In the hunt for quick climate solutions, timber construction has become almost a sacred principle in Swedish building policy. Municipalities allocate land specifically for timber buildings and the government's climate action plan highlights wood as the material of the future. But it is not the task of politics to unilaterally prioritize one building material over another. The image of wood as an environmental hero and concrete as an environmental villain is far from the whole truth.
The single-track focus on wood is largely based on the material's lower initial carbon dioxide emissions. Life cycle analyses show that timber frames can have up to 40 percent lower emissions in the construction phase. At the same time, we know that wood's advantage decreases considerably when the entire life cycle is taken into account. Concrete usually stands for over 100 years and continues to absorb carbon dioxide through carbonation – a process that can take up 20–30 percent of production emissions. This occurs even after demolition.
Timber facades need maintenance every 10–20 years compared to concrete facades' 30–50 years. Moisture and mold are more difficult to remedy in timber structures. Over 100 years, the environmental differences even out.
"It is not the task of politics to unilaterally prioritize one building material over another."
Wood advocates emphasize wood's renewable nature. However, this presupposes sustainable forestry, which becomes more difficult when timber construction is scaled up. The forest industry is already struggling with challenges regarding biodiversity, land degradation and falling carbon sinks while competition for raw materials increases.
Meanwhile, the concrete industry is being revolutionized. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute shows that climate-improved concrete can already achieve almost the same environmental performance as wood. New binding agents and solutions can halve carbon dioxide emissions. When concrete is produced with lower climate impact than before while its advantages remain, we must reassess the view of wood as the obvious choice.
Materials that last for generations create environmental sustainability and economic accessibility, which is crucial for ordinary people's finances. Buildings with shorter lifespans drive housing costs upward when they need to be replaced. For society's economy and the individual's housing costs, the lifespan of buildings is crucial but overlooked in today's debate, where the focus is on initial costs and emissions.
"Why not combine the materials' strengths instead of pitting them against each other?"
Wood certainly has advantages; lower weight reduces transport emissions, enables building on ground with poorer bearing capacity and prefabrication reduces construction times. Timber buildings are also perceived as warmer with documented positive health effects. Technical advances have solved many of wood's weaknesses; cross-laminated timber provides strength, modern treatments improve fire protection and sound insulation.
Why not combine the materials' strengths instead of pitting them against each other? Hybrid solutions where concrete's durability complements wood's aesthetics and lightness. A concrete frame provides stability, longevity and fire protection, while wood can be used for interiors and facades where its natural beauty and environmental benefits come into their own.
When politicians favor wood, we risk suboptimization. Material selection should be based on scientific life cycle analyses and the industry's professional assessments, not political trends.
Michael Guldstrand CEO,
Solhemmet Fastigheter
