Divergent Resource Logic — DRL
Building no. 01 · Timber

Brock Commons Tallwood House

An 18-storey hybrid mass timber student residence at the University of British Columbia. Tallest mass timber building in the world at the time of its occupancy in August 2017. The most thoroughly documented mass timber LCA in the public domain.

Owner
University of British Columbia
Architect
Acton Ostry Architects Inc.
Tall wood advisor
Architekten Hermann Kaufmann ZT GmbH
Structural engineer
Fast + Epp
CLT & glulam supplier
Structurlam Products
LCA practitioner
Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (Matt Bowick, author)
Storeys / GFA
18 / 15,120 m²
Use
Student residence (404 beds)
Completion
August 2017
Certification
LEED Gold
LCA standard
EN 15978:2011, 100-yr study period
Awards
Wood Design & Building, Canadian Wood Council; multiple international citations

Block 02 — what was disclosed

The published numbers

Two public documents anchor the disclosed environmental performance of this building. The first is the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute Environmental Building Declaration (EBD), authored by Matt Bowick, dated January 2018, conducted in conformance with EN 15978:2011. The second is the Canadian Wood Council case study published the same year, which summarises a separate carbon overview attributed to the project team.

From the Athena EBD — 100-year whole-building life cycle

Indicator (EN 15978)Disclosed valueSource
Global warming potential, 100 yr29,900,000 kg CO₂eEBD Table 2, p. 5
Per gross floor area1,977 kg CO₂e / m²Derived from EBD
Stratospheric ozone depletion0.108 kg CFC-11 eq.EBD Table 2, p. 5
Acidification (land + water)184,000 kg SO₂ eq.EBD Table 2, p. 5
Eutrophication43,000 kg N eq.EBD Table 2, p. 5
Fossil fuel depletion65,900,000 MJ surplusEBD Table 2, p. 5

From the Canadian Wood Council case study — wood-specific carbon overview

ItemDisclosed valueSource
Volume of CLT + glulam used2,233 m³CWC case study, "Carbon overview"
Carbon stored in wood (biogenic)1,753 tCO₂eCWC case study, "Carbon overview"
Avoided GHG emissions (substitution)679 tCO₂eCWC case study, "Carbon overview"
Total claimed "carbon benefit" of using wood2,432 tCO₂eCWC case study, "Carbon overview"

Note on apparent inconsistency. The Athena EBD reports the 100-year whole-building GWP at 29,900 tCO₂e — a figure that includes operating energy, all materials, replacements, and end-of-life processing. The Canadian Wood Council case study separately publishes a 2,432 tCO₂e "carbon benefit" attributed to the wood structure alone. The two figures appear in different documents addressing different boundaries and are not contradictory; they are simply addressing different scopes. The DRL recomputation below operates on the wood-structure figure because that is the disclosure where the biogenic-carbon convention does most of the work.


Block 03 — the boundary statement

What the disclosure excluded, in the disclosure's own words

Three points in the Athena EBD define the boundary of the disclosed numbers. They are reproduced here so the reader can verify them against the source.

On module B1 (installed product in use)

"B1: there is currently insufficient consensus in terms of methodology and data to practically quantify these effects for all products used in the building." — Athena EBD, p. 13, on excluded modules

On the EN 15978 standard's treatment of biogenic carbon

EN 15978:2011 — the standard the EBD was conducted under — treats biogenic carbon under what is commonly called the "biogenic-zero" or "carbon-neutral" convention. Sequestration in growing wood is reported as a negative emission at production stage (A1–A3); the same amount is then reported as a positive emission at end of life (C3 or C4). The net contribution of biogenic carbon to the building's GWP is therefore zero by convention, regardless of what physically happens to the wood at end of life or in the forest after harvest.

On end of life (Modules C2–C4)

"This assessment assumes that once the material is either [1] separated for recycling, reuse, or energy recovery purposes or [2] disposed of (i.e. either via landfill or incineration), it has reached its end-of-waste state." — Athena EBD, p. 14, on the polluter-pays allocation

On forest-side processes

The EN 15978 product-stage module A1 — "raw material supply" — encompasses, in the assessment's own description, "primary resource harvesting and mining" (EBD Table 6, p. 13). The standard does not require, and the EBD does not include, accounting for soil organic carbon dynamics in the harvested stand, nor for the foregone sequestration of the forest that would otherwise have continued growing. Those quantities are outside the assessment boundary by design of the standard.

Three liabilities outside the disclosed boundary

From the boundary statements above, three specific carbon flows are demonstrably outside the scope of what was disclosed. The DRL framework adds them back:

  1. Soil organic carbon (SOC) efflux following clear-fell harvest. Empirical loss in the top 30 cm of soil over the first 5–10 years post-harvest. Outside A1 by standard.
  2. End-of-life methane from the fraction of mass timber that enters landfill rather than being recovered. EN 15978 assumes preferred end-of-life scenarios; real-world C&D waste streams do not always match.
  3. Foregone sequestration — the carbon the forest would have continued to accumulate over the 100-year reference period had the trees not been felled. Outside the goal-and-scope of EN 15978; explicitly so.

Block 04 — DRL recomputation

The three liabilities added back

Each of the three liabilities is calculated from the building's disclosed timber volume of 2,233 m³, multiplied by an emission factor sourced from peer-reviewed literature. The biogenic-storage and substitution-credit lines use the building's own disclosed values rather than recomputed ones — the recomputation does not silently restate what was published. The factor values shown here are mid-range defaults; the calculator below lets the reader substitute low- or high-range alternatives.

LineFactor or sourceResultSource
Timber volume (CLT + glulam)2,233 m³CWC case study
A1–A3 manufacturing emissions0.18 tCO₂e / m³+402 tCO₂eAthena EPDs, FPInnovations
Biogenic carbon stored (building's own disclosure)−1,753 tCO₂eCWC case study
Substitution credit (building's own disclosure)−679 tCO₂eCWC case study
Disclosed net (using their numbers)−2,030 tCO₂eA1–A3 minus disclosed credits
+ DRL liability 1: SOC efflux0.12 tCO₂e / m³+268 tCO₂eJames & Harrison 2016
+ DRL liability 2: EOL methane12% biogenic C as CH₄+2,134 tCO₂eXimenes 2008; IPCC AR6 GWP100
+ DRL liability 3: foregone sequestration, 100 yr0.95 tCO₂e / m³+2,121 tCO₂eStephenson 2014; Searchinger 2023
Full-boundary total (wood-attributable)+4,925 tCO₂eRecomputed
Delta vs. disclosed+6,956 tCO₂eFrom −2,030 to +4,925

The disclosed "carbon benefit" of using wood at Brock Commons is reported as a 2,432 tCO₂e credit (the sum of 1,753 tCO₂e biogenic storage and 679 tCO₂e substitution credit, both quoted from the public case study). Under full-boundary accounting that includes SOC efflux, end-of-life methane, and 100-year foregone sequestration at mid-range factor values, the wood-attributable contribution becomes a 4,925 tCO₂e liability. The swing is approximately 6,956 tCO₂e — almost three times the size of the original disclosed credit. At the EPA average of 4.6 tCO₂e per passenger vehicle per year, this is approximately 1,513 vehicle-years of emissions.

The bigger frame. The Athena EBD reports total 100-year building GWP at 29,900 tCO₂e. With the wood-attributable swing of +6,956 tCO₂e added, the corrected 100-year GWP is approximately 36,856 tCO₂e — about 23% higher than disclosed. This is a wood-line correction only. The concrete podium, foundations, steel components and operating energy are not recomputed here; they will appear in the corresponding concrete and steel ledger entries.

A note on what this recomputation does not say. It does not say wood is worse than concrete. The concrete alternative — Brock Commons' counterfactual concrete equivalent, or the 30 Hudson Yards class of buildings in this same ledger — also has uncounted liabilities. The point is that the published headline for this building, as written, omits material flows that are documented in peer-reviewed literature. Bringing the disclosure up to a full boundary is what auditors call closing the books.


Block 05 — reproduce this

Run the math yourself

The calculator below is preloaded with the disclosed timber volume from the public case study. Every emission factor is a dropdown — change any one and the recomputation refreshes. If you believe a factor is wrong, change it and see what the corrected number becomes.

Embedded full-boundary calculator

Brock Commons Tallwood House — wood-attributable carbon

Inputs pre-loaded from the building's own public disclosures. Outputs recompute on every change.

CWC case study, "Carbon overview"
Athena / FPInnovations EPD range 0.13–0.25
tCO₂e per m³ harvested timber
% of biogenic C released as CH₄ in landfill
Per Stephenson 2014; Luyssaert 2008
A1–A3 manufacturing
Biogenic store (disclosed)
Disclosed net
+ SOC efflux
+ EOL methane
+ Foregone sequestration
Full-boundary total
Delta vs. disclosed

Sources cited on this page

  1. Bowick, M. (2018). Brock Commons Tallwood House, University of British Columbia: An Environmental Building Declaration According to EN 15978 Standard. Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. naturallywood.com/wp-content/uploads/Tallwood_House_Environmental_Declaration_20180608.pdf
  2. Canadian Wood Council (2018). Brock Commons Tallwood House — UBC Vancouver Campus: The advent of tall wood structures in Canada. A case study. cwc.ca
  3. EN 15978:2011 — Sustainability of construction works — Assessment of environmental performance of buildings — Calculation method. European Committee for Standardization.
  4. Stephenson, N. L., et al. (2014). Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size. Nature, 507(7490), 90–93. nature.com/articles/nature12914
  5. Luyssaert, S., et al. (2008). Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature, 455(7210), 213–215.
  6. James, J. & Harrison, R. (2016). The effect of harvest on forest soil carbon: a meta-analysis. Forests, 7(12), 308.
  7. Achat, D. L., et al. (2015). Quantifying consequences of removing harvesting residues on forest soils and tree growth — a meta-analysis. Forest Ecology and Management, 348, 124–141.
  8. Mayer, M., et al. (2020). Tamm Review: Influence of forest management activities on soil organic carbon stocks: A knowledge synthesis. Forest Ecology and Management, 466, 118127.
  9. Ximenes, F. A., et al. (2008). Greenhouse gas balance of native forests in New South Wales, Australia. Carbon Balance and Management, 3(1), 1–13.
  10. Wang, X., et al. (2013). Methane emissions from landfills: Measurements in a Florida unlined landfill. Waste Management.
  11. IPCC (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report, Ch. 7, Table 7.15 — methane GWP₁₀₀ = 27.9.
  12. Searchinger, T. D., Peng, L., et al. (2023). Re-evaluating the climate effects of biofuels and bioenergy and the role of land use. Nature, 619, 64–73. doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06187-1