The cement industry has put lots of effort into trying to show that concrete manufacturing results in less CO₂ per unit than almost all other construction materials, making it the sustainable construction material of choice. A new study by researchers in the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University and the College of the Environment at the University of Washington in Seattle and published in the Journal of Sustainable Forestry finds that wood is a more sustainable construction material by a comfortable margin. GallonDaily suggests that this is by no means the last to be heard on this topic though the new research has a high degree of credibility on the topic.

In brief, the research identifies the significant value from a climate change perspective in using wood for durable (long life) products, to which construction is a significant contributor. The research identifies several pathways through which wood can potentially avoid emitting CO₂ from FF (fossil fuels) to the atmosphere:

• forest pathway (FP): sequestering CO₂ in the standing forest;
• storage pathway (SP): storing wood in the products so it does not rot or burn and produce CO₂;
• energy pathway (EP): displacing CO₂ produced by burning FF with CO₂ produced by burning energy;
• avoidance pathway (AP): substituting wood for steel, concrete, and other products that use more energy in their manufacture, thus consuming less FF and emitting less CO₂;
• landfill pathway (LP): storing waste wood in landfills where it either does not decompose or decomposes and emits methane and other greenhouse gases.

In the case of construction, findings of the research include:

• Avoided emissions (using wood in place of steel and concrete) contributes the most to CO₂ and FF savings compared to the product and wood energy contributions. Burning parts of the harvested logs that are not used for products creates an additional CO₂ and FF savings.
• Globally, both enough extra wood can be harvested sustainably and enough infrastructure of buildings and bridges needs to be built to reduce annual CO₂ emissions by 14 to 31% and FF consumption by 12 to 19% if part of this infrastructure were made of wood.
• The greatest CO₂ and FF savings from wood use are by avoiding the excess FF energy used to make steel and concrete structures (avoidance pathway). Wood products are more efficient than wood energy for CO₂ and FF savings; however, up to 37 % of the world’s annual CO₂ emissions and 27% of the FF use could be saved if all wood growth not used in construction were used for energy.
• If catastrophic fires do not occur and forest regrowth after harvest is not considered, saving CO₂ by not harvesting the forest growth is slightly more efficient than harvesting just for wood energy—but generally less efficient than harvesting for construction products. This efficiency of CO₂ storage in unharvested forests also assumes none of the wood blows over or otherwise rots in the forest—an unrealistic assumption in most of the world.
• When regrowth after harvest is considered, even wood harvested just for energy (energy pathway) can be more efficient for CO₂ sequestration than not harvesting the forest and using FF for energy.
• It may be appropriate to adjust carbon sequestration incentives and building codes to reflect the value of wood use in saving CO₂ and FF. For example, REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, a mechanism under negotiation by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and other incentives that seek to store CO₂ in forests appear to be counterproductive if curtailing harvest meant steel and concrete were used in construction instead, with concomitant high rates of CO₂ emissions and FF consumption.