Buildings contain tons of toxic plastic—and Big Oil wants to add more

There’s wide consensus that single-use plastics are bad for environmental and human health, which is why eight in 10 Americans support a national policy reducing their use. The fossil fuel industry, in response, is finding new homes for its products—less visible than the more obvious plastic bags, bottles, and straws—as it plans to double or triple plastic production within 25 years. Cue the built environment, where less visible but equally problematic single-use is happening.

There’s also consensus, meanwhile, about problematic carbon dioxide, with six in 10 Americans supporting a carbon-neutral goal for the U.S. in 25 years. Here, too—beyond the more obvious carbon-belching vehicles, appliances, and power plants—the built environment still remains largely out of view.

Buildings’ substantial plastics and carbon footprint hasn’t been prioritized in environmental movements until more recently. Yet buildings account for 17% of total plastic production globally, second only to packaging, and roughly 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions. And while the built environment witnessed an energy-efficiency overhaul early in the environmental movement, with LEED certification piloted in 1998, that was primarily a focus on operational carbon footprints and how buildings were being heated and cooled.

The materials used in building construction, however, haven’t received the public attention they deserve. That’s beginning to change. Buildings are increasingly analyzed for their embodied-carbon footprint, with their petrochemical footprint analysis in its infancy, but growing gradually.

A new report out by Habitable, titled Buildings’ Hidden Plastic Problem, illustrates just how large the petrochemical footprint is in the built environment. The report also shows how plastic is relatively easy to avoid in buildings when compared to healthcare or packaging. Viable, nonplastic building materials are available for all major uses of plastic in the building sector including flooring, insulation, paint, pipes, and siding. And these nonplastic materials tend to be better for human and environmental health.

The report points out the urgency of acting now to reduce plastic use. Globally, plastic production causes 170,000 deaths and costs nearly $600 billion in damages to human health and economic productivity. In the U.S. alone, the plastic-attributable disease burden was nearly $250 billion in medical and social costs. And with the devastating fires in Los Angeles burning thousands of plastic-laden buildings, the health and economic burden from this “toxic soup” of pollutants will rise exponentially. These are lives worth saving and money worth recouping.

How to get plastic out of buildings

So where to start when reducing plastics in buildings?

First, start with PVC (polyvinyl chloride) pipes. PVC is one of the most toxic plastics used in buildings. Buildings and construction are responsible for 70% of total PVC use, with pipes being the biggest single use of PVC. And problematically, PVC manufacturing uses and releases toxic chemicals at every stage of the life cycle. But there are alternatives, like recycled copper, iron, and low-carbon concrete and steel. Before more local governments commit new dollars to PVC water infrastructure replacement, for example, it’s worth pressing pause.

Second, address polystyrene insulation (known as foam board, or XPS and EPS). Buildings are a leading user of polystyrene—for insulation, primarily—consuming 30% of total industry use. That matches packaging’s 30% use of all polystyrene produced. Here again there are alternatives, like mineral wool, cellulose, wood fiber, hemp, and fiberglass. And these are all relatively easy switches and cost competitive or cheaper. The primary barriers are status quo bias and industry default.

Third, look at the plastics in carpet. Over one million tons of plastic from carpet are discarded in the U.S. annually (a typical carpet contains over 60% weight plastic). That’s equal to all the plastic water bottles, bags, and straws discarded in the U.S. over the same period. Again there are alternatives, like ceramic tile or wood, with some wool rugs to make it cozy. These are small switches with big health gains.

On these three fronts and more, there are ways to decarbonize and detoxify a building. In addition to those mentioned above: for paint, there’s mineral silicate and lime; and for siding, there’s brick, stone, wood, fiber, cement, and stucco. And by swapping small amounts on any of these fronts, we’d see huge gains. Take these case studies from the report.

By shifting just 20% of PVC flooring to no-plastic or low-plastic flooring, we could avoid more than 60,000 tons of plastic annually (that’s equivalent to roughly 6 billion water bottles) and more than 60,000 tons of vinyl chloride (or 700 rail cars of the stuff). Baby steps with big gains.

By shifting just 20% of global polystyrene insulation in buildings to mineral-wool boards, we could avoid more than 8,000 tons of flame retardants, more than 80 tons of polystyrene particles, and roughly .7 million tons of plastic—which is equivalent to more than 70 billion water bottles. That’s a lot of savings that are good for public health and the environment.

By substituting just 10% of plastic carpet with no-plastic or low-plastic flooring in an 80,000-square-foot office space, we could avoid more than 35 tons of plastic waste, which is equivalent to 3.5 million water bottles.

These are substantive gains that are possible with small shifts in how we design and construct buildings: 10% here, 20% there. Buildings deserve this attention for their petrochemical and carbon footprints. It won’t just be plastic straws and solar panels on the minds of environmentally conscious Americans, but the carpet under their feet, the insulation in their walls, and the piping for their water. The opportunities to de-carb and detox are all around us. It’s time we seize them.