As Indonesian islanders lately sue cement producers over climate damage, buildings are getting much-needed attention due to their high carbon footprint. The built environment generates nearly 50% of annual global emissions. Yet buildings barely receive climate activism commensurate with their impact – despite concrete being the second most consumed matter after water. Lawsuits help change that.

Yes, buildings attract attention. The industry is launching tools to calculate ’embodied carbon’. The Cut Inflation Act proposed in the US Senate allocates billions of dollars to make buildings more efficient and encourage low-carbon purchases in buildings and construction. US and European cities are calling for resources to decarbonize buildings, as members of the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance have been leading this action for years, and Members of the European Parliament are pushing to ensure communities lead this transition buildings.

But the built environment is not on everyone’s mind. The public does not use “building decarbonization” and “net zero buildings”, nor “operational carbon” (the carbon emitted by the operation of a building) and “embodied carbon” (the carbon emitted by construction of a building).

When speaking with the climate action audience, they will talk about recycling, electric vehicles, solar panels, public transport, heat pumps and plant-based diets. It’s been covered in the press, so it’s easier to repeat. They are less likely to refer to ‘the built environment’.

Although they may refer to a building’s operational emissions – turning off lights, turning down the heat or air conditioning, or cooling for energy efficiency – they are less likely to think of embodied emissions in their office environments. or houses built, and those material supply chains and construction processes.

How often do people talk about reducing the life cycle carbon footprint of drywall and insulation – or the footprint of steel, concrete or carpet? It’s not on the tip of the public’s tongue.

We need to broaden the lens of the public and decision makers so that it is part of everyday conversations about climate action. So much so that when we talk about electric vehicles, solar tiles or fair and organic fashion, we can add the buildings in which we spend so much time working, sleeping and eating.

And not just for environmental reasons. Decarbonizing buildings and greening building supply chains has a host of compelling health, energy and labor benefits.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) highlighted the potential savings in its 2022 report on decarbonising buildings in cities and regions. They are meaningful. Nearly 200 billion euros are available in reduced health expenditure, and for every million dollars invested in the decarbonisation of buildings, up to 30 jobs are created. Additionally, with low-income households facing energy poverty, building decarbonization is a fair and equitable investment, especially when community-led.

These benefits also extend to more sustainable construction supply chains that go beyond good green jobs and healthier environments for people and the planet. It is about building resilience to withstand future shocks, which the EU is committed to pursuing post-pandemic. All these victories that the public can relate to.

Still, cities — which are closest to the public, know local housing stock, and are responsible for building and zoning regulations — need help making their case. When asked by the OECD what cities need from national governments, while 95% of cities said financial support to move pilots forward was the top priority, 74% of cities asked for help to raise public awareness. These two needs outweighed the other demands. The third demand, at 58%, was for help to remove national regulatory barriers that hinder local action.

The first and third points above – on financial and regulatory support, respectively – will be reinforced in the US with the Cut Inflation Act and in the EU with the recently agreed Green New Deal, guidelines on energy efficiency and energy performance, as well as efforts to strengthen them in order to decarbonise all buildings in the EU.

It is this second priority, regarding public awareness, that can be overlooked by governments that do not understand the need.

The buildings could easily be on the tip of anyone’s tongue. How buildings and their materials are sourced, constructed, operated, refurbished and recycled could be as high a priority as single-use plastics.

But the public needs to see it. The good and the bad that enter a building. Imagine “Story of Stuff” by environmental activist Annie Leonard, but for the history of the buildings. Imagine fashion carbon labeling but for the built environment.

Buildings need campaigns. With stories that illustrate how life is better in a carbon-free building, from its birth and construction to its operation.

Stories that shine a light on health benefits, cost savings and labor benefits – everything, throughout the supply chain – for everyone and everything involved. From miner to manufacturer, from concrete to work surface, from resourcing to reuse, from assembly to dismantling. The simpler and earlier the better.

Michael Shank, Ph.D., is the Director of Engagement for the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance.