Timber vs Synthetics: Material Carbon Impact Compared

Why Compare Timber and Synthetic Materials?

As buildings move toward carbon neutrality, material selection plays a critical role in determining a project’s environmental impact. Both timber and synthetic materials are widely used in interior finishes and construction components, but their life cycle carbon footprints differ substantially.

Timber—especially sustainably sourced and engineered variants—offers renewable advantages and stores carbon. In contrast, synthetic materials like plastic laminates, vinyl, or composite resins often rely on fossil fuel inputs and release more carbon during production and disposal. A careful comparison reveals why timber is increasingly favored in low-carbon architecture.

Understanding the Carbon Profile of Each Material Type

Biogenic Carbon Storage in Timber

Wood naturally stores carbon absorbed during tree growth. This carbon remains locked in the timber product throughout its use phase, reducing the overall Global Warming Potential (GWP) of the material. Engineered timber panels, such as E0 MDF or plywood, can offer cradle-to-gate carbon savings of up to 1.6 kg CO₂e per kg of material, depending on species and sourcing³.

High Embodied Carbon in Synthetics

Most synthetic materials are derived from petroleum and involve energy-intensive manufacturing. Vinyl, melamine laminates, and high-pressure plastics may emit between 4–7 kg CO₂e per kg during production. These materials do not store carbon, and their end-of-life often involves incineration or landfill, further increasing emissions².

Timber’s Recyclability and Lifecycle Advantage

At end-of-life, timber can be repurposed, recycled, or biodegraded—further reducing its carbon footprint. Some FSC®-certified panels even include recycled content or are designed for reuse. Synthetics, on the other hand, are rarely recycled due to contamination and mixed-material formats, locking in their embodied emissions beyond first use⁵.

Why Carbon Footprint Matters in Material Specification

Global green building frameworks like LEED, BREEAM, and Green Mark increasingly reward low-embodied carbon materials. As operational energy becomes cleaner (via renewables), embodied carbon from materials represents a larger proportion of a building’s total footprint.

Choosing materials with favorable life cycle profiles, like timber, helps reduce upfront carbon emissions (A1–A3 stages in LCA), making a measurable impact in early design. For architects, developers, and manufacturers seeking carbon reporting and ESG alignment, timber is the clear low-impact alternative⁴.

Key Considerations in Carbon-Based Material Comparison

When evaluating carbon impact, it’s critical to go beyond general assumptions and focus on third-party life cycle data.

Source and Certification of Timber

Not all timber is low-carbon by default. Timber should be FSC® or PEFC-certified, locally sourced where possible, and manufactured with low-emission binders. EPDs help confirm carbon values with verified data.

Scope of Life Cycle Assessment

Ensure that comparisons use cradle-to-gate or cradle-to-grave LCA under ISO 14044. Consistent declared units (e.g., per m² or per kg) and boundary definitions are essential for valid comparisons.

Manufacturing and End-of-Life Scenarios

Timber manufacturing typically consumes less energy, and waste can be repurposed or burned cleanly. Synthetic offcuts and panels are usually landfilled, where they persist or emit methane over time.

Material Examples and Their Carbon Impact

Compare commonly used interior materials by kg CO₂e per kg of product (cradle-to-gate)³:

  • Solid Timber (FSC® certified): ~–1.6 kg CO₂e/kg (carbon negative)

  • E0 MDF: ~0.5–1.2 kg CO₂e/kg

  • Vinyl Flooring: ~6.0 kg CO₂e/kg

  • HPL Laminates: ~4.0–5.5 kg CO₂e/kg

  • PET Acoustic Panels: ~3.2–4.1 kg CO₂e/kg

Three rectangular wood panels with different finishes and perforations are arranged on a white surface, next to a small green branch and scattered leaves—discover the best materials for acoustic panels and how they optimize sound absorption for various spaces.

How Timberix Embraces Carbon-Conscious Material Practice

At Timberix, all panels are engineered with carbon impact in mind. We use FSC®-certified timber, E0 substrates, and low-VOC finishes, and our products are available with Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) that detail embodied carbon values across their life cycle.

Whether you’re designing for LEED, BREEAM, or a corporate ESG strategy, Timberix helps you choose timber panels that lower your project’s footprint without compromising aesthetics or durability. Timber is more than sustainable—it’s climate-smart.

References

  1. Song, B., Peng, L., Fu, F., Liu, M., & Zhang, H. (2016). Experimental and theoretical analysis of sound absorption properties of finely perforated wooden panels. Applied Sciences, 6(11), 348.
  2. Bertolini, M. d. S., Galvão de Morais, C. A., Christoforo, A. L., Bertoli, S. R., dos Santos, W. N., & Lahr, F. A. R. (2020). Acoustic absorption and thermal insulation of wood panels: Influence of porosity. Bioresources, 15(3), 6274–6292.
  3. Knapczyk, H., & Skrzypiński, B. (2023). Sustainable perforated acoustic wooden panels designed using third-degree-of-freedom curves with broadband sound absorption coefficients. Sustainability, 15(9), 4644.
  4. Silva, M. da, & Santos, F. de. (2019). Effect of relative humidity and temperature on formaldehyde emission from medium density fibreboard. Wood Material Science & Engineering, 14(2), 104–113.
  5. Arjunan, A., Baroutaji, A., Robinson, J., Vance, A., & Arafat, A. (2024). Acoustic metamaterials for sound absorption and insulation in buildings. Building and Environment, 251, 111250.
 

Published

Tags

Share

Keep up with our latest development?