
A growing number of building professionals, policymakers, real estate developers, and philanthropic funders have awoken to the shocking volume of plastic building materials in use today and the devastating harm they cause to human and environmental health. Find out why these leaders now see healthier alternatives to plastic building materials as the next frontier in the building and construction sector.
Plastics harm human and environmental health at every stage of their life cycle, from extraction through production and disposal.
Almost all plastics are made from fossil fuels, while the chemicals used to produce them are linked to cancer, reproductive harm, developmental issues, and other health harms. They also release microplastics which contaminate our environment and our bodies, and at the end of their life, plastics create massive amounts of waste. Tragically, these impacts fall hardest on children and on low-wealth, Indigenous, and communities of color.
The building sector is a leading driver of plastics use and continues to grow.
From flooring and siding to insulation and even paint, the building and construction sector accounts for 17% of global plastic production – second only to packaging. Plastic use in construction is on track to nearly double by 2050, intensifying its environmental and health harms. In fact, driven in large part by building materials, the plastics industry is expected to produce more plastic in the next 25 years than in all of history to date.
The building sector’s heavy reliance on plastics creates a unique and severe danger to human and environmental health.
The sector uses 70% of all PVC (vinyl) produced globally and 30% of all polystyrene—two of the most hazardous plastics. Plastic building materials make buildings less fire resistant, burning faster and hotter while generating more toxic chemicals than natural materials—posing an escalating threat as climate change fuels more severe wildfires.
Healthier alternatives are already available and can significantly reduce our reliance on plastic building materials.
Habitable has identified healthier, no/low-plastic alternatives for many plastic building products. Informed™ product guidance can help developers, designers, builders, homeowners, and policymakers find healthier alternatives to plastics.
Download the full report for more information including examples of solutions from leaders like CannonDesign and Sera Architects.
Take a moment and look around. Try to find something—anything—that isn’t made with plastic. Your coffee cup lid, the synthetic fabric of your shirt, the carpet under your feet, the paint on the walls, the foam in your chair, even the “rubber” gaskets in your windows—they’re all plastic. Terms like polyester, nylon, vinyl, latex, acrylic, and spandex are just different names for the synthetic polymers we know as plastic.
Over the past 75 years, plastics have infiltrated daily life largely without question. Production skyrocketed from an estimated 2 million tons in 1950 to more than 470 million tons in 2019.1 And without intervention, plastic use is projected to surge in the decades to come.
Plastic’s ubiquity isn’t accidental. It has revolutionized modern life through life-saving medical devices, lightweight materials that improve fuel efficiency, and countless innovations. Despite their benefits, plastics are also one of our most pressing environmental and health challenges. They are made from fossil fuels and contribute to climate change. The chemicals used to make plastics have been linked to cancer, reproductive dysfunction, and other health harms. They pollute the air, water, soil, and our bodies, and create massive amounts of waste at the end of their—often too short—useful lives.
The good news? Change is happening. Across sectors and industries, sustainability professionals are reducing plastic use, municipalities are implementing plastic reduction policies, and innovative alternatives are reaching the market. We have unprecedented opportunities to drive meaningful change in reducing plastics’ impacts. Here we’ll provide facts you need to understand plastics’ impact and pathways forward.
Plastic production begins with fossil fuel extraction; these fossil fuels are then refined and processed into petrochemicals. Petrochemicals are used to create different types of plastics with specific properties. Manufacturers shape these plastics into everyday products, often adding other chemicals to make them stronger, more flexible, or colorful.
As the energy sector shifts to renewables, the fossil fuel industry has turned toward plastics as a way of maintaining demand for their planet-harming products.4,5 The International Energy Agency has predicted that petrochemicals, which are used to make plastics, will soon become the largest driver of global oil demand.6
Global plastic production was over 470 million tons in 2019.1 This is more than the weight of all the humans alive today.8 And annual production is projected to double by 2050.1 Industry is on track to create more plastics in the next 25 years than have been produced in the history of the world so far.1,a
When they think of plastics, people often think of packaging—and, indeed, packaging makes up a significant 31% of all plastics’ use. But the building and construction sector is the second-biggest contributor, responsible for 17% of global plastics production. From PVC pipes to nylon carpet and vinyl siding, tens of millions of tons of plastics are used in construction each year.10 Other major uses include transportation, textiles, consumer and institutional products, and electrical/electronic equipment and devices.
Plastics last a long time and do not biodegrade, which translates to a lot of plastic waste.11 Humankind generated about 390 million tons of plastic waste in 2019,1 and this amount is projected to almost triple by 2060, reaching over 1.1 billion tons per year.9 The vast majority of plastic waste is landfilled, incinerated, or mismanaged (disposed of in uncontrolled dump sites, burned in open uncontrolled fires, or leaked to the environment where it builds up in ecosystems on land and in waterways).1,12 For example, international estimates project that by 2060, there could be a staggering 543 million tons of plastic accumulated in aquatic environments, including 160 million tons in the ocean.9
While many plastic materials appear inexpensive, the price tag excludes substantial societal costs of harm to human health and the environment.13
Annually, production of plastics causes an estimated $592 billion in health harms globally.14,b A small subset of plastic-related chemicals generates an estimated $249 billion in medical and associated social costs every year in the U.S. alone.15 Plastic pollution is estimated to result in $100 billion of environmental damage every year.13 And these are conservative estimates.c Reducing plastics use can lead to major health and economic benefits.
The costs of climate change, too, are immense. Global warming increases the frequency of extreme weather events, each causing billions in damage. The U.S. faced 27 separate billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in 2024 alone—nearly matching the record-setting 28 events in 2023. These disasters resulted in over $182 billion in damages that year.16 Plastic production contributes to these mounting costs.
Government subsidies hide the real cost of plastics, with annual global subsidies totaling $7 trillion for fossil fuels and on the order of $30 billion for plastic production in the top 15 producing countries.17,18 A similar pattern exists at the local level. The Environmental Integrity Project reviewed 50 plastic plants built or expanded in the U.S. since 2012 and found that 32 of these plants received almost $9 billion in state and local tax breaks and taxpayer subsidies. Two-thirds of the more than 591,000 people living within three miles of the 50 new or expanded plants are people of color, revealing how environmental burdens often fall disproportionately on communities of color.19
These costs are paid by individuals and governments, not fossil fuel or plastic companies.14
The United Nations defines plastic pollution as “the negative effects and emissions resulting from the production and consumption of plastic materials and products across their entire life cycle.”13 Plastics generate pollution at every stage of their life, from fossil fuel extraction, through manufacturing, use, and disposal. This pollution—including greenhouse gases, microplastics, and toxic chemicals—harms everyone.
Widespread pollution generated across the plastic life cycle is harming people and Earth’s ecosystems.12,20 Sometimes this pollution is readily apparent: smoke plumes or smells from a factory or plastic bottles in the gutter. Whether we can see or smell it or not, plastic pollution affects all of us—through greenhouse gas emissions; through the microplastic particles and toxic chemicals that make their way into our bodies from air, water, and food; and through impacts on the health of people and our planet. For example:
Plastics contribute to climate change at every stage of their life cycle. Greenhouse gases are released during fossil fuel extraction, refining, and transportation. Plastic manufacturing processes emit additional climate pollutants. Even after use, plastic products continue damaging the climate as they degrade or burn in incinerators.21 Plastic production alone is responsible for over 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions and continues to grow.22
While plastics don’t biodegrade, they do break down into small and tiny particles known as micro- and nanoplastics. These particles range from about the size of an orange seed to the width of a strand of DNA, and they are everywhere.23 We are exposed to them through the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe. Microplastics have been found throughout human bodies, including our blood, kidneys, hearts, brains, and more, and there is evidence they build up over time.24–27 Project TENDR, an alliance of experts on toxic chemicals and brain development, notes that, “[b]abies today are born with their brains and bodies already contaminated with plastics. Micro- and nano-plastic particles have been found in the placenta and newborns’ first stool, with exposures continuing through breastmilk and infant formula.”28 Scientists are only just starting to learn how microplastics harm the health of children and adults, but research suggests they contribute to a range of adverse outcomes, such as cancer and infertility.29
Did you know most paint is made with plastic? Researchers estimate that paint—including architectural, marine, road marking, general industrial, automotive, and industrial wood paint—is the largest source of microplastic leakage into oceans and waterways, accounting for 58% of known sources. A third of paint used in the architectural sector each year will eventually end up in the environment (oceans, waterways, and land), including an estimated 4 million tons of plastic.30
In addition to plastics themselves being a health concern as described above, plastics also use and release toxic chemicals throughout their life cycle. These chemicals are used throughout plastics production—extraction and refining of fossil fuels and production of chemicals, plastics, and products. In addition to “regular” releases of toxic chemicals that occur during production, each life cycle step and transportation of chemicals for each process also creates risk of fires, explosions, spills, and leaks.31 More than 16,000 different chemicals may be used to make, or are present in, plastics. Over 25% of these are known to be hazardous to human health or the environment, and most others lack information on their safety. This includes thousands of chemicals that are intentionally added to plastics to impart particular properties, such as making them more flexible, durable, or colorful.32 Chemicals used to create plastics pollute our air, water, soil, and bodies and have been linked to cancer, reproductive issues, children’s developmental harm, asthma, obesity, and many more health impacts.14,33–36
Workers, communities, and users of plastic products face direct exposure to these harmful substances. Additionally, chemical wastes from plastic production and most plastic products themselves are landfilled or incinerated, burdening communities with additional pollution.1,14,34,37 Even recycling can release microplastics and toxic chemicals that affect human health.38,39
Beyond local contamination, many plastic chemicals as well as microplastics spread globally through air and water, disrupting ecosystems and contaminating environments worldwide.1,32,36 Landfilling and incineration of plastic waste further burdens the environment with persistent pollution, while recycling processes can also release environmental contaminants.14,32,38,39
While we are all harmed by plastic pollution, some of us are harmed more than others.
Children are especially vulnerable to chemical exposures. Beginning in the womb and continuing into adolescence, their cells and bodies are in a dynamic state of growth.40 Chemical exposures have many damaging effects. They can interrupt hormone systems and inhibit healthy brain development. Scientists suspect chemical exposures have contributed to the increased rates of childhood cancers like leukemia and neurodevelopmental disorders like ADHD present today.28,40,41 Exposure to toxic chemicals early in life can continue to harm health years later through effects such as reduced fertility and increased risk of obesity, asthma, and cancer.41
Communities near polluting facilities (chemical plants, landfills, incinerators, etc.) are directly affected by noise, odors, chemical emissions, and heavy duty diesel emissions.42–44 Such “fenceline” communities are disproportionately communities of color, Indigenous communities, and low-wealth communities.14,42,45 Often, industrial facilities are concentrated in “sacrifice zones” such as Louisiana’s Cancer Alley. This 85-mile stretch of communities along the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge is home to about 200 fossil fuel and petrochemical facilities. Residents of the area suffer from elevated rates and risks of reproductive, maternal, and newborn health harms; cancer; and respiratory ailments such as asthma.46 Hear directly from Cancer Alley residents in this video from Human Rights Watch.
Plastic chemicals and microplastics travel through air and ocean currents, concentrating in the Arctic and disproportionately affecting the land, water, and traditional foods of Arctic Indigenous communities.36,47 Climate change is also greater in Arctic regions which are warming almost four times faster than the planet as a whole. The health of these communities is threatened by the toxic impacts of the fossil fuel and plastics industry in addition to climate-induced threats to food security and community displacement.36
From the vinyl flooring under our feet to the polyester in our clothing, plastics surround us in ways we’re only beginning to fully understand. The evidence is clear: these ubiquitous materials are driving climate change, contaminating our bodies with chemicals and microplastics, and releasing toxic chemicals that disproportionately harm children, communities of color, Indigenous communities, and low-wealth communities. The hidden costs reveal the true price of our plastic dependency.
Here are four concrete steps you can take right now to meaningfully reduce plastic use while protecting people and the environment:
The same innovation that created this challenge can solve it. As sustainability professionals, we have the knowledge, networks, and influence to accelerate the transition already underway.
A path towards planetary health is more urgently needed now than ever, but our current materials economy creates rampant pollution, climate change, and growing inequity. Shifting from harmful practices to healthful solutions will require cross-sector partnerships, holistic thinking, and exciting new approaches that reduce the burden of industry on people and our planet.
Watch Habitable’s special Earth Month webinar featuring leading global voices, including:
Moderated by Gina Ciganik, CEO of Habitable
HBN tested 94 commercially available paint products for the presence of harmful per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), called “forever chemicals”. Approximately 50% of paints tested positive for fluorine, a marker of PFAS. Review the details of our findings and the recommended actions you can take.
HBN and Perkins&Will have released a second report aimed at transforming the way project teams select sustainable, low-carbon products. Building on the first report titled “Embodied Carbon and Material Health in Gypsum Drywall and Flooring,” a second report investigating the intersection of carbon and material health is titled “Embodied Carbon and Material Health in Insulation”.
Insulation is a unique product category that can help reduce a building’s operational carbon emissions by optimizing performance, lowering the energy required for heating and cooling. Those same materials can also negatively impact the environment by releasing greenhouse gasses throughout their life cycle. Insulation can also contain toxic chemicals that migrate into interior spaces. This report provides guidance for designers and architects to choose the best materials that takes materials health and embodied carbon into consideration.
Key Highlights from the reports include:
The reports represent a significant step forward in sustainable design practices, offering actionable insights that empower professionals to make environmentally conscious choices without compromising on carbon or health priorities.
Teresa is Habitable’s Chief Research Officer, leading our research strategies.
Almost every day, news headlines warn us of the dangers of ‘forever chemicals’, known as PFAS, used in the manufacturing of consumer and industrial products. They’re being found in our water, air, fish, and soil across the U.S. and around the globe, and our body tissues, showing up in almost every person in the US. A report by Habitable (formerly Healthy Building Network) examines the presence of PFAS in residential and commercial paint products—and the urgent need to stop their use.
We recently spoke with Teresa McGrath, chief research officer, and the report’s lead author, to discuss the team’s research findings. She shares what industry professionals can do to avoid human exposure, and discusses why—and how—manufacturers can eliminate them from paint formulas altogether.
HABITABLE:
Before we jump into the details of this groundbreaking report, can you share a little bit about yourself and your expertise as it relates to chemical sciences and paint products?
TERESA MCGRATH:
My background is in chemistry and toxicology. My entire career I have focused on green chemistry: the idea of using chemistry to help meet sustainability goals. Before joining Habitable, I led the chemical management program for Sherwin-Williams, one of the largest paints and coatings companies in the world. In that role, I focused on hazard reduction and transparency, and helped business units in meeting sustainability goals. As chief research officer at Habitable, I lead a team of researchers on studies that seek to better understand hazardous chemicals that may be present in or used to make building materials, as well as putting forward recommendations and best practices to reduce or eliminate their impacts.
H:
Habitable’s most recent report delves into the presence of PFAS chemicals in paints. Officially named perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances–PFAS–are commonly called ‘forever chemicals’. Can you tell us what forever chemicals are and why they’re so harmful?
TM:
PFAS refers to a class of chemicals with over 10,000 different structures. All PFAS are very persistent chemicals. The fluorine-carbon bond of these synthetic chemicals is very difficult to break and this means that they don’t break down on their own once they get into our bodies or into the environment. Given this persistence, they are often referred to in the media as ‘forever chemicals’. These chemicals can also be bioaccumulative, meaning they build up in our bodies, and can be toxic. We don’t yet know all of the potential harm because most of these chemicals have not been tested, however a host of negative health effects have been associated with PFAS including cancer, liver damage, decreased fertility, developmental delays in children, and disrupting the natural hormones in our bodies.
H:
Can you give us an idea of the scale of this problem and why is it so important that we phase PFAS chemicals out of paint products?
TM: Architectural paints coat the inside and outside our homes, schools, and workplaces, making PFAS in paints a potential exposure concern for everyone from those who manufacture and apply the paints to those who occupy painted spaces. They’re a health and environmental concern throughout their lifecycle, from cradle to grave. And while we already know some PFAS are linked to increased health risks, we may just be scratching the surface, as some experts have suggested, we may be underestimating the dangers of these widespread chemicals.
H:
As part of this study, Habitable tested numerous different paint products and brands for the presence of toxic forever chemicals. What were the team’s findings?
TM:
We tested 94 paints for total fluorine (TF), and a subset for extractable organic fluorine (EOF), indicators of PFAS.
We selected paint samples across most brands, price tiers, gloss, base, and colorants. Samples represented eight major paints and coatings manufacturers that together have over 65% of the paints and coatings market share in North America. We found that about 50% of the paints tested positive for these indicators of forever chemicals, the detailed list is included in our report. All tested brands had at least one product that tested positive for fluorine, and at least one product that tested negative for fluorine. And while the overall percentage of PFAS present in these products is generally small (less than 1%), there is no amount of PFAS in paint that can be considered acceptable because of their health implications.
We did reach out to paint manufacturers, but none could provide us with more comprehensive information on the definitive purpose and use of these chemicals in their products. The likely assumption is they’re using these forever chemicals as a surfactant, meaning they are acting as a stabilizer helping the paints to spread and coat more evenly.
H:
According to the report results, there are numerous paint products on the market today that don’t use these harmful additives. Are these chemicals even necessary and is removing PFAS chemicals from paint a relatively easy thing to do?
TM:
While surfactants are critical to a paint formulation, there are other PFAS-free surfactants that are used for the same purpose that are safer, objectively, from an environmental and human health perspective. Half of the paints we tested didn’t show evidence of PFAS, so we know that it’s possible to formulate paint products without it.
H:
What actions should the paint industry and their suppliers take in light of these findings?
TM:
Paint manufacturers need to phase-out all use of intentionally-added PFAS. When removing forever chemicals from formulations, manufacturers should make sure that PFAS are not replaced with other hazardous chemicals such as alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs).
To avoid regrettable substitutions and facilitate informed material selection, all alternatives must have full chemical hazard assessments. If a paint company doesn’t know the full hazard profile of a chemical or surfactant, they should consult a toxicologist to evaluate that chemical. The ChemFORWARD platform offers tools and data to help companies find safer alternatives.
In addition, manufacturers should publicly disclose all ingredients in their paints, including PFAS use at any concentration. It should be standard practice for all paint manufacturers to tell the public what they’re putting in their products, along with the toxicity profile of every ingredient.
At a high level, industry players can support bans on PFAS and regulations that require more ingredient transparency in the paint sector..
H:
And lastly, how can you source PFAS-free paint products if you’re a consumer, building professional or specifier?
TM:
All this information might feel a little overwhelming, but we have developed two tools to make it much easier. And the good news is, all of the brands we tested had at least one option that tested negative for fluorine. Specifiers can refer to Habitable’s InformedTM paint guidance resource to select safer paints, as well as our downloadable form that can be used to ask manufacturers for a paint that meets the transparency and material health attributes specified by Habitable. By following these tips you can source paint that is free of forever chemicals, and also meets other environmental best practices such as low VOC content and emissions.
Buyers can also advocate for paint companies to do better. Ask paint manufacturers to provide public disclosure of all intentionally added ingredients, using the Health Product Declaration (HPD) or Declare label.
Also referred to as social determinants of health , these conditions range from access to and quality of education, transport, and health care services to housing conditions and the toxics and pollutants we are exposed to in the neighborhoods we live in.
While definitions may vary around what these conditions are and which should be prioritized, there is general consensus that:
In alignment with efforts tackling the root causes of health inequities, Healthy Building Network (HBN) entered into a partnership with United Renters for Justice (IX), a nonprofit working to transform the Minneapolis housing system, to reduce tenant exposures to toxic chemicals used in building products. Funded through an Environmental Assistance grant by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), this collaborative project prioritized toxic exposure reduction in areas designated to be of environmental justice (EJ) concern by the MPCA. EJ concern areas include tribal land and census tracts with higher concentrations of low-income residents and people of color – communities that are disproportionately impacted by toxic chemical exposures and other forms of pollution.
This collaboration provided the unique opportunity to embrace the perspective of tenants in the co-creation of resources to help them make informed decisions about the products used in their housing units and common areas. Specifically, this meant designing resources that would leverage IX’s organization and mobilization skills as well as the structure of a recently established tenant cooperative, “A Sky Without Limits.” Also, it meant increasing information accessibility, for example, through the use of non-technical language and making the resources available in both English and Spanish.
Tenant organizations and other stakeholders can access HBN’s healthier building product guidance at informed.habitablefuture.org and by watching this 10-minute seminar video:
Watch the Seminar (English)
Ver el Seminario (Español)
This high-level, 10-minute recording can be used to educate the general public (e.g., tenant meetings) about the importance of avoiding toxic products. It begins by breaking down myths and misconceptions around the perceived hazards and safety of natural and synthetic chemicals and discusses how toxic products impact individuals and families, especially children, along the lifecycle of products.
By empowering the people most affected by toxic chemical exposures to advocate for and create change in their living conditions, this project creates avenues for creating a safer environment for all. Anyone who influences product purchasing decisions – including manufacturers, building owners, managers, developers, architects, investors, policy makers, and consumers – has the power and responsibility to reduce health inequities for those using or exposed to those products every day. This includes residents, workers, installers, and the communities that surround the facilities where these materials are processed and disposed of. By making material health a priority in your decision-making processes, you’ll be joining efforts to tackle the root causes of health inequities in communities around the world. Visit informed.habitablefuture.org to learn how our building product guidance can help you make better material choices.
Project teams want buildings that are healthy for people and the planet. Two sometimes competing criteria to evaluate the sustainability of building products are embodied carbon and material health.
For this case study, Perkins&Will partnered with Healthy Building Network to identify key drivers of embodied carbon and material health by looking at specific examples of product categories frequently specified in building projects. Using flooring and drywall as examples, this study identifies some examples of where paths toward low embodied carbon and safer materials align and where they conflict.
The goal of this case study is to translate the learning from embodied carbon assessment tools and material health assessment tools into actionable guidance for manufacturers, project teams, and green building programs that will allow them to optimize decisions and promote and select healthier, low-carbon products that advance a circular economy.
Healthy Building Network (HBN) has often heard these two issues framed as a competition–a false choice. Instead, we know that these two powerhouses must work together for optimal results.
In 2022, HBN and Perkins & Will published a study highlighting building products that can do just that: optimize material health and lower their carbon footprint. This study identified key drivers and paths towards low embodied carbon and safer materials as well as when to consider and optimize both at the same time. To illustrate this point, we plotted an actionable path for project teams using flooring products as an example.
Team Low-Carbon Products: The embodied carbon of building materials contribute a whopping 11% to global carbon emissions.1 Most of these emissions happen before that product even gets installed. Additionally, the poorest countries and regions are those most impacted in terms of damage and loss of life by the effects of climate change.2 “That 11% might sound small compared with the impact of operational energy (28%), but for new construction, embodied carbon matters just as much as energy efficiency and renewables. That’s because the emissions we produce between now and 2050 will determine whether we meet the goals of the 2015 Paris climate accord and prevent the worst effects of climate change,” explains a BuildingGreen report.
Team Safer Materials: We spend 90% of our time indoors, and hundreds of industrial chemicals are found in our indoor spaces— in the dust, in the air we breathe, and in our bodies.3 The health impact of building materials are not limited to their time in use in the building, they often occur during manufacturing, installation, and at the product’s end of life. People living in close proximity to industrial facilities experience persistently worse air quality than average and exposure to industrial pollutants disproportionately impacts people of color.4 Another report suggests man-made pollution has exceeded the Earth’s safe operating boundaries.5 “Transgressing a boundary increases the risk that human activities could inadvertently drive the Earth System into a much less hospitable state, damaging efforts to reduce poverty and leading to a deterioration of human wellbeing in many parts of the world, including wealthy countries.” Professor Will Steffen, researcher at the Centre and the Australian National University, Canberra.6
Reducing toxic chemical use and the emissions associated with building materials NOW is a vital sustainability strategy for any project team.
The Research:
To identify the key drivers of embodied carbon and the key opportunities to reduce embodied carbon for each product type we read Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), reviewed literature and data compilations, and conducted manufacturer interviews. The hazards associated with flooring products, the chemicals used to make those materials and the hazards associated with the chemicals used to install those products were collected using InformedTM product guidance and hazard data in the Pharos database.
Embodied Carbon:
Our research concluded that flooring products’ embodied carbon impacts are mostly associated with the raw material supply. The biggest opportunities to reduce embodied carbon in flooring comes from choosing a different product type that uses less impactful raw materials as well as products with longer service life. Carpet was consistently the most impactful product type due in part to its short service life. Plant-based flooring products, such as wood and natural cork, were consistently the least impactful.
Material Health:
Not surprisingly, the biggest opportunities to avoid chemicals of concern in flooring come from choosing a product type with typically fewer chemicals of concern. Products made from plastic, such as vinyl, nylon, or polyurethane tend to use more hazardous chemicals during manufacturing, installation, use, and end of life, than mineral or plant-based products. Selecting a product that is yellow or above in InformedTM color ranking Flooring Guidance, such as wood or linoleum, or even a non-vinyl resilient flooring will minimize the use of hazardous chemicals. Products in the red zone such as vinyl and carpet, should be avoided.
Conclusion:
When we looked at the opportunities to improve embodied carbon and improve material health for flooring we found that they were largely complementary.
These findings highlight the importance of pre-emptive design. Parallel to the way we conduct early modeling for energy or water use, the industry needs to model for embodied carbon and material health. A materials modeling approach–where the entire team is engaged early – before design development or construction development – will enable educated decisions before the design is set. Use HBN’s Embodied Carbon and Material health in Flooring and Drywall report and tools like Informed™ and the Carbon Smart Materials Palette to select typically healthier, low-carbon building product options.
Insulation selection has generally focused on prioritizing a product’s ability to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from building operation, though increasingly considerations include GHG emissions from a material’s life cycle, from manufacture through disposal (known as embodied carbon).
However, this singular focus on GHGs fails to account for other harmful emissions associated with the life cycle of these materials, including toxic pollution that disproportionately burdens Black, Indigenous, people of color (BIPOC), and/or low-income communities. As billions of pounds of new insulation is being installed in buildings each year, failure to address these toxic impacts will mean that building decarbonization efforts will further entrench environmental injustice.
Healthy Building Network (HBN) joined NRDC and Energy Efficiency for All in an analysis of the life cycle chemical and environmental justice impacts of two popular building insulation materials—fiberglass and spray polyurethane foam (SPF).
The analysis found that both SPF and fiberglass release pollution into BIPOC communities over their life cycles, but SPF carries a much heavier pollution burden. The combined population surrounding the facilities that manufacture the key ingredient of SPF has almost double the percentage of Latino people compared to the U.S. overall. These facilities reported releasing an average of about 560,000 pounds of related hazardous chemicals every year and have a history of noncompliance with EPA regulations. Our previous research also found that spray foam has significant hazardous chemical concerns during installation and use in buildings.
Regarding embodied carbon, while the specifics vary, studies (such as here, here, and here) consistently show that closed cell SPF has significantly higher embodied carbon per R-value than fiberglass insulation. Further, SPF is made from almost entirely fossil fuel-derived inputs, with no recovery, reuse, or recycling of the material—necessitating continued extraction and refining of fossil fuels to produce this insulation product. Overall, comparing material health, environmental justice, and embodied carbon impacts between SPF and fiberglass, fiberglass is preferable on all accounts.
However, fiberglass manufacturing still releases hazardous pollution into communities who are disproportionately BIPOC and/or low income, and many fiberglass facilities have exhibited regular noncompliance with EPA regulations. Fiberglass manufacturers can reduce and eliminate such pollution by using less hazardous chemistries. For example, all four U.S. manufacturers reported reduced releases of formaldehyde by changing to safer binder formulations for many of their products between 2002 and 2015.
Why It Matters
As laid out in the Equitable and Just National Climate Platform:
“To achieve our [climate] goals, we will need to overcome past failures that have led us to the crisis conditions we face today. Past failures include the perpetuation of systemic inequalities that have left communities of color, tribal communities, and low-income communities exposed to the highest levels of toxic pollution and the most burdened and affected by climate change. The defining environmental crisis of our time now demands an urgency to act. Yet this urgency must not displace or abandon the fundamental principles of democracy and justice…Unless justice and equity are central components of our climate agenda, the inequality of the carbon-based economy will be replicated in the new economy.”
To truly be part of a just and equitable transition to a clean economy, climate solutions like building insulation must advance the well-being of BIPOC and low-income communities. We recommend that embodied chemical and environmental justice impacts drive material decision-making on par with consideration of GHG emissions.
Your Action Today = Healthier, More Just Future
In general, there are significant opportunities to improve the life cycle of building insulation materials through avoiding hazardous chemicals, implementing circularity, and taking other actions stemming from the principles of green chemistry and environmental justice.
Manufacturers and policymakers should advance transparency about what is in a product, how and where it is made, and the hazardous releases that occur throughout its life cycle. In the meantime, those who choose building materials can start by avoiding hazardous chemicals in a product’s content to help protect not only building occupants and installers, but also others impacted by those hazardous chemicals throughout the supply chain. Our InformedTM product guidance can help you choose safer materials.
All stakeholders–including manufacturers, policymakers, and those who choose building materials–should support the leadership of frontline communities and make changes to their own practice so that all families have healthy places to live, learn, work, and play.