Although buildings produce a third of greenhouse gas emissions, it has been suggested that they might be one of the most cost-effective climate change mitigation solutions. Among building materials, wood not only produces fewer emissions according to life-cycle assessment but can also store carbon. This study aims to estimate the carbon storage potential of new European buildings between 2020 and 2040. While studies on this issue exist, they mainly present rough estimations or are based on a small number of case studies. To ensure a reliable estimation, 50 different case buildings were selected and reviewed. The carbon storage per m² of each case building was calculated and three types of wooden buildings were identified based on their carbon storage capacity. Finally, four European construction scenarios were generated based on the percentage of buildings constructed from wood and the type of wooden buildings. The annual captured CO₂ varied between 1 and 55 Mt, which is equivalent to between 1% and 47% of CO₂ emissions from the cement industry in Europe. This study finds that the carbon storage capacity of buildings is not significantly influenced by the type of building, the type of wood or the size of the building but rather by the number and the volume of wooden elements used in the structural and non-structural components of the building. It is recommended that policymakers aiming for carbon-neutral construction focus on the number of wooden elements in buildings rather than more general indicators, such as the amount of wood construction, or even detailed indirect indicators, such as building type, wood type or building size. A practical scenario is proposed for use by European decision-makers, and the role of wood in green building certification is discussed.

Depletion of natural resources and climate change are undoubtedly the biggest challenges that humankind faces today. Here, buildings have a crucial role since they consume the majority, i.e., 30% to 40% of the total energy resources. Green building certification is one of the solutions to limit the energy use in buildings. In addition, it is seen to indicate a consideration for sustainability aspects in construction. LEED is the most widely used certificate worldwide. However, recently some critics have raised doubts about LEED and whether it actually implies sustainability. Most of the criticism has been targeted to the energy aspects of LEED. Nevertheless, there is no consensus on the usefulness of LEED: is it really beneficial for the environment, and is it worth of the money and time invested on the certification process? In this study a critical analysis of the literature to find an answer to this question is presented. Altogether 44 peer reviewed articles dealing with the abovementioned issue were selected out of 164 search result. Based on the studied material, the different aspects of LEED from the viewpoint of energy-efficiency are discussed. From the 44 reviewed articles, ten articles state that LEED certificate indicates energy efficiency while eight papers end up with an opposite conclusion. The rest of the papers do not take any stand on this matter. The study showed that energy efficiency of LEED-certified buildings is questionable especially at lower levels, i.e., certified. Therefore, it is recommended to modify the Energy and Atmosphere category of LEED in order to improve the actual energy performance of buildings.

Background: Current climate change mitigation policies, including the Paris Agreement, are based on territorial greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting. This neglects the understanding of GHG emissions embodied in trade. As a solution, consumption-based accounting (CBA) that reveals the lifecycle emissions, including transboundary flows, is gaining support as a complementary information tool. CBA is particularly relevant in cities that tend to outsource a large part of their production-based emissions to their hinterlands. While CBA has so far been used relatively little in practical policymaking, it has been used widely by scientists. Methods and design: The purpose of this systematic review, which covers more than 100 studies, is to reflect the policy implications of consumption-based carbon footprint (CBCF) studies at different spatial scales. The review was conducted by reading through the discussion sections of the reviewed studies and systematically collecting the given policy suggestions for different spatial scales. We used both numerical and qualitative methods to organize and interpret the findings of the review. Review results and discussion: The motivation for the review was to investigate whether the unique consumption perspective of CBA leads to similarly unique policy features. We found that various carbon pricing policies are the most widely supported policy instrument in the relevant literature. However, overall, there is a shortage of discussion on policy instruments, since the policy discussions focus on policy outcomes, such as behavioral change or technological solutions. In addition, some policy recommendations are conflicting. Particularly, urban density and compact city policies are supported by some studies and questioned by others. To clarify the issue, we examined how the results regarding the relationship between urban development and the CBCF vary. The review provides a concise starting point for policymakers and future research by summarizing the timely policy implications.