Industry Services
Industry Services
Gary Newman
Woodknowledge Wales
Gary Newman explains why wood in construction must be treated as a greenhouse
gas removal (GGR) mechanism, and what this means for policy, carbon accounting,
and the future of our industry.
As the UK Government ramps up its investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS)—pledging over £21bn to remove 8.5 MtCO2e a year by 2050—it remains bafflingly slow to recognise an arguably simpler, cheaper, and already-scalable solution: using more wood in construction.
Our new research, Using Wood in Construction as a Significant Greenhouse Gas Removal Mechanism 1 , sets out the case for treating timber-based buildings not merely as low-carbon alternatives to concrete and steel, but as legitimate carbon removal infrastructure. Done well, and at scale, this could remove atmospheric carbon faster, more affordably and with greater co-benefits than many engineered solutions currently in the spotlight.
This is not fringe science. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Climate Change Committee (CCC), and even the UK Government’s own consultants have acknowledged the role of biogenic materials in construction in engineered carbon removal.
The principle is simple. Trees capture carbon through photosynthesis. If the resulting biomass is harvested from a sustainably managed forest and used to construct a home, that carbon stays locked away—potentially for decades or centuries. This transfer from the forest carbon pool to the ‘harvested wood products’ (HWP) pool is already recognised in national greenhouse gas inventories. The building becomes a carbon store.
In 2018, it was estimated that 1.14 MtCO2 e were added to the UK’s HWP pool through timber construction—mostly in housing5 . With the right demand signals, we could rapidly increase that annual inflow. Critically, even modest interventions—such as favouring timber frame over masonry— can double the carbon stored per unit of floorspace.
Yet, life cycle assessment (LCA) rules used in net-zero building frameworks assume that all biogenic carbon stored in construction products and materials is released. In GWP100 terms, this means no net climate benefit is recorded—regardless of whether the building lasts 30 years or 130. Our report challenges this logic, aligning instead with emerging international carbon removal frameworks.
What makes this issue urgent is that timber buildings do more than reduce emissions (by replacing concrete and steel). They actively remove atmospheric CO2—just like direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) or Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).
This makes them part of the UK’s GGR arsenal. The CCC’s Sixth Carbon Budget and the Royal Society’s landmark 2018 report both state clearly: to hit net zero by 2050, we must remove 75–130 MtCO2e per year through GGR3,2. Yet wood in construction was inexplicably excluded from the UK Government’s GGR demonstration programme4 .
This omission matters. Not because wood is better than every other method—but because it is shovel-ready. Unlike DACCS or BECCS, it needs no new infrastructure, no long-term liabilities, and no billion-pound subsidy regimes. We already know how to build with timber. What we lack is a market and regulatory framework that rewards the carbon value of doing so.
For this to change, we must do three things:
It’s time the timber industry claimed its rightful place in the climate solution portfolio. We are not just low-carbon. We are carbon negative. But unless we frame our product as a GGR mechanism—not just as a ‘greener material’—we risk being sidelined in favour of flashier tech with bigger lobbyists.
The timber sector needs to speak the language of climate policy: quantification, degree of permanence, additionality, verifiability, and cost-effectiveness. If we do, we will not only grow our market, but ensure that the buildings of the future actively help to cool the planet.
Wood in construction is not a silver bullet. But it is an overlooked workhorse. Let’s put it to work.
