There is growing agreement that the future of low-impact construction will rely not just on reducing emissions, but on finding ways to store carbon within the built environment itself.

‍

Biogenic materials—those made from plant or organic matter—are now seen as one of the most promising ways to achieve this shift. Instead of only lowering embodied impact compared to steel or concrete, these materials can act as temporary carbon reservoirs, holding on to CO₂ that plants absorbed while growing.

‍

A recent report from the Rocky Mountain Institute outlines how agricultural and forestry residues such as straw, flax, husks, or small-diameter timber can be processed into panels, insulation, or structural products that effectively “bank” atmospheric carbon for the lifetime of a building. The study estimates that if scaled, these materials could store several gigatonnes of CO₂ globally by mid-century. The logic is straightforward: when plant matter is turned into durable products rather than burned or left to decompose, the carbon it contains remains locked away—at least for as long as the building stands.

‍

This perspective fits within a broader research movement exploring carbon flows in construction. Work led by Harpa Birgisdóttir and her colleagues at Aalborg University has shown that the benefits of biogenic carbon storage depend heavily on how it is measured and modelled. Their recent studies suggest that fast-growing crops like straw or hemp could outperform slower-growing timber in terms of carbon storage per unit of land used. At the same time, Birgisdóttir’s earlier reviews highlight that many life-cycle assessments still apply inconsistent or static methods for accounting biogenic carbon, often overlooking how storage and release unfold over time or at end of life. The result is that estimates of a material’s “climate benefit” can vary widely depending on methodology.

‍

This uncertainty does not undermine the case for biogenic materials, but it does remind us that data and design decisions matter. A wall made from straw panels can function as a carbon sink only if the feedstock truly comes from agricultural residues and if the material is protected from decay throughout its service life. If, on the other hand, it is harvested from land cleared for cultivation or ends up incinerated after demolition, the balance may shift. The same applies to timber and other bio-based materials: their carbon benefit depends on sustainable sourcing, durability, and what happens to them after use.

‍

Policy frameworks are beginning to acknowledge this complexity. France’s RE2020 and Denmark’s BR18 both recognise biogenic carbon in life-cycle calculations, while European research programmes such as EASI ZERo and the New European Bauhaus are investing in market-ready biobased materials and systems. Yet the regulatory tools that architects and consultants use daily—environmental databases, LCA software, procurement criteria—still struggle to reflect the nuances of biogenic carbon storage. In many cases, materials with real storage potential are excluded simply because their datasets are incomplete.

‍

For professionals working with material data, this creates both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is to ensure that biogenic products are specified based on verifiable life-cycle data rather than broad assumptions. The opportunity lies in expanding the role of materials from components that “do less harm” to systems that actively contribute to climate mitigation. Doing so requires collaboration between designers, engineers, and manufacturers to clarify feedstock origin, document biogenic carbon accounting, and plan for reuse or recycling at the end of life.

‍

Biogenic materials will not replace every conventional product, nor will they single-handedly decarbonise the building sector. But when combined with reduction, reuse, and circular design strategies, they offer a meaningful way to reimagine what buildings are made of and what they store. As Birgisdóttir’s work shows, the conversation is moving beyond “using more wood” to a deeper understanding of how biological materials interact with land, time, and data.

‍

For practitioners, the goal is not to chase novelty but to build literacy: to read and compare EPDs critically, to understand where biogenic carbon is counted, and to design for materials that can keep that carbon locked up for as long as possible. The shift from emission reduction to carbon storage will not happen through material choice alone—it will happen through informed, evidence-based design.

‍

See our full collection of Bio-based building materials: https://platform.revalu.io/collections/community/66ab66a8662c445a52a6e27f/66a24937ddbb217ff0d2b8ac

‍

Read the full report at RMI:

‍https://rmi.org/harnessing-carbon-removal-opportunities-in-biomass-residue-building-products

‍

You can read more about Harpa Birgisdóttir's papers here:

1. Hansen, L., Hoxha, E., & Birgisdóttir, H. (2025). The influence of fast-growing biogenic building materials on land-use and carbon storage in future Danish building stock scenarios. Building and Environment, 257, 113980.
Available at: https://vbn.aau.dk/files/760096439/1-s2.0-S0921344924005196-main.pdf

‍

2. Birgisdóttir, H., Hoxha, E., & Andersen, C.E. (2022). Wood as a carbon mitigating building material: A review of consequential LCA and biogenic carbon characteristics. Building and Environment, 225, 109579.
Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363552010_Wood_as_a_carbon_mitigating_building_material_A_review_of_consequential_LCA_and_biogenic_carbon_characteristics

‍

3. Hoxha, E., Hansen, L., & Birgisdóttir, H. (2024). Assessing carbon storage potentials of biogenic materials in national building-stock decarbonisation pathways. Journal of Cleaner Production, 447, 141123.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141123‍

‍