Have a question?

How much CO2 is emitted by building a new house?

Depending on size, materials, and how those materials are sourced, constructing a new house likely emits on the order of 15 to 100 tons of CO2. That's a lot, but only a fraction as much as an inefficient house might emit over its lifetime.

 

Updated May 11, 2026

To know how much carbon is emitted by building a house, says David Hsu, MIT associate professor of urban and environmental planning, you need to know the embodied energy of a house: how much energy was used to make all the materials that go into a home. It’s a complicated question, because a house contains not only common building materials like concrete, brick, and steel, but also aluminum, wood, glass, copper, asphalt shingles, and all sorts of plastics, from vinyl flooring to weatherproofing house wrap.

“All of those things involve greenhouse gas emissions,” Hsu says. “The cement and steel are probably the two biggest categories we know of because they're relatively easy to measure. But a house is a combination of pretty much every industrial material you can imagine.”

Steel and concrete are particularly problematic emitters because creating them requires heating raw materials to high temperatures, and the energy to do this typically comes from fossil fuels. As a result, the creation of cement for concrete is responsible for an estimated 8% of the entire world’s carbon emissions,1 while steel accounts for as much as 9%.2 Among the other materials, aluminum is a particularly high emitter, causing 2% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.3

In the 2009 book Sustainable Energy—Without the Hot Air, British physicist David MacKay added up all the materials in a typical three-story home and concluded that such a house would have an embodied energy of 42,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh).4 In the United States, producing 1 kWh creates around 0.85 pounds of CO2.5 At that rate, building the house in MacKay’s calculation would produce around 16 tons of carbon dioxide. Another estimate, from 2021, pegged a three-story home at 26 tons of embodied CO2.6 And a 2021 project by the environmental consultants Circular Ecology found that their test home would’ve created 78 tons of CO2 to build under normal circumstances, but that the number could be brought down to 32 tons by smart design strategies.7

It’s no surprise the estimates vary so much. There’s plenty of wiggle room in calculating the carbon footprint of a single material from mining to production to a person’s home, much less performing the same calculation for everything in a house. Plus, as Hsu notes, the true amount of carbon created by a given home could vary wildly depending on which materials were used, in what quantities, and where they came from.

To reduce a home’s carbon footprint, researchers are working on lower-carbon ways to make important construction materials. Meanwhile, architects can design structures that reuse materials such as recycled timber and avoid especially high-carbon stuff like aluminum. “Choosing to build with timber is a really interesting route now,” Hsu says, “because the timber comes from a tree that's sequestered carbon in the first place, so presumably you're building with carbon from the atmosphere. By using that material, you're not using some other carbon-emitting material.”

Once you’ve made the decision to build a new home, Hsu sees two big choices that govern how carbon-intensive it will be. First is the size of the house, since a mansion might require vastly more building material than a cozy cottage. New homes in the U.S. have grown 45% in size since the 1970s, requiring much more material per home.8

The second part is location. If someone builds their new house close to work and family, they could reduce their carbon emissions from transportation. For someone who builds a second home across the country or across the sea, however, the air travel required to go there would wipe out any carbon savings the homeowner gained through smart building practices.

Of course, construction is simply the beginning. Once complete, the home begins its decades-long lifespan. During those long years, its carbon footprint will be measured not by embodied energy but by operational energy: how many kilowatts it takes to meet the residents’ heating, cooling, electrical, and other needs, and how much CO2 is the result. If a home lasts a hundred years, its ongoing energy efficiency will prove far more meaningful than how much CO2 was released by building the house.

 

Thank you to Patrick McCann of Farmington, New York, for the question. You can submit your own question to Ask MIT Climate here.

Submit your own question to Ask MIT Climate

Get the latest from Ask MIT Climate monthly in your inbox

Read more Ask MIT Climate

 

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).
Footnotes

1 Andrew, Robbie, "Global CO2 emissions from cement production, 1928–2018," Earth System Science Data, Volume 11, Issue 4, doi:10.5194/essd-11-1675-2019.

2 International Energy Agency: “Iron and Steel Technology Roadmap,” October 2020. This report estimates that the iron and steel sector directly emitted 2.6 gigatons of CO2 in 2019, with an addition 1.1 gigatons of CO2 emissions from power consumption and the combustion of steel off-gases. The International Energy Agency reports this as 10% of global “energy system CO2 emissions,” but comparison with global emissions figures of all kinds, including from deforestation and other human land use, reduces this to 8.8%. (Global emissions figures taken from the same source and year as used in the IEA report for comparability: Friedlingstein, Pierre, et al., "Global Carbon Budget 2020." Earth System Science Data, Volume 12, Issue 4, 2020, doi:10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020.)

3 World Economic Forum: "Aluminium for Climate: Exploring pathways to decarbonize the aluminium industry," 2020.

4 David MacKay. Sustainable Energy—without the hot air. UIT Cambridge Ltd., Cambridge, UK, 2009.

5 U.S. Energy Information Administration. "How much carbon dioxide is generated per kilowatthour of U.S. electricity generation?" Accessed December 9, 2022.

6 The Conversation. "Embodied carbon: why truly net zero buildings could still be decades away," by Ljubomir Jankovic, November 11, 2021.

7 Circular Ecology: "COP26 House - An Embodied Carbon Exemplar." November 4, 2021.

8 University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems: Residential Buildings Factsheet. Accessed December 9, 2022.

Want to learn more?

Listen to this episode of the Ask MIT Climate podcast about the building sector.

Transcriptions

LHF: Hello, and welcome to Today I Learned: Climate, brought to you by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I’m Laur Hesse Fisher.

Where are you listening to this episode from today? Maybe you’re riding the bus on your morning commute, or taking a leisurely stroll through the park. But chances are, if you look around you, you’ll see four walls—maybe a door or two—some windows… because you’re in a building.

We Americans spend close to 90% of our time indoors. In the offices, stores and factories where we work, the gyms and shops and theaters and the homes where we relax at the end of the day.

But how often do we really notice these spaces? And how they’re built, and why they’re built that way?

TR: The built environment has been the shelter that humans needed throughout history. Whether it was cave-like structures, indigenous buildings that survive until today, creating  comfortable spaces that are also shelters from the environment.

LHF: That’s Tarek Rakha.

TR: I am associate professor at Georgia Tech and Director of the High Performance Building Lab and Program at the School of Architecture and the College of Design.

LHF: He also got his PhD here at MIT, where he worked in the MIT Sustainable Design Lab. And as Professor Rakha says, the first thing to know about a building is that… it’s shelter. It shields us from the rain and the wind and the cold. And the way we build has always reflected that.

TR: Climate resiliency has been at the forefront of architectural practices since we have started building as humanity, using the materials from the environment we're in, and then shaping our architecture to be responsive to the environment.

LHF: Think, for example, of the adobe houses of desert regions like in the American Southwest. The native Pueblo people built their homes out of the clay in the area, and those clay walls absorbed the hot desert heat, keeping their inhabitants cool during the day and warm at night.

And as technology developed, we found we could do more than just shield ourselves from the weather. We could actually engineer our buildings so that we’re perfectly comfortable all throughout the day, and all throughout the year.

TR: It is really a beautiful experience if you get a breeze on a beach. We want to strive for these kind of experiences in our buildings, and therefore we've invented HVAC. So heating, ventilation and air conditioning.

LHF: Look around for me again. Can you see a fan spinning away? Or hear a hum of an air conditioner or a rumble of a furnace? Our modern buildings work very hard to keep our indoor weather precisely the way we want it.

TR: And that is an energy hog. The energy you need to cool and heat a building is significant.

LHF: A modern building is far more than just a shelter. It’s more complex and it’s busier. We can think of these buildings as machines: machines that turn energy into comfort.

TR: So where we're going to get that energy becomes very important. Of course, historically speaking, we've relied on fossil fuels.

LHF: That is, coal, oil, and gas. Like, does your home have gas heat? If so, your utility is pumping natural gas through pipelines in your neighborhood and into your house. Your furnace burns that gas, creating the heat that keeps you snug on a cold winter night.

Unfortunately, like all fossil fuels, it also creates carbon dioxide: part of the ever-thickening blanket of carbon pollution that is heating our planet.

Now think of all of the furnaces in all of the buildings in the entire world. And all the coal and gas power plants supplying those buildings with electricity.

TR: Buildings account for 40% of carbon emissions globally. The amount of energy that we use to sustain our lives in buildings is substantial.

LHF: Which brings us to yet another way to look at modern buildings: as giant pumps for carbon, working overtime in all their many roundabout ways to take fossil carbon out of the ground and pipe it into the air. Buildings contribute more to that carbon blanket around our planet than heavy industry does; more than growing the world’s food; more even than cars and trucks and airplanes.

So is it possible to keep using our buildings as the miraculous comfort machines that they are, but to stop using them as carbon pumps?

Well, there are buildings around the world that are already leading the way. For example, have you ever seen a plaque on the side of a building that proclaims that it’s “LEED gold” or “LEED platinum”? That’s a certification, which the U.S. Green Building Council has been giving to energy-efficient buildings since the 1990s.

TR: LEED started at a time where this kind of benchmarking was not mainstream. And the focus was not on the climate message or the sustainability message. It was all about the money that you will be saving, and the prestige of having the Cadillac of buildings. 

LHF: Yeah, the great news about low-carbon buildings is that owning one can be a big money saver.

TR: One of the biggest misconceptions that people have about sustainable and energy-efficient buildings is that they are very expensive. Buildings that are sustainable are typically much cheaper than regular buildings, because you know what? You are not going to be using energy in HVAC and heating and cooling. If there's anything that you should be knowing about sustainable buildings, it’s that there is an upfront cost that is going to pay for itself over 5 to 10 years.

LHF: So how would we create an energy efficient, money-saving building with a fancy plaque? Well, to answer that question, we have to start before we even dig the foundation. We have to start with the blueprints themselves. 

TR: If we're starting to design a new building, we have to get the geometry right first. The relationship to the sun, the prevailing winds, the landscaping, the correct orientation to maximize solar energy and access to light.

Then, we have to be focusing on passive systems. Passive systems are systems that do not use energy that comes from fuel. So, for example, glazing that allows for the sun to warm up the space and the shading system that blocks it in the summer.

LHF: Like the ancient Pueblos’ adobe structures, our new low-carbon building is laid out to take maximum advantage of nature itself. 

TR: If you're in a climate where you really need to heat and retain the heat in, there's no way around building highly insulated buildings. And so the choice of the exterior materials, whether it's going to be brick, concrete, fully glazed facade, etc., really matters, not just for the energy efficiency, but also for how comfortable the environment would be within the interior spaces.

LHF: Our choice of materials matters for another reason, too. If you can see a steel beam where you’re sitting, or a brick wall—if you’re in a building with a concrete foundation, or aluminum siding—these are energy hungry materials, and the building industry uses a lot of them. In fact, there are estimates that about 25% of the carbon pollution from buildings comes just from manufacturing and construction.

Today, thanks to top-of-the-line buildings like the ones that we’re imagining, there is a growing market for cleaner materials—whether that’s local earth and stone, or engineered wood, or ingenious new ways of making low-carbon concrete and steel.

We also have excellent tools to deal with the other 75% of our building’s carbon.

TR: This is the energy that we use on a day-to-day basis: all of the energy that is used in heating, cooling, lighting equipment, appliances, etc., all of these use up energy.

LHF: Yeah, like, remember that gas-burning furnace that we talked about? The same work can be done by an electric heat pump—which is kind of like a reverse air conditioner. They are so much more efficient than furnaces that they typically cut our carbon pollution by more than half, while still keeping our buildings nice and toasty. And if we get that electricity from low-polluting sources like solar, wind, nuclear and others, we could heat our building with almost no impact on the climate at all.

Our buildings might even make that clean energy themselves—like through rooftop solar panels.

TR: Because if we get it right, we can build buildings that rely on their own energy and don't need anything from the grid. There are such things as zero energy buildings that are so energy efficient that with just solar, you can get the energy to zero.

LHF: The highest-performing buildings today have designations like LEED Platinum, or a “Living Building” or “Passive House.” And they are already delivering modern comfort without the pollution.

The challenge, of course, is getting every building to that level. And it’s a substantial challenge.

TR: If we are to build all of our new construction to exceptional standards, that would have a clear impact. However, more than 50% of the built environment in the United States was built before the year 1980. And therefore we really have to be considering how to retrofit existing buildings, because the opportunity to build new buildings in urban settings is actually very limited.

LHF: Okay, so I live in a home built around 1905. And gradually, over the years, my family has worked to make this house operate like the buildings that we’ve been talking about. 

And so we followed the textbook of what to do when retrofitting an old building. So we added insulation to the outside walls and flooring, and replaced some leaky windows. We also did some pretty cheap-but-effective fixes called “weatherization.”

TR: Weatherization, in the context of limited resources, becomes really impactful. So weatherization would be, for example, using weather stripping around the window frame. This is important because you're no longer losing energy to the environment.

LHF: And with that all done, an old building like ours can be ready for the newest, most energy-efficient electrical appliances, like heat pumps and electric water heaters, which is what we have.

And over time we have found that our energy bills are much lower, and our house is much more comfortable. Like, I don’t wake up on winter mornings clinging to my blankets anymore. And, yes, because we are nerds and we track this kind of stuff, we’ve also calculated that our home emits much less pollution than it did before.

I want to be clear: this took us a few years, and we invested money into it, and we were motivated. But how do you motivate the owners of the millions upon millions of buildings that exist out there today, or that are about to be built? 

Because even though high-performing buildings are possible, and cost-effective, and are being built today, most buildings are not being built to that standard.

TR: It has become more mainstream, yes. But unfortunately, mainly for those who are building in an urban environment, as well as larger-scale buildings. Those who are building, for example, single family homes in rural settings or suburban settings, it's not there yet, even though it constitutes a significant portion of the built environment.

LHF: Yeah, most buildings are “built to code,” meaning that they meet the minimum energy standards that the local law requires. They’re not aiming to be high-performing buildings.

And it’s worth asking: how can more buildings be built better? The most climate-smart buildings are also the most comfortable, and the cheapest to heat and cool in the long run. The materials and the know-how exist. And with each new developer who makes the choice to build a high-performing building, the markets shift a little, opening up the labor, and the materials, and the knowledge, and the expectations that buildings are built this way.

TR: We know now about the built environment more than we've ever known in any point of history. We have these sensors that are allowing us to measure at the circuit level of a refrigerator at the time span of a second to allow us to make real-time decisions for energy efficiency. All we need to do is activate it. Like tap into it, have it as a mindset.

And that is basically my advice. If there's going to be decisions on building new or upgrading buildings, we can't really build the same way we've built 20 years ago. We have to be thinking about building more sustainably and keeping carbon emissions as low as possible.

LHF: That’s our episode. But there’s plenty more TILclimate at tilclimate.mit.edu. And as always, we’d love to hear who you are, and why you listen to the show, and what questions you have about climate change and climate solutions. Please email us at tilclimate@mit.edu, or leave us a voicemail at 617 253 3566.

TILclimate is the climate change podcast of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Aaron Krol is our Writer and Executive Producer. David Lishansky is our Audio Producer. Michelle Harris is our fact-checker. Grace Sawin is our Student Production Assistant. The music is by Blue Dot Sessions. And I’m your Host and Senior Editor, Laur Hesse Fisher. 

A big thanks to Prof. Tarek Rakha for speaking with us, and to you, our listeners. Keep up the climate curiosity.