal and other carbun'inLensivefue|s
techniques, Once ennbudied carbon is regularly to generate electricity,those sarne steel products will
rneosured, codes, policies, and standards will have rnuch higher embodied carbon.
becorne stronger tools for setting stringent
�
Redudngsmbmdied Carbon inBuildings www.rmi�,g 31
l
r
The transportation of materials within or across
geographic regions can significantly impact the
eirik odied carbon of a product. AlthcI the
rnanUfaCtUririg stage typically eirnits the highest
ravels of car-bon in the life cycle of a given product,
transportation emissions can be sukastGaritial,
particularly when a large qLA aritity of material is
s ;
transported across long di�,tar�c�.s. When evaluating
low--embodied--carbon material options, eirlissions
associated with transport to the construction site
(lifecycle stage A4) shr:ruld be considered alongside
the embodied carbon of the given material (Iffecycle IOo
stages Al-A3), It is Werth rioting that many studies,
inClUdin,g this study, do riot incorporate lifecyc:le
stage A4 because the information Is riot readily
available vita tools such as f C3. Additionally, it requires � � , " �
are additional side calculation for each rriaterial �
depending on its Source. In sorne cases, specifying
local materials that cut down on transportation
eir fissions will be the better option, whereas in other"
cases it will be better to ship materials with low Up—
f
front embodied carbon from farther away. �� � � �"
� r�x,�
The capability of a local labor force to work with
low--embodied--carbon products varies, affecting a
design arid C"nstr°L1C'tV(:Drl tearn's ability to Ir1"1pemE'r'It
-� �
certain low erribodied carbon solutions. (Many
proo:IUcts .SLA :h as low®er-ribo ied-car-bon car-feet
tiles,thinner wall ,gypsum boards, and sustGainably
Sourced sheathing prod UCts—look, feel, avid are
typically installed like their traditional r.:ou rite rparts.
However, constr'LActin,g a rn ass timber structural
system or working with a new ceirient chemistry may
be a skill set less common to a given region,which
can risk additional time avid expense for a project
that specifies these solutions without a trained arid
knowledgeable workforce,
The negative impacts of regional differences will
decrease as dernand grows for low®eiriV tidied-carbon
products, labor forces gain experience with new skill
sets aria construction methods, and training becomes
available to work with these materials and Solutions,
Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings www.rmi.org/32
Regional Data Disparity BO96ufproducts represented have less embodied
carbon than the vo|ue listed, demonstrating a
Environmental ProducL Declarations(EPI)s) are a key conservative target for reduction. A tighter, but still
tool for selecting |um+ennbudied-carbonproducts, achievable target isdernonsLroLedbv the lowest value
The availability of EPE)s varies by region due to within the colored area, indicating that only 2O96 of
nnonufacturers supplying data based ondennondfronn products represented have less ennbudiedcarbon
the local pub|icand private sectors, than the vo|ue listed, This range is similar across all
locales, whereas the extrernernininnurn and nnaxirnurn
The graphs below(Exhibit 13)show the range uf values vary significantly, indicating that sorneregions,
ennbodied carbon content inready-nnix concrete frurn suchos California, have o higher nunnberufEPI)sthat
EPI)s across California, �Nevv York, arid Georgia. The show a wider range ofproducts,
highest va|ue within the colored area indicates that
Exhibit 7 Embodied carbon range of ready-mix concrete available in California, New
York, and Georgia
In each location,the'`Conservative'`value represents that 8u+aufavailable spos show a lower embodied carbon content per unit ofconcrete,
the"Achievable"valUe represents that 20%of EPDs show a lower value,and the"Majority Range"captures 60%of available EPDs.
CaUfforiMa New York Georq�a
Numbernf
1,000
avai|ab|eEPDs� 27�46 9�� 473 '
IlMax847
800
� Max596
600
� IlMax554
Conservative Conservative kg COueper ydzof
Conservative 462 465 ready~mmkx concrete
4,28
400
Ackiavab|e
272 Aclhievalble
ZOO
240 Achlievaliblie
207
�in1O�
� _�-
� WnS4 |
LO
Wn2
source� cc3Too|
�
Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings www.rmi.m,g 33
Advanced Materials to Drive Greater materials that either reduce or(net) store ennbudied
Change carbon alone can drarnaticaUy curb bui|ding-re|ated
carbon ernissions.
Emerging |ovv'ernbodied-carbon materials arid
techniques can rnoke |irniting ernbodied carbon The materials Outlined in Exhibits 9-11 dernonstraLe a
sinnp|e� less expensive, ur more innpactfu| asthey variety ufernbodied carbon reductionnneasuresand
beconne available. Although ennbodied carbon can be offer alternatives to traditional cunstructionmaterials
reduced substantially using widely available products with higher ernbodied carbon. While sornennoteria|s
today, emerging materials and other technologies are widely available across the United States, others
nnoy help lower ernbodied carbon content asthey are emerging and requirefurther testing, |Liscritical
beconne available, prove their rnerit, or,come down in to research the ennbudied carbon savings offered by
price. Exhibit demonstrates ovvide array ofbuilding ogiven nnateria| along with specific constructobi|it\(
materials (most of which are readily available today) durability, cost, and other factors when choosing
that range fronn high-ennbudied'carbon materials advanced material options,
to materials with high neternbodied carbon storage
potential, Raising awareness around readily available
Exhibit 8 CO2 e emissions and storage capacity of building materials
". CO2e/ mmateiIaU
-4.0 -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -Z.O -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 O 0.5 1.0 1.5 2D 2.5 3D 3.5 4.0
Po|ystyrene(EP5)
Steel
Gypsum Board
Cement
Steel (recycled content)
Concrete
1--lemperete
Laminated Bamboo
Mass Timber
mnx
Dimensioned Lumber ���� mrao
Straw � �� min
Source:Table se.Qa|inaChurxinaet al, "Buildings as a Global Carbon Sink," Nature Susta/nab///t»2o2o
Reducing Embodied Carbon inBuildings ww°^,mi.ong a4
Exhibit Market~ReadyMaterials
Materials that are readily available but have not yet achieved high market penetration
Embodied Carbon
Reduction Measure Description Market Readiness
Byincea$ngthequandtyofpe-andpost-recyc|ed Products are readi|yavoi|ab|efor
Carbon~negatKve matsia|s.biopo|ymers,arid other No-based materials, use today.
carpet backUng carpet ti|e manufacturers can produce products that are
carbon negative when measured from cradle oogate,
AQmwinQnumberofp|an�based insulation products Several straw,hempceoe,arid
are emi|ab|eon the marhet,Thesemateria|s are often ceUu|ose products are avai|ab|eor)
considered |mminemhodied carbon or provide anet the markettoday,
sequestration of carbon in buildings,[eUu|osehas
PUant~basedUnsuKatUon been avai|ab|e for decades in the United States but is
1pmmducts being reformulated to Work in different form factors,
Hempereteis another-high|y sustainable mateha|that
serves asan excellent insu|aoo: Both of these materia|s
are emi|ab|ein the esidentia|market but are riot readi|y
avai|ab|ein the incommer- ia|constructionmarket,
Low-GWP extruded po|ystyrene(XPS)insulation Several products are avai|ab|ein
products are madebyrep|acinQHF[434a.ahigh-GWP the United States.
Next~gen, Kow~GWP XPS hydmOuomcarbonb|owing agent,with a blend ofother,
UnsuKatkon products Wowing agents With |omerGVVPs,The Wends donot
e|iminateGVVP but offer,a lower,a|temaUvetotradidona|
XPS products m�th very high GWp�
Graphene-infused paints are|ime-hased products with Several products are avai|ab|ein
Graph ene~10 used carbon~ added graphene for,strength and durahi|ity,The|ime the United States,but their carbon
sequestering paUnt ingredient absorbs CO,from the surrounding air,asthe reduction daims are untested,
paint dries,
Lightweight wallboard products reduce transportation Several products are avai|ab|ein
emissions and are moeeasi|yhand|ed or)jobsites,One the United States.
Lightweight wallboard example isa|ightweight gypsum board that also reduces
1pmmducts embodied carbon byequirinQ less heat and associated
emissions needed to dry the mix, |t also uses less water
than typical gypsum wmUboapds,"
The use of limestone asasupp|ementarycementidous Several products are avai|ab|ein
matsia|(S[M)represents an important,|om+costhigh- the United States.
avai|abi|ity first step toward|omering the embodied
emissionsof concrete, Limestone is the most readily
avai|abeS[K ,�ven that it�a|eady present in
���� �� ��mm��� �������� cemert and deposits are widely avai|ab|e,Thetotal
emissionsabatement potential of limestone is|imited
hysubst�tudon |imits(l5%inASTIM).Which reflect the
reduction instrength assodated with rise of|imestone
asanS[M,
Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings www.rm�.org
Exhibit 10 Near-Market-Ready Materials
Materials that are available on a small-or pilot-project scale but are not yet broadly available on the market
Embodied Carbon
Reduction Measure Description Market Readiness
Several emerging cement chemistries and production methods Market readiness varies based on
are being pursued,requiring less fue|for cement production arid the technology and the producer,
Alternative resu|tinQinfemmrchemioa|reaction emissjons, Most products have undergone
cement testing arid are currently being
chemistries and Some of these technologies are currently in use ina|imrtednumber offered hy one or more ready-mix
ofpmducUonfaci|itiesforrea�+mixconcete others concetesupp|ieo
�mm������ ' ,
being used only tomake precast pavers,and others are earlier in
development,
Substitudng cement WOsupp|ementarycemendtiousmaterials Producers are consistently looking
(S[Ms),such as fly ash,slag,orpozzo|anic materials,inhigher for ways to reduce cement content
percentages car)dhve greater carbon reductions,S[Mshomnon- in concrete mixhy increasing the
fossil fuel sources such as glass pozzo|anor rice husks can further amount ofS[Ms'but high(5O'Yo-
Hkgher enhance carbon reductions,T his substitution leads to|ommrcement plus)S[M mixes are riot currently
concentrations of
requirements in the concrete mix but is dependent on the supply market validated in most regions
,
ofS[Ms'availability ofhiQhS[M mix design performance data,arid
SCMskt concrete architectura|/strucmra|de$gnrequirements,Higher concentrations
ofS[Ms than are typically accepted hy industry today can increase
the time to reach specified compressive strengths,which is why
this strategy is typically|imitedor riot used at all for quickvertical
construction projects with short Ume|ines,
These products claim to reduce emhodied carbon hydirectly These products are available in
injecting carbon dioxide into concrete,where itis mineralized arid certain locales,but their embodied
CO 2~Knjected permanently embedded,Since ement naturally carbonates over carbon reduction daimsare
cement products time,itremains unclear whether this process offers|ong-termcarbon untested,
advantages particularly giver)the need for high-grade Some
companies are also looking atcapturing CO,from cement kilns,
S|Ps and other exterior panels car)be made With p|an�basedmateria|s, Straw bale S|Ps and prefabricated
Some carbon accourflngsystemsmaycuroiderthese materials tobe straw bale Wall panels have
Plant-based wall net carbon sequestering,and others would consider-them tohelow been successfully imp|emented
embodiedcarhonwhencomparedaiththepetm|eum-or&ypsum- in the residential market for
1paneUs based traditional materials that they replace, selective projects,hommvecthese
applications are not yet common in
the commeria|market,
CO 2~sequestemmd T his nea technology uses[0'asa raw materia|for makinQ Several startups are actively
carbonate mcks Thecarbonatemckspmducedaeusedinp|aceof developing this ne%AItechnology,
aggregates for natural limestone rock mined from quarries,whichis the principal
concrete component of concrete,
Magnesium oxide wallboards car)be used in place oftraditional Several USmanufacturers
gypsumdrymmUor other sheaOhingapp|icadons,Thecalcination offer products With a variety of
Magnesium oxide
process equiedto manufacture this product occurs atlower- applications arid uses,but some
temperatures compared with that of traditional pordand cement or studies have highlighted negative
wallboard ca|cium oxide,resulting in reduced manufacturing emissions, moisture-absorbing features that
can lead to mold and moisture
damagein certain cases'm
Laminated Bamboo|umher products are a viable alternative to lumber, Bamboo Not tested or produced atscale in
bamboo lumber offers some advantageous strength characteristics compared to the United States
and structurM
typical lumber products,butthere are outstanding questions about
bamboo
the longevity and general re$|ienceofbamboo lumber products.w
�
Redudngsmbmdied Carbon inBuildings ww°^,miong as
Exhibit11 Materials in Development
Materials that are under development and that could provide significant embodied carbon reductions
for critical building materials
Embodied Carbon
Reduction Measure Description Market Readiness
Using mo|ten oxide electrolysis orreneWaWy T his product is riot yet available on the market,
produced hydrogen to produce steel and reducing but many producers are impmvinQ the embodied
the amount of virgin steel through reuse or carbon of available steel year-ovepyear,and there
Zero-carbon steel egc|inQcan enable azem-carbon steel product. are active efforts oo produce zem-carbon steel in
Currently,|omepemhodied-carbon steels are the United States and Europe,
avai|aWe'butthereisnotamarket-readyzem-
carbonsteeim
S[Ms car)be made from recycled glass products, T here are several emerging companies Working in
which proponents c|aimimpmvespe�brmanceof co�un�ionwith|oca|regc|inQcenters tobring
�U��� �����U�� ����� the u|timate concrete mix, glass pozzu|anS[I\Asto market,The greatest|imits
are due to economics and avai|abi|ityof the S[Ms,
Using alternative fuels for the heating process T his is still in the early stages ofdevelopment,
during the production of clinker for ordinary
Cement production Port|and cement would address appm*mate|y
48%of the current up-�ontembodied carbon of
����me� �� �U������U�� cement production,Thisis technically achievable
fuels but has not been tested ata large scale,The
process would not address the emissions related
tochemica| processes,
Se|f-hea|inQ materials,including concrete,can Most se|f-hea|inQand/or living materials are in
reduce embodied carbon by increasing the early stages of laboratory development,
����KK�� ��� KU������� longevity of certain materials with lives that
are limited by material fai|ure,Some living
mmateHaUs materials car)further reduce embodied carbon
by sequestering carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere in the process offorminQ,m
Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings /
Codes and Policy Sustainable Materials |nsLiLute highlights a number
of other approaches Lo limiting embodied carbon
A growing nunnberof codes arid policies are targeting Lhruugh codes and po|icies,+sincluding:
embodied carbon reductions across city, state, and
federal levels, Codes, standards, regu|abons, and s Other financial incentives, suchas bid incentives
incentive prugrarns can all be effective tools for or tax credits
driving change bvpronnoting arid establishing best
practices tu reduce embodied carbon incunstrucLiun, s Transparency initiatives such asrequiringor,
incenLivizing the measurement and disc|osureof
Already we have seen several low-ernbudied-carbon ennbudied carbon data for building projects
policies puL into effect, inc|uding the BuyClean
California Act, The policy drives |ovv'ernbodied- s Performance approaches suchasrequiringor
carbon procurement byrequiringcontractor's incenLivizing the reductiunof embodied carbon
bidding onstate infrastructure arid construction for bui|dingprojects relative to:
projects tu disclose the Environmental Product
Declarations (ElFIDs)of certain materials and ° Acustornizedperfurnnonce tar-get defined bya
mandates o preference for lower-carbon producLs, benchrnarkingsysLenn
Buy Clean California has inspired several other state
legislatures to pursue similar policies. ° Afixed perfornnanceLorget related to the GVVIFI
of building or nnaterio|
Further, in2O21 the US General Services
Adnninistratiun approved an advice letter s Prescriptive opproachessuch as requiringur
recommending two key strategies tu |inniternbudied incenLivizingthe use of specific materials or
carbon in the federal governrnent:+1 designnneasures
While these code and pu|icysu|utiuns have shown
1. The first strategy, o material approach, applies to be effective in select contexts,this is not an
to all projects, This approach requiresER")sfor exhaustive list,A report bv the Carbon Neutra|
7546of materials Used ino project arid requires Cities Alliance, (7tyPolig/Fr,o/nem/ork /brDramatically
that their emissions rank in the best-perfurrning Reducing Embodied Carbon, demonstrates the
8046 in terrnsuf global warming potential arnong vvide'rongingscope of embodied carbon reduction
functiona||yequiva|ent pruducts, policies by outlining 52 policies spanning five
categories: zoning and land Use, bui|dingregulations,
procurement, waste arid circularity, arid financial
2. The second strategy is ovvho|e'bui|ding |ife po|icies.4a �Nevv proposals for these types of
cycle assessment (VVBL CA)approach, applicable legislation, as well as governmental commitments
to larger projects over- $3.Og5 rni||iun. The suchosC4O Cities' Clean Construction Declaration,
VVBLCA approach requires that the life cycle are gaining nnornenLunn across the United States.
assessment of building's design shows at In addition to governmental policies, corporations
least a2O96 car-bon reduction, ascompared are issuing policies ono monthly basis that |irnit
with o baseline bui|ding. embodied carbon.
These policies airntureducedernond for high-
ernbodied-corbon pruducLsthruughpreferential
purchasing of |ovv-irnpocL materials, The Athena
�
gedudngsmbmdied Carbon inBuildings www.,mi.m,g 38
Conclusion
Illllll�i
inclusion
g ennbodlied carlbon is an urgent and using materialls that are widelly availlalbIle today. The
critic all issue, because the trajectory of er-ribodied redUctions highlighted by OLAr three case studies are
carbon eirnissions,is not CLArrently aligned with global backed Up by rnethods,arid materials that are widely
climate targets, Since 2010, as global emissions available and simple to ir-ripleirrient. Reductions can
frorn building operations have decreased slightly, go well beyond 50% by considering whole-bUilding
construction related eirnissions have actually increased design strategies, incurring a higher cost preirniurn,
by 1,5%.47 IIt is imperative that practitioners empIloy or leveraging sor-ne of the advanced materials that
the strategies and sollutions availlalblle today to are corning down the IR&I") pipeline, 'rhe technologies
accellerate the adoption of Ilow-embodlied-carlbon that enable low-er-ribodied-carbon constrUction will
constrcti u on. These changes are necessary to deliver continue to evolve, and regional nuances will continue
the Unprecedented action reqUired to rneet the goal of to inflUence the efficacy of individual prodLACtS or-
the Paris Clir-nate Agreement and limit global warming solutions, But the design methods and high-Ilevell
to 1,5"C. considerations highlighted in this report can
Th pIlied to any project today, offering Ilasting
This report demonstrates that midsized sollutions to elliminate arid sequester carlboin
connimerciall Ibu illding projects can reduce einnlbodied emissions flin our Ibu illdfings.
carlbon by up to 46%at Iless than a 1%cost premium
Rim
Ir
...........
Ili
e,
Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings www.rmii.org/40
uuuuuuuuuu°um� ��
IV�
�UUI
uuuumuuuuu�
�p VI
S
l
1,
�� 6100POO
'
lm
uuumoum u �
i�
y�
� v
J r
l
IN
Ii /
i air
;
r f pF
„F
m 1
f
r ? ii F,Fa ii
OF
p
�ti�FlFu ova ��wmri is �� of
HIM :iii:!il 11,1111111; i1g; i
y
F
rf
� a a
i
„ F
r
���� �������@� �������� N����� ���� Case Studies
Fhe case studies below were cornpiled while conducting research for this report and are included here for
additional insight into the irnpacts of variOUs approaches to lowering the eirnbodied car-bon content of low-arid
� rnid-risebui|dings.
Exhibit Al Additional Case Studies
Construction Building
Type Study Name Location Typology Size (ft') Link
ffinnnno
TaUy case study Seattle,WA Residence halls at size riot listed
Mid-rise steel the University of cmnr/caaestucly/
concrete Washington
Case study 1hnm WA 9-storycommercia| size riot listed httms//
^MassTimber building ca irbonn end axsil'irUx31 Poiru rn.
Mid-rise steel DptimizaUonand org/rnass'finribeir-
concrete L[A.^[arbon opmKnlizatlion-and~xca/
Leadership Forum
([LF)
Pane|ized CA,WA,OR,H| Commercial various httms/hwwmu
Roof� ��stem�. buildings ��m��mmb� /wp-
[onceteU|�uP Woodwmrks cmntemt,/kAjl3xnacfiw/xS-
L[AofKatsna's Spokane,WA 5-story office 168'800 httjl3s:&/
Mid-rise mass [LTa rid Catalyst building ca irbomn end ainafirU131 Pmiru rn.
Umber([[r} Bui|ding.[LF org/lIkatarra/
Comparative Life- Port|and'DR 12-storymixed-use 89.986 httjl3s://wwmufjpx.
Mid-rise mass Cycle Assessment apartment/office
timber,(Cl..". ofaMassTimber building Pdf2()20/Fjl3L?020L
g|u|am) Building arid Nainq00o.jpdf
Concrete Alternative
Luxury Wood- /m|anta'GA 5-story,wood-frame 275.000 httms/hwwmu
Frame Apartment apartment buildings womdwmrks.mirg/wp-
Mid-risemmod � ��x
Community (3 buildings) cmmt� � oachw/
Completes Dense, Cmo� �� tTw��Umms�
rrame Mixed-UseUrban caaesmuclly.jpcfl�
Development,
Woodworks
�
Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings www.rmiong 42
Q
Erhd otall
r
I�iil i '
I,
s� f
1,
r✓
I rrti �.
r
I r
III
I � ;
I
/
a
r
u � ,r/v.MARIMEMNIIIIIIIIIIII
Endnotes
1. Bringing Embodied Carbon Upfront: Coordinated 9. Centering Equity it) the Sustainable Building
Action for the Building, and Construction Sector to Sector: Comprehensive Surnmary: CESBS Launch
7dckle Embodied Carbon, World Green IBUilding Summit NAACP, 2018, Ilhttllpsa�//iir"iaacli).oiirg/wp-
COLAricil, 2019, IIN"ittps //www,.wo�rllldgIlbc,.oiirg/sites/ co nteiint/urjpllloads/2020/04/CIIESIIBS-,SLIIIr1111rTllit-
defau lt/f lles/WoirldG Co�riirmpiirellheiir"is'tlive.-Suiinr,iiiiirvia�ry--,Ju Ill y..20119,.pdf.
Caiirlboiir"i_,UIIpfiiro nt,.11pdf; and Robert,jairries IPratt,
"A Common Ask: Collecting ESG fData on Building 10. Paula Melton,"The Urgency of Embodied Carbon
Materials, Starting with IErrmVaodied Carbon," Urban and What You Ca ri ")o abOLA t," BuildingGreen,
Land,jarILAar-y 31, 2021, September 10, 2018, Ilhttl�)s://www,.IlbLiillld'�iir"iggireeiir"i,.
oiirg/sustai urn aIbilllity/a-,cooriirnoriirnc)iir"i..aF,Ilk-,coIII III ecti urn g-, cooriirn/feat iiire/Liiirgeiincy-,eoriirnIlbodied-caiirlboiir"I.-aiir"id.-
esg-,data.-oon-,lburjillldiong-iirviateiiriallls.-staiirtiiir"ig.-witllh.- wIIN"iat.-yo�mi.-caun.-do-a(lbout-,it,.
eiinr�iiiIIV�odied-,caor11boiir"i/,.
11. Colin R. Gagg,"Ceirrient and Concrete as an
2. Kathrina Simorien, Barbara X. IRodrigUeze and Engineering Material: An IHistoric Appraisal
Catherine De Wolf, "Benchniarking the Eirriloodied and Case StUdy Analysis,"Engineering Failure
Car-bon of IBLAildirngs," Technology I Architecture + Analysis 40 (May 1, 2014): 114-140, liatps:/Mol.
Design 1, no, 2 (2017): 208-218, https://doLoirg/1l0.1 oiirg/110,,11016/Jp.eiir"igfaill auna�ll,.2014�,�02.004,,�
080/24G75114,4G8a,201ll-/.1354,623a,
12. Inventory of U.S, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
3. Sustainability of Construction Works—Assessment of Sinks: 1990-2018, US Environmental F)rotection
Buildings, Part 2:Framework for the Assessment of Agency, 2020, f)ttps://www,epa.gov/sites/
Environmental Performance, ELAropean Committee prodLAction/fil es/2020. 44/doCLiriieritS/LIS-g Ig-
for Standardization, 2011. i rive nto ry-2020--nia i n-text,p df; and "MariufaCtLA ring
Energy and Carbon Footprint," US IDepartrm ent of
4. "New Buildings: Embodied Carbon,"ArchiteCtUre Energy, 11https://wwvv.eoneiirgy.goif/s'lites/Ii)orod/
2030, accessed April 1, 2021, IllhUlll s:// f'Iillles/20118/110/f56/2014-,uriir�iecs-,ceuriirneiint-,euneiirgy--
aiircll�"i'Itl�tect iiire2O3O,.oiirg/iir"ievv-IIV�JLiillldtliiir"igs..euriirnllV�odied/,. footprriint.pdf.
5. 1 izhen IHUang et al., "Carbon Eirnission of Global 13. Gagg, ,"Cement and Concrete as an Engineering
Coristr'LAction Sector,"Renewable and Sustainable Material,"2014; and Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Energy RevielNs, 81 (JarlUary 2018): IN& I 916, Gas Ernissions and Sinks, US Environmental
�lhttps://doi,.o�rg/10,,Ill016/j,.ors eiir,.201"/""`,,06,.O01. Protection Agency, 2020.
6. Bringing Embodied Carbon Upfront,World Green 14. "SLAppler-rieritary CernerititiOLAS IMaterial:
BLAilding COUricil, 2019, An Overview,"ScienceDirect, i'fttps://vvwvv.
scleuncedl�iirect.co�riir�i/to��)ics/eiir"igiuneeuriung/
7. The Critical Role of Buildings, 1EA, 2019, Ilhttps:// SLIli)li)llleiirvieiir"ita�ry-ceiinr'iiieuntiti()LIS-iirviateiir'tlialll,.
www,.iea,.oiirg/�repoiirtF,/tIIN"ie.-ciiriticaIII-,oroll -of-,
15. I...'rnbodied Carbon:A Clearer Viewl of Carbon
I..'.'rnissions, Walter, R (Moore, 2020, Ilintlwlll s://www.
8. Embodied Carbon in Building Materials for Real Estate, walllteiirli)iinr�iiioc)iire,.coiirii/sites/defriurjlllt/fillles/vvllpiirwl--
Urban I arid InstitLAte, 2019, hUps:Harrierricas. eoriirnllbodied-,ca�rllbo�n_,iirepoiirt-,2020,,li)df,�
urn IIli,,ourg/wllp-coonteiir"it/uIIpIIIoads/UIIL..i.-I)ocuililleints/
d f.
Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings www.rmi.org/44
16. "SUppleirrientary Cer-rientitiOLAS Material," 25. Structural Steel:An Industry OvervielN, American
ScienceDirect, Institute of Steel ConstrUction, August 2018,
�IN"ittl�)s://vvww,,aisc,,oiirg/gIllo11bal�lassets/aisc/
17. Thornas Czigler et al., 1 aying the oundation for p u I�b I i cati o ri s/vvl'i l te--pa 11pe rs/stiru dour lll_,s tee I
Zer-o-Car-bon Cement," McKinsey&Company, iiir"idu!,tory--oveorview-,201118,,11pdf,,
IMay 14, 2020, Ilhttps //wwvv,.oriirriicllkionsey.cooriirrii/
26. "Forest Management Certification,"
fouriiindatIio m-ifoiir..zeiiro.-caiirlbo�n-,ceiirvieiint. Stewardship COLAricil, IIN"ittli)s://fsc,.oiirg/eon/foiirest..
iirviaiinageoriirmeiir"it.-ceort'lificat'tlioiir"i,,
18. 2019 L/.S. Cernent Industry Annual Yearbook,
Portland Cernerit Association, 2019, Ilhttlps://wvvvv. 27. James i Howard and Shaobo i iang, "United
ceiirvieiint,,c)org/iirvioiireiirelpoorts/20118--us-,ceiirvieiir"it- States Forest 1=IrcdUcts ArinUal IMarket Review
i iind Ustiry-a iin in ua i-yea idlVb ollk. and Prospects, 2015-2019," US Department of
AgriCLIlture,
19. Inventory of U,S. Greenhouse Gas E'rnissions and t'iiirvilbeiir/c()Liontiiry-iiir"ifo/stateoriirmeiints/arjsa20118,,pdf.
Sinks, US Environmental Protection Agency, 2020,
28. "AbOLAt- Car-bon Sirnart Materials Palette,"
20. "ManUfaCtUririg Energy and Carbon Footprint," US Architecture 2030, accessed March 30, 2021,
Department of Energy; arid ibid. IN"ittl1psa�,//oriirmiateoriall spalllette,.oiirg/aIlbout/.
21. Ali Hasaribeigi and Cecilia Springer, How Clean Is 29. The Greenest Building: Quantifying the
the L1,S. Steel Industry?Global Efficiency I...bvircinmental Value of Building Reuse, I'�atiorial
Intelligence, 2019, Trust for Historic Preservation, 2011, httips://
�IN"ittli)s://vvww,,gIIIoIIba III ef fo�ruriiinr�iii,.saviiir"igli)lllaces,.oiirg/IIHigIlheiirl11 ogic/
steeill-iiir"idu!,tiiry..Ilbeoncllhiirvia�rllkiiir"ig.-eiineorgy-co2- Systeiinr,iii/III)owiinllloadllC"��)OCLIoriirmeontllFillle,.
iinte arm sities. 19eMd-ae4c-3402..
7c8e..38al111 a4fcall2&foiirce111)ialIIog���w��0,,
22. Proifile of the American Iron and Steel Institute,
Arnerican Ircin and Steel Institute, 2019, 1'ittlps:// 30. 1. arry Strain, 10 Steps to Reducing Embodied
wwvv.steel.o lrg/i ri d u F,trry-,data hire po iir ts/; Carbon,"XA, Illhttps://vvww,.aia.oirg/
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and aortlicllles/"704,46-te�n.-steps-to..oreduciong-
Sinks, US Environmental Protection Agency, e�riirriillbodied-caiirllV�oiir"i.
2020; and "MamlfaCtUririg Energy arid Carbon
Footprint,"US Department of Energy. 31. Data frorn 2018 Commercial Buildings Energy
Consumption Surve.31, US Energy nformation
23.Jeffrey 'romich, "U.S. If eadies First Wind-Powered Administration, 2020, Ilhttl s://www.eia,.gov/
Steel "Ila rit,"E&E Newts, Noveirriber, 15, 2019, coons riiirvili)tic)iir"i/cooriirmiirvieiirc'Iialll/data/2018/i ndex.
�IN"ittli)s://vvww,,eeiir"iew!,,.onet/stoories/1106115524,53,. P l�h P.
24. "ENERGY STAR IFOCLAS on Energy Efficiency in Iron 32. Estimates of Embodied Carbcinfx Mechanical,
and Steel Manufacturing," Energy Star, https:// I...1ectrJcal, Plumbing and 7enant Improvements:
wwvv.e�neiirgystaiir,,gov/'tliiir"idu�iF,t�rialll--pl�laiir"it!,/ Summary Document, Car-bon I eadership ForUlrn,
iirvieasuriiire.-tiiracllk�-aond-,IIbeiir"icIIN"iiinriiiaiirllk/e arm eiirgy..staiir-, April 2019,
eineirgy-5. oiirg/(lica-of..�riirmellp-systeiirvis-,aiir"id-,teonaont-
irwipiroverrirreintst.
Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings www.rmii.org/45
33. Designing,for the Future:Interior Llfe Cycle Analysis, 42. "MO 'rechnology," IF oston IVletel, accessed IMarch
Hawley IPeterson Snyder, February 7, 2(20, 30, 2021, Ilnttli)s://vvvvw,,ll�ostoiinoriirnetalll,.coiinriii/
�IN"ittl�)s://vvww,,o�nevvoiirllkl�)lllace,,co riirm/aF,�ets/f fles/ ulvioe-techin6logy/; and Fr6deric Sirrion, "Swedish
Steel Boss: 'OUr Fliiot Fliant Will Only Ernit Water
VaPOUr,'"EURA(.TIV, IMay 10, 2018, Iatps://vvwvv,,
34. Estimates of I...rnbodied Carbon for Mechanical, euiiract v,,co riirm/sect'tlioiir"i/e urn eiirgy/i�nte�rifievv/Il�my�lbiirit-,
I..'Vectrical, Plumbing and 7�enant Improvements:
Surnmary Document, Car-bon eader-ship ForUm, vai�)Mlrr/.
April 2019,
43. Arnos Zeeberg, "Bricks Alive! Scientists Create
35. Designing,for the Future, Hawley Peterson Snyder, iving Concrete," Newl York Tirnes,January 15,
20M 2020, ttllps://wwvv.iinyt'IiiirvieF,,,coiinr�iii/2020/011/115/
sc
earn ce/collr"lSturLiCtui011r"I-coiinc irate..bacteuria.-
36. Life CYcle Assessment of a Cornmercial 7enant L
Improvement Project:Summaq Docurnent, WeWork
and Carbon i eadership ForUirn, October 2019, 44. "GSA Green IBUilding Advisory Committee Advice
�IN"ittl�)s://caiirllbo�nllleadeiirsl�hil�)foiirumj�riirm.o�rg/IlIca.-of-'a-, etter: Policy Recommendations for- IPrcm ireirner�mt
wewoiirllk.-teiinaont-iiinriiillpiiroveiinriiieont-li)iiroipect/. of I ow Embodied Energy and Carbon IMateriais
by (Federal Agencies," US General Services
37. "Carbon Storing Carpet. it's a 'rhing," Interface, Administration, FebrLAary 17, 2021, Iatps://wwvv.
accessed March 17, 2021, 1lhttlli)s://vvvvw,,iiir"iteiirfricew gsa,,gov/goifeoriiniinriiieiintw'Iide..'Iiir"i'Itlitiat es/fede�rall�.-
coiirii/1,JS/eiir"i-,LJS/F,ustaiiir"iallbilllity/cll�iiirviate-tal�ke- IN"iigl�hpeorfoiiriirviaonce..IlbLi'Iillldiiings/li)olllicy/giireeon.-
�Ibacl�k�/caiirIboiir"i-stoiir'liiir"ig.-caorllpet-,eiin--I,JS. IVYuiIIId'liong.-adv'l�soiiry.-coiinr�iiiiiriiittee/advice-IIletteiirs-,
aind.-iresoludoins.
38. "Transitioning to ow-GWP Alternatives in
Buildirig/CoristrLACtion Foams," US Environmental 45. Jennifer O'Connor and Matt Bowick, "RedUCing
Protection Agency, 2011, Ilhttpsa�;//vvww,.epa.gov/ Embodied Environmental Irripacts of BUildings:
sites/Ilpiirod ictioiin/fillles/2015-0"7/docuiinr,iiieiint�/ Policy Options and 'rechnical nfrastrLICUAre,"
alteirriatives-Jin-, Athena SLAstairiabie IMateriais InstitLAte, Ifteceirnber,
2019, Ilhttllp://www,.atIIN"ieiir"iasiirvi'm.oiirg/wp-coiinteiir"it/
Lipllloads/2Ol119/1112/IIPoIllicy-,vvl"i'lite--paIlpeiir-,
39. "GyPSUm Board Carbon Smart IMateriais Paiette," �ll)eceiirvilbeiir--2019,.11pdf,.
Architecture 2030, accessed March 30, 2021,
la t ps:/hrrii ate id a I s Ilpa llIe ttea,oiirg/gyps u rriilbo a iird/,, 46. City Policy Fraineilvork for Dramatically Reducing
I..'.rnbodied Carbon: 52 Detailed Policies to Reduce
40. Marina Gravit et al., "Probler-ris of IVlegnesiurn E.rnbodied Carbon, Carbon (Neutral Cities Alliance,
Oxide Wallboard Usage in Construction," IOP One Click I CA, and Architecture 2030, 2019,
Conference Series: 1arth and Environmental Science �IN"itt)s://vvww,,eiirvilbc)diedcaiirllV�oiinpolll'licies,,coii�ll,,
90 (2017): 012103, 11https://iol�)scieiir"ice.ioli).oiirg/
aort'icllle/l110.111088/1"/""`55--l113115/90/11/01121103/�,�)dfe, 47. "Delivering the Paris Agreement: The Role of the
BLAilt Environment,"World Green IBLAilding COUncii,
41. 1 My Cao, "How Effective is arninated Barnboo IN"itt)s://vvww,,wo�rllIdgllbc,,o�rg/sites/defaulllt/
for StruCtUral Applications?"ArchDaily, FebrUary files/2050%Ml etteir%2MNir4l.pdf.
29, 2020, Ilhttps://www,,aorcllhdaillly,.co riirn/9342"/""`4/
�IN"iow.-effect'live-,is-,Ibaiirvilboo.-foiir-,stiiruCtLi�ralll-
aiplpr licatioins.
Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings www.rmii.org/46
Matt Jungclaus, Rebecca Esau, Victor Olgyay, and Audrey Rempher, Reducing Embodied
Carbon in Buildings:Low-Cost, High-Value Opportunities, RMI, 2021,
�IN"ittp://vvww,,iiriiriii,.oiirg/iiinsigll t/iiredLiCiiing.-eiirviIbc)died..caorllboiin-iiir"i-,IIV3urjiIIId'�iings.
RMI values collaboration and aims to accelerate the energy transition through sharing
knowledge and insights. We therefore allow interested parties to reference, share, and cite
our work through the Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 license.
�IN"ittps://ciireativecoiinr�iiiuriirniouns,,ourg/Illiceiir"Ises/IIby-sa/4,,.0/.
/01N @
CC
All images used are from iStock.com unless otherwise noted.
RMI
W k ENERGY TRANSFORMED
RMI Innovation Center
22830 Two Rivers Road
Basalt, CO 81621
www.rmi.org
@ July 2021 RMI. All rights reserved.
Rocky Mountain Institute® and RMI®
are registered trademarks.