Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Buildings as a global carbon sink


The anticipated growth and urbanization of the global population over the next several decades will create a vast demand for the construction of new housing, commercial buildings and accompanying infrastructure. The production of cement, steel and other building materials associated with this wave of construction will become a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Might it be possible to transform this potential threat to the global climate system into a powerful means to mitigate climate change? To answer this provocative question, we explore the potential of mid-rise urban buildings designed with engineered timber to provide long-term storage of carbon and to avoid the carbon-intensive production of mineral-based construction materials.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Processes responsible for formation, depletion and potential replenishment of land carbon pool and changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations over time.
Fig. 2: Physical dimensions, carbon emissions and carbon storage capacity of 1 t of cement, steel and timber materials.
Fig. 3: Cumulative carbon emissions from manufacturing construction materials needed to construct buildings for new urban dwellers in 2020–2050.
Fig. 4: Comparison of projected wood demand needed for construction and wood supply available from the world forests.

Data availability

All data analysed in this study are included in its supplementary information files.

Code availability

The mathematical algorithm used in this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.


  1. 1.

    Ward, P. & Kirschvink, J. A New History of Life: The New Discoveries About the Origins and Evolution of the Life on Earth (Bloomsbury Press, 2015).

  2. 2.

    Nelsen, M. P., DiMichele, W. A., Peters, S. E. & Boyce, C. K. Delayed fungal evolution did not cause the Paleozoic peak in coal production. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 2442–2447 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Zhu, Z. et al. Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 791–795 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Schimel, D., Stephens, B. B. & Fisher, J. B. Effect of increasing CO2 on the terrestrial carbon cycle. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 436–441 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Hyvönen, R. et al. The likely impact of elevated [CO2], nitrogen deposition, increased temperature and management on carbon sequestration in temperate and boreal forest ecosystems: a literature review. New Phytol. 173, 463–480 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Pan, Y. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993 (2011).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Reyer, C. Forest productivity under environmental change—a review of stand-scale modeling studies. Curr. For. Rep. 1, 53–68 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Friend, A. D. et al. Carbon residence time dominates uncertainty in terrestrial vegetation responses to future climate and atmospheric CO2. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3280–3285 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Norby, R. J., Warren, J. M., Iversen, C. M., Medlyn, B. E. & McMurtrie, R. E. CO2 enhancement of forest productivity constrained by limited nitrogen availability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 19368–19373 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Luyssaert, S. et al. Trade-offs in using European forests to meet climate objectives. Nature 562, 259–262 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Reyer, C. P. O. et al. Are forest disturbances amplifying or canceling out climate change-induced productivity changes in European forests? Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 034027 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Seidl, R. et al. Forest disturbances under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 395–402 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Seidl, R., Schelhaas, M.-J., Rammer, W. & Verkerk, P. J. Increasing forest disturbances in Europe and their impact on carbon storage. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 806–810 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ciais, P. et al. Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Nature 437, 529–533 (2005).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Brienen, R. J. W. et al. Long-term decline of the Amazon carbon sink. Nature 519, 344–348 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015).

  17. 17.

    Some Progress since Paris, but Not Enough, as Governments Amble towards 3°C of Warming (Climate Action Tracker, 2018).

  18. 18.

    IPCC Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  19. 19.

    Burns, W. & Nicholson, S. Bioenergy and carbon capture with storage (BECCS): the prospects and challenges of an emerging climate policy response. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 7, 527–534 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Schulze, E.-D., Körner, C., Law, B. E., Haberl, H. & Luyssaert, S. Large-scale bioenergy from additional harvest of forest biomass is neither sustainable nor greenhouse gas neutral. GCB Bioenergy 4, 611–616 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Boysen, L. R. et al. The limits to global-warming mitigation by terrestrial carbon removal. Earth’s Future 5, 463–474 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision (United Nations, 2018).

  23. 23.

    Rockström, J. et al. A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science 355, 1269–1271 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Müller, D. B. et al. Carbon emissions of infrastructure development. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 11739–11746 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Gutowski, T. G., Sahni, S., Allwood, J. M., Ashby, M. F. & Worrell, E. The energy required to produce materials: constraints on energy-intensity improvements, parameters of demand. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 371, 20120003 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Davis, S. J. et al. Net-zero emissions energy systems. Science 360, eaas9793 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Andrew, R. M. Global CO2 emissions from cement production, 1928–2017. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10, 2213–2239 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Xi, F. et al. Substantial global carbon uptake by cement carbonation. Nat. Geosci. 9, 880–883 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Cullen, J. M., Allwood, J. M. & Bambach, M. D. Mapping the global flow of steel: from steelmaking to end-use goods. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 13048–13055 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    UNEP Environmental Risks and Challenges of Anthropogenic Metals Flows and Cycles (UNEP DTIE, Sustainable Consumption and Production Branch, 2013).

  31. 31.

    UNEP Recycling Rates of Metals - A Status Report (UNEP DTIE, Sustainable Consumption and Production Branch, 2011).

  32. 32.

    Pauliuk, S., Milford, R. L., Müller, D. B. & Allwood, J. M. The Steel Scrap Age. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 3448–3454 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Reck, B. K. & Graedel, T. E. Challenges in metal recycling. Science 337, 690–695 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Torres, A., Brandt, J., Lear, K. & Liu, J. A looming tragedy of the sand commons. Science 357, 970–971 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Sonter, L. J. et al. Mining drives extensive deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat. Commun. 8, 1013 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Stapel, P. & van de Kuilen, J.-W. G. Effects of grading procedures on the scatter of characteristic values of European grown sawn timber. Mater. Struct. 46, 1587–1598 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Ridley-Ellis, D., Stapel, P. & Baño, V. Strength grading of sawn timber in Europe: an explanation for engineers and researchers. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 74, 291–306 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Ramage, M. H. et al. The wood from the trees: the use of timber in construction. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 68, 333–359 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Kobes, M., Helsloot, I., de Vries, B. & Post, J. G. Building safety and human behaviour in fire: a literature review. Fire Saf. J. 45, 1–11 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Buchanan, A. H. & Abu, A. K. Structural Design for Fire Safety 2nd edn (Wiley, 2017).

  41. 41.

    Ramage, M. H. Supertall timber: functional natural materials for high-rise structures. Bridge 48, 33–36 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Organschi, A., Ruff, A., Oliver, C. D., Carbone, C. & Herrmann, E. Timber city: Growing an urban carbon sink with glue, screws, and cellulose fiber. In World Conference on Timber Engineering (WCTE) 2016 (eds Eberhardsteiner, J. et al.) 5612–5621 (TU Verlag, 2016).

  43. 43.

    Moncaster, A. M., Pomponi, F., Symons, K. E. & Guthrie, P. M. Why method matters: temporal, spatial and physical variations in LCA and their impact on choice of structural system. Energy Build. 173, 389–398 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Smyth, C. E. et al. Quantifying the biophysical climate change mitigation potential of Canada’s forest sector. Biogeosciences 11, 3515–3529 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Werner, F., Taverna, R., Hofer, P. & Richter, K. Greenhouse gas dynamics of an increased use of wood in buildings in Switzerland. Clim. Change 74, 319–347 (2006).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Lundmark, T. et al. Potential roles of Swedish forestry in the context of climate change mitigation. Forests 5, 557–578 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Eriksson, L. O. et al. Climate change mitigation through increased wood use in the European construction sector—towards an integrated modelling framework. Eur. J. For. Res. 131, 131–144 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Oliver, C. D., Nassar, N. T., Lippke, B. R. & McCarter, J. B. Carbon, fossil fuel, and biodiversity mitigation with wood and forests. J. Sustain. For. 33, 248–275 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Churkina, G. Can use of Wood in Future Infrastructure Development Reduce Emissions of CO 2? (WBGU, 2016).

  50. 50.

    Lin, C., Liu, G. & Müller, D. B. Characterizing the role of built environment stocks in human development and emission growth. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 123, 67–72 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Administrative Report Report No. 12978 (City of Vancouver, 2019).

  52. 52.

    BP Statistical Review of World Energy (BP Global, 2016).

  53. 53.

    Lauk, C., Haberl, H., Erb, K.-H., Gingrich, S. & Krausmann, F. Global socioeconomic carbon stocks in long-lived products 1900–2008. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 034023 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Köhl, M. et al. Changes in forest production, biomass and carbon: results from the 2015 UN FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment. For. Ecol. Manag. 352, 21–34 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Churkina, G. The role of urbanization in the global carbon cycle. Front. Ecol. Evol. 3, 144 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Made of Air (Made of Air GmbH, 2019);

  57. 57.

    Churkina, G., Brown, D. & Keoleian, G. A. Carbon stored in human settlements: the conterminous US. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 135–143 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Law, B. E. & Waring, R. H. Carbon implications of current and future effects of drought, fire and management on Pacific Northwest forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 355, 4–14 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Hossain, M. U. & Poon, C. S. Comparative LCA of wood waste management strategies generated from building construction activities. J. Clean. Prod. 177, 387–397 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Güneralp, B. et al. Global scenarios of urban density and its impacts on building energy use through 2050. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 8945–8950 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Heeren, N. & Fishman, T. A database seed for a community-driven material intensity research platform. Sci. Data 6, 23 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Law, B. E. et al. Land use strategies to mitigate climate change in carbon dense temperate forests. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 3663–3668 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    100% Wood (Thoma, 2019);

  64. 64.

    Mudd, G. M. The environmental sustainability of mining in Australia: key mega-trends and looming constraints. Resour. Policy 35, 98–115 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Cole, R. J. & Kernan, P. C. Life-cycle energy use in office buildings. Build. Environ. 31, 307–317 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Dixit, M. K. Life cycle recurrent embodied energy calculation of buildings: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 209, 731–754 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Pomponi, F. & Moncaster, A. Scrutinising embodied carbon in buildings: the next performance gap made manifest. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 81, 2431–2442 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Ozarska, B. A review of the utilisation of hardwoods for LVL. Wood Sci. Technol. 33, 341–351 (1999).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Sharma, B., Gatóo, A., Bock, M. & Ramage, M. Engineered bamboo for structural applications. Constr. Build. Mater. 81, 66–73 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    FAOSTAT-Forestry Database (FAO, 2016).

  71. 71.

    Pilli, R., Grassi, G., Kurz, W. A., Fiorese, G. & Cescatti, A. The European forest sector: past and future carbon budget and fluxes under different management scenarios. Biogeosciences 14, 2387–2405 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015 (FAO, 2015).

  73. 73.

    Carle, J. & Holmgren, P. Wood from planted forests. A global outlook 2005–2030. For. Prod. J. 58, 6–18 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Yousefpour, R., Nabel, J. E. M. S. & Pongratz, J. Simulating growth-based harvest adaptive to future climate change. Biogeosciences 16, 241–254 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Yuen, J. Q., Fung, T. & Ziegler, A. D. Carbon stocks in bamboo ecosystems worldwide: estimates and uncertainties. For. Ecol. Manag. 393, 113–138 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Nabuurs, G.-J. et al. First signs of carbon sink saturation in European forest biomass. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 792–796 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Clark, C. W. Mathematical Bioeconomics: The Optimal Management of Renewable Resources (John Wiley, 1990).

  78. 78.

    He, M. et al. Risk assessment of CO2 injection processes and storage in carboniferous formations: a review. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 3, 39–56 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Zeng, N. Carbon sequestration via wood burial. Carbon Balance Manag. 3, 1 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    General Guidelines for the Sustainable Management of Forests in Europe (Resolution H11 of MCPFE, 1993).

  81. 81.

    Fritz, A. & Graves, A. Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration in the Sahel: A Literature Review (The Mitchell Group, 2016).

  82. 82.

    Going Green: A Handbook of Sustainable Housing Practices in Developing Countries (UN-HABITAT, 2012).

  83. 83.

    State of the World’s Forest 2011 (FAO, 2014).

Download references


We thank K. Seto, C. Oliver, R. Miller, D. Sprinz, R. Lundberg and E. Lundberg for reading and commenting on the manuscript. We are grateful for discussions and suggestions to our approach to S. Running, V. Brovkin, L. Boysen, J. Pongratz, T. Rinaudo and A. Tofu. We thank M. Wodinski for help with graphic design. The research of G.C. was supported by the German Science Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, CH 413/7). A.O. and A.R. are grateful for support from the Hines Fund for Advanced Sustainability Research in Architecture at Yale University School of Architecture. C.P.O.R. acknowledges funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, grant no. 01LS1201A1). K.V. acknowledges funding from The International Climate Initiative (IKI: and the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) which supports the IKI on the basis of a decision adopted by the German Bundestag. Z.L. acknowledges funding from Qiushi Foundation, the Resnick Sustainability Institute at California Institute of Technology and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71874097, 41921005).

Author information




G.C., A.O. and H.J.S. designed the study. A.O. and A.R. provided building typologies and associated data. C.P.O.R. and G.C. assessed the timber amounts available from the world’s forests. G.C. developed methods for estimating carbon emissions and storage at the global scale. B.K.R. and T.E.G. provided expertise for steel materials and embodied energy calculations. Z.L. provided expertise for cement and concrete and respective data. K.V. supplied expertise on political, social and cultural implications of the transition. All authors contributed to discussing the results and writing the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Galina Churkina.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1

Primary structures designed for typical, mid-rise residential and commercial building morphologies.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Difference between absolute net annual increment (NAI) and wood removals for the non-protected forest area of sixty-five FAO countries/regions for 1990–2010.

The bars indicate how much newly grown wood (NAI) is available after subtracting wood removals for sixty-five countries/regions grouped by the sign of this difference. Black bars indicate that the increment is larger than the wood removals. Grey bars indicate that the removals are larger than the increment. Error bars indicate the range induced by using a minimum and maximum wood density of 400 and 900 kg m–3 respectively when calculating the carbon content.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Tables 1–10 and references.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Churkina, G., Organschi, A., Reyer, C.P.O. et al. Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nat Sustain 3, 269–276 (2020).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing