How to Reduce the Embodied Carbon of Your Next Project

The concept of embodied carbon is no longer unfamiliar in international construction. In more and more countries and companies, it has become a basic requirement to calculate the carbon footprint of buildings not only in operation but across their entire life cycle. And this raises the crucial question: what can we, as architects, engineers, and developers, actually do to cut emissions?

The good news: the solutions are not futuristic technologies, but already available today. The bad news: without a strategic shift in mindset, these tools will not become mainstream practice.

1. Material choice – tackling the largest source of CO₂

Construction materials are responsible for the majority of embodied carbon. Concrete and steel together account for more than 70% of construction-related emissions, which means the greatest reduction potential lies here.

• Recycled steel and concrete:
  Producing recycled steel can emit 60–70% less CO₂ compared to steel made from virgin ore. Crushed recycled concrete can replace gravel or crushed stone in roadworks and other projects.

• Wood and other renewable materials:
  Timber construction not only reduces emissions but also stores carbon throughout a building’s life cycle. In Scandinavia, entire residential neighborhoods are already being built using CLT (cross laminated timber).

• Low-carbon cement (e.g. LC3):
  In France and Switzerland, LC3 (limestone calcined clay cement) is already commercially available, reducing emissions by 30–40% compared to traditional Portland cement.

2. Design approach – less is often more

Material selection is vital, but equally important is how we design buildings.

• Avoiding over-dimensioning:
  Engineers often apply large safety margins, which means excessive use of concrete and steel. With accurate digital simulations and optimized design, material demand can be reduced by 10–15%, without compromising safety.

• Modular and demountable structures:
  Building functions often change during their lifespan. If structural elements can be dismantled and reused, then at demolition the building produces not waste but reusable resources. This is the core principle of the circular economy in construction.

• Extending lifespan:
  New construction is not always necessary. Renovating or adapting existing buildings often comes with a significantly lower carbon footprint compared to entirely new builds. Unfortunately, this option is underused in the Hungarian market.

3. Local sourcing – shorter supply chains, smaller footprint

Transporting construction materials is another significant source of CO₂. On average, a truck emits 1.2–1.5 kg of CO₂ per ton per kilometer. If concrete or steel travels 500 km instead of 50 km, the additional emissions are enormous.

In Western Europe, many public tenders already prescribe a maximum transport distance for materials. This reduces emissions while simultaneously strengthening the local economy.

International Examples

• France – RE2020:
  The RE2020 regulation, introduced in 2022, made life-cycle carbon calculations mandatory for all new buildings. The thresholds will gradually tighten, and by 2030 only low-carbon materials will allow compliance.

• Finland – carbon limits:
  From 2025, all new buildings in Finland will be required to meet mandatory carbon limits, set by the Ministry of the Environment. This is one of the strictest regulatory frameworks in the world, prescribing specific maximum carbon values for building materials and technologies.

• Netherlands – MPG system:
  The MPG (MilieuPrestatie Gebouwen) assessment is already compulsory for every new building. Developers must present the full environmental impact of their projects, including embodied carbon.

Hungary – on the edge of a turning point

In Hungary, construction still follows the logic of “fast and cheap.” While this may generate short-term profit, it is unsustainable in the long run. With the EU’s carbon tax and increasingly strict regulations, in just a few years those companies that cannot adapt will lose their competitiveness – or disappear from the market entirely.

The real question is not whether it is worthwhile to reduce embodied carbon, but rather: who will act early, and who will wait until regulation forces them? The former will be the survivors and the winners.

Conclusion

Reducing embodied carbon is not a luxury or a PR exercise – it is a business and strategic necessity. By combining material choice, conscious design, and local sourcing, construction projects can significantly cut their carbon footprint.

International examples clearly show: those who act early are not only contributing to climate protection but also gaining a competitive edge. The decision is therefore not only professional, but also a matter of economic survival.

Sources

• RE2020 (France) – Réglementation environnementale 2020

• Finnish Ministry of the Environment – Low-carbon construction roadmap

• World Green Building Council – Bringing Embodied Carbon Upfront

• Dutch Government – MilieuPrestatie Gebouwen (MPG)