Next Article in Journal
Developing a Framework for Innovation in House Construction: An Exploratory Study of Emerging Techniques and Practices
Previous Article in Journal
Research on Asymmetrical Reinforced Concrete Low-Rise Frames under Multiple Seismic Events
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Proceeding Paper

Learning from Past Research for a Green Future: Harnessing Organic and Genetically Enhanced Trees to Reduce Construction-Induced CO2 Emissions †

1
Department of Biotechnology, Capital University of Science & Technology, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Capital University of Science & Technology, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Presented at the 1st International Online Conference on Buildings, 24–26 October 2023; Available online: https://iocbd2023.sciforum.net/.
Eng. Proc. 2023, 53(1), 30; https://doi.org/10.3390/IOCBD2023-15210
Published: 24 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Proceedings of The 1st International Online Conference on Buildings)

Abstract

:
In today’s world, GHG emissions, especially CO2, drive rapid global warming. Construction significantly contributes to this by emitting CO2. Plants have long been recognized for their role in mitigating climate change through CO2 absorption, enhancing both climate control and environmental beauty. Thus, the aim of this paper is to assess plants’ CO2 absorption potential, focusing on recent articles from reputable journals in the past decade. First, we delve into the primary causes of global warming. Next, we explore the philosophy of CO2 emissions in construction, from inception to completion. Finally, CO2 emission control through plantation is examined, exploring the potential of organic and genetically modified plants for real-world applications.

1. Introduction

Greenhouse gases, commonly known as GHGs, unquestionably serve as the primary catalysts for global warming, effectively synonymous with this pressing environmental concern. These GHGs encompass four key constituents: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. Among this quartet, CO2 emerges as the most influential contributor, responsible for a substantial 70–75% of the global warming effect [1]. The remaining 25–30% is ascribed to the other trio of GHGs: methane, making a 16–20% contribution; nitrous oxide, contributing around 6–10%; and fluorinated gases, with a contribution of roughly 1–3% [2,3,4]. Consequently, it becomes patently clear that exerting control over CO2 emissions assumes a pivotal role in the endeavor to mitigate global warming. CO2 emission reduction offers the potential to significantly diminish the extent of global warming and its far-reaching repercussions for the planet.
The construction industry, with its vast reach, is a significant driver of global warming, emitting greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, during both the construction phase (cradle-to-gate) and the entire building life cycle (gate-to-key) [5]. The construction industry plays a substantial role in exacerbating global temperatures and CO2 emissions, from inception to demolition [6]. The objective of this paper is to analyze the industry’s carbon footprint comprehensively, offering an in-depth assessment of its contributions to the climate crisis by scrutinizing emissions both upstream and downstream [7]. It underscores the urgent need for adopting sustainable practices to mitigate environmental consequences.
In the midst of the construction industry’s persistent and significant contribution to global warming, marked by the continuous release of GHGs, notably CO2, throughout both the cradle-to-gate and gate-to-key phases, an innovative approach warrants attention [8]. This review paper embarks on a transformative journey, shedding light on the remarkable potential of tree plantation as a dynamic strategy for climate control [9]. However, the intrigue does not stop there; it guides the pioneering realm of genetic modification, contemplating the feasibility of enhancing tree species with specialized genes to augment CO2 absorption. As it ventures into the scientific frontier, it will delve into the potential and ethical considerations of genetically engineered trees as a catalyst for swift climate change mitigation [10]. Trees, both organic and genetically modified, excel at absorbing CO2 emissions, offering adaptable solutions for combatting global warming [11,12,13]. This exploration has the potential to redefine the course of the battle against global warming.
Rapid urbanization presents significant climate concerns [5]. In response, tree planting emerges as a viable remedy. The global construction industry is a key contributor to global warming, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2) [7]. Tree planting offers a comprehensive strategy to mitigate emissions from construction activities [10]. This review analyzes reputable journal articles from the past decade. It first assesses the causes of and contributors to global warming. Then, it explores the CO2 emissions from construction industry via the ‘cradle-to-key phase’. Finally, it discusses the essential aspects of tree planting, including organic and genetically modified varieties, emphasizing the adaptability and environmental benefits. After studying plantation strategies, it recommends tree combinations based on the existing literature.

2. Global Warming, Its Major Cause, and Contributor

Global warming is an escalating global crisis driven primarily by the accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the Earth’s atmosphere. Among these gases, carbon dioxide (CO2) plays a pivotal role due to its abundant emission sources [1]. The construction industry, characterized by its intensive use of energy and materials, is a significant contributor to CO2 emissions [7]. The energy-intensive processes involved in construction, such as cement production and the transportation of materials, release substantial amounts of CO2. Moreover, the carbon footprint of buildings themselves, especially large-scale commercial and residential structures [4], substantially contributes to CO2 emissions over the lifecycle of the buildings, including heating, cooling, and maintenance.
Deforestation worsens global warming by releasing stored carbon, disrupting the natural carbon cycle. Forests function as carbon sinks, capturing and storing CO2. When trees are cut or burned, as in deforestation, stored carbon is released, intensifying GHG concentrations [9]. Deforestation results from land demand for agriculture, urbanization, and resource extraction and is closely linked to construction needs [8]. CO2 emissions from deforestation and construction are compounded, underscoring the urgent need for sustainable construction and forest conservation to mitigate climate impacts.

3. CO2 Emissions from the Construction Industry via the Cradle-to-Key Phase

The worldwide construction sector, largely fueled by carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, plays a pivotal role in aggravating global warming [7,8]. This comprehensive analysis delves into the intricate factors contributing to its impact on rising temperatures. CO2 emissions emanate from various stages in the life cycle, spanning planning, material extraction (“cradle to gate”), and operational phases (“gate to key”) [8]. These emissions intensify due to energy-intensive procedures and the transportation of materials, exacerbating the consequences of climate change [14,15]. Recognizing this intricacy underscores the immediate need to adopt sustainable practices, mitigating the sector’s ecological footprint and addressing the imperative for a more environmentally conscious approach.
The construction industry faces significant carbon emission challenges, spanning material production, transportation, construction, operation, and disposal, highlighting a need for managing embodied carbon in buildings to mitigate global warming [16]. There is a lack of comprehensive, material-specific emission calculations, despite extensive research on building life cycle energy and emissions [17]. Assessing emissions during construction is critical [18]. Sustainable design and materials are pivotal for reducing embodied carbon and environmental impact, given the sector’s substantial contribution to global warming, being responsible for about 27% of annual CO2 emissions [19,20]. During the construction phase, steel, concrete, aluminum, and bricks are the prime contributors to CO2 emissions (Figure 1). The concept of a building’s carbon footprint quantifies CO2 emissions throughout its life cycle [19]. Sustainable development balances environment and resource conservation.
The construction industry’s “gate to key” phase is pivotal in combating greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2) [21]. This phase, from building occupancy to demolition, significantly contributes to climate change. Operational buildings, reliant on fossil fuels for heating, cooling, and lighting, extend their CO2 emissions beyond construction [22,23], emphasizing the need to rethink design, materials, and energy-efficient technologies to mitigate the industry’s lasting impact on global warming. Examining this phase highlights CO2 emissions’ resilience in constructed environments, as buildings are designed for long-term use [24]. Demolition and disposal add further emissions, reinforcing the industry’s prolonged role in global warming [25]. Understanding and addressing CO2 emissions in this phase are crucial for a sustainably built environment and a reduction in the industry’s lasting climate impact.

4. Harnessing Trees to Reduce CO2 Emissions from the Construction Industry

In-depth research underscores the construction industry’s significant contribution to global warming, emphasizing innovative solutions like tree plantation [8]. Solutions like green construction and alternative materials are cost-effective for CO2 reduction and may not always prioritize sustainability. Tree planting offers an affordable, aesthetically pleasing, and accessible climate solution. Trees, via photosynthesis, capture CO2, aiding the fight against climate change while also regulating temperatures, improving air quality, and enhancing urban aesthetics [9]. Genetic modification has been explored to enhance CO2 absorption in trees, potentially accelerating their climate impact [18]. This biotechnological approach raises ecological, genetic diversity, and ethical concerns, demanding careful consideration for harmonious coexistence with the environment [19]. Integrating genetic modification with tree planting offers a promising opportunity for climate control, necessitating further research and ethical guidelines.
Organic trees like Sukh Chain, Jamun, Kachnar, Drek, Mulberry, and Shisham are essential natural carbon sinks, aiding in carbon dioxide (CO2) emission mitigation from buildings through photosynthesis [8]. Strategically planting these trees near structures can significantly reduce their carbon footprint (Table 1), with this group capable of absorbing 105 kg of CO2 daily [26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. These trees continue to absorb CO2 throughout a building’s lifespan, enhancing air quality and fostering a harmonious ecosystem that counters the structure’s environmental impact [32,33]. This enduring relationship highlights the importance of integrating nature into the built environment for climate change mitigation.
Genetically modified (GM) trees, engineered for improved CO2 absorption, offer a dynamic approach to address building emissions [34]. Unlike natural species such as Sukh Chain, Jamun, Kachnar, Drek, Mulberry, and Shisham, GM trees show potential for rapid CO2 sequestration [19]. Research confirms their CO2-absorbing abilities, despite ongoing debates on feasibility and ethics [35]. Planting GM trees around a CO2-emitting building during the cradle-to-gate phase significantly reduces the required tree count within five years. This innovation accelerates carbon absorption, aiding climate change mitigation. However, careful urban integration and ethical, ecological, and regulatory considerations are crucial [28,29]. GM trees hold promise in reshaping the fight against global warming, demonstrating the potential of science and biotechnology for a sustainable future. Both natural and GM trees offer adaptable solutions, each with unique strengths and considerations in absorbing CO2 emissions from buildings to combat global warming.

5. Conclusions

This review examines tree planting’s effectiveness in reducing construction CO2 emissions using recent articles from reputable journals. Based on literature research the conclusions are as follows:
  • GHG emissions, primarily CO2 from the construction industry, significantly contribute to global warming and are tied to deforestation for urban development.
  • The construction industry significantly contributes to global warming by emitting tons of CO2 from the material used in construction. The percentage of CO2 emissions of materials vary with respect to quantity. However, steel is the prime contributor, emitting the highest percentage of CO2 into the environment.
  • Integrating organic trees offers the potential to reduce CO2 emissions from the construction industry. Sukh-chain and Jamun are temperature tolerant and the fastest growing trees native to certain areas and can play a huge role in CO2 absorbance. The genetic modification of these trees with the CO2 absorbing gene at high rate can increase their absorbance rate by up to 5%, but it requires ethical and ecological scrutiny, demanding additional research and ethical guidelines for effective climate change mitigation.
The above findings indicate a promising path to investigate the profound effects of CO2 emissions from the construction industry. Increased awareness can facilitate the successful implementation of tree planting initiatives, spanning from small- to large-scale applications in practical contexts. However, genetically modified plants will require ethical concerns to be addressed and extensive research to be implemented at small-scale and large-scale levels.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.K. and M.A.; methodology, Z.K. and M.A.; formal analysis Z.K.; resources, Z.K.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.K.; writing—review and editing, M.A.; supervision, M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank every person/department who helped throughout the research work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Jones, M.W.; Peters, G.P.; Gasser, T.; Andrew, R.M.; Schwingshackl, C.; Gütschow, J.; Le Quéré, C. National contributions to climate change due to historical emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide since 1850. Sci. Data 2023, 10, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Chai, X.; Tonjes, D.J.; Mahajan, D. Methane emissions as energy reservoir: Context, scope, causes and mitigation strategies. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2016, 56, 33–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Yang, R.; Yuan, L. Generation, emission reduction/utilization, and challenges of greenhouse gas nitrous oxide in wastewater treatment plants—A review. J. Water Process Eng. 2023, 53, 103871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Khan, D.; Khan, E.A.; Tara, M.S.; Shujaa, S.; Gardezi, S. Embodied carbon footprint assessment of a conventional commercial building using BIM. In Collaboration and Integration in Construction, Engineering, Management and Technology, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Construction in the 21st Century, London, UK, 9–11 September 2019; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 247–250. [Google Scholar]
  5. Marsono, A.K.B.; Balasbaneh, A.T. Combinations of building construction material for residential building for the global warming mitigation for Malaysia. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 85, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Spence, R.; Mulligan, H. Sustainable development and the construction industry. Habitat Int. 1995, 19, 279–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Huang, L.; Krigsvoll, G.; Johansen, F.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, X. Carbon emission of global construction sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 1906–1916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sadri, H.; Pourbagheri, P.; Yitmen, I. Towards the implications of Boverket’s climate declaration act for sustainability indices in the Swedish construction industry. Build. Environ. 2022, 207, 108446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Camposeo, S.; Vivaldi, G.A.; Russo, G.; Melucci, F.M. Intensification in olive growing reduces global warming potential under both integrated and organic farming. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Le, Y.; Huang, S.Y. Prediction of Urban Trees Planting Base on Guided Cellular Automata to Enhance the Connection of Green Infrastructure. Land 2023, 12, 1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Osman, A.I.; Fawzy, S.; Lichtfouse, E.; Rooney, D.W. Planting trees to combat global warming. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2023, 21, 3041–3044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Apeh, C.C.; Agbugba, I.K.; Mdoda, L. Assessing the Determinants of Adopting Urban Tree Planting as Climate Change Mitigation Strategy in Enugu Metropolis, Nigeria. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Quandt, A.; Neufeldt, H.; Gorman, K. Climate change adaptation through agroforestry: Opportunities and gaps. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2023, 60, 101244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cabeza, L.F.; Rincón, L.; Vilariño, V.; Pérez, G.; Castell, A. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 29, 394–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hong, J.; Shen, G.Q.; Feng, Y.; Lau, W.S.-T.; Mao, C. Greenhouse gas emissions during the construction phase of a building: A case study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 103, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zuo, J.; Zhao, Z.-Y. Green building research–current status and future agenda: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 30, 271–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Luo, Z.; Yang, L.; Liu, J. Embodied carbon emissions of office building: A case study of China’s 78 office buildings. Build. Environ. 2016, 95, 365–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Atmaca, A.; Atmaca, N. Life cycle energy (LCEA) and carbon dioxide emissions (LCCO2A) assessment of two residential buildings in Gaziantep, Turkey. Energy Build. 2015, 102, 417–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hawkins, W.; Cooper, S.; Allen, S.; Roynon, J.; Ibell, T. Embodied carbon assessment using a dynamic climate model: Case-study comparison of a concrete, steel and timber building structure. Structures 2021, 33, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pomponi, F.; Hart, J.; Arehart, J.H.; D’Amico, B. Buildings as a global carbon sink? A reality check on feasibility limits. One Earth 2020, 3, 157–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bošković, I.; Radivojević, A. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of hemp-lime concrete wall constructions in Serbia: The impact of carbon sequestration, transport, waste production and end of life biogenic carbon emission. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 66, 105908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zheng, L.; Mueller, M.; Luo, C.; Menneer, T.; Yan, X. Variations in whole-life carbon emissions of similar buildings in proximity: An analysis of 145 residential properties in Cornwall, UK. Energy Build. 2023, 296, 113387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Greer, F.; Horvath, A. Modular construction’s capacity to reduce embodied carbon emissions in California’s housing sector. Build. Environ. 2023, 240, 110432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fang, Z.; Yan, J.; Lu, Q.; Chen, L.; Yang, P.; Tang, J.; Hong, J. A systematic literature review of carbon footprint decision-making approaches for infrastructure and building projects. Appl. Energy 2023, 335, 120768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fan, Y.; Fang, C. GHG emissions and energy consumption of residential buildings—A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2023, 195, 885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Russell-Smith, S.V.; Lepech, M.D.; Fruchter, R.; Meyer, Y.B. Sustainable target value design: Integrating life cycle as-sessment and target value design to improve building energy and environmental performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 88, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Johnny, W.; Zhou, X. Enhancing environmental sustainability over building life cycles through green BIM: A review. Autom. Constr. 2015, 57, 156–165. [Google Scholar]
  28. Najeeb, R.; Qaisrani, F.A.; Akhtar, S.; Nazeer, I. The Role and Significance of Forest on Climate Change and Economy in Pakistan. Al-Qantara 2023, 9, 159–170. [Google Scholar]
  29. Khadivi, A.; Mirheidari, F.; Saeidifar, A.; Moradi, Y. Selection of the promising accessions of jamun (Syzygium cumini (L.) skeels) based on pomological characterizations. Food Sci. Nutr. 2023, 11, 470–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dewangan, A.; Mallick, A.; Yadav, A.K.; Islam, S.; Saleel, C.A.; Shaik, S.; Ağbulut, Ü. Production of oxy-hydrogen gas and the impact of its usability on CI engine combustion, performance, and emission behaviors. Energy 2023, 278, 127937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Imran-Shaukat, M.; Wahi, R.; Ngaini, Z. Optimization of Copper, Lead and Nickel Ions Adsorption by Melia azeda-rach Activated Carbon: A Response Surface Methodology Approach. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2023, 48, 9047–9068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yang, L.; Zhao, J.; Fan, S.; Liao, J.; Chen, Y.; Wang, Y. Effect of Frost on the Different Metabolites of Two Mulberry (Morus nigra L. and Morus alba L.) Leaves. Molecules 2023, 28, 4718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Amiri-Ramsheh, B.; Nait Amar, M.; Shateri, M.; Hemmati-Sarapardeh, A. On the evaluation of the carbon dioxide solubility in polymers using gene expression programming. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 12505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Gu, L. Optimizing the electron transport chain to sustainably improve photosynthesis. Plant Physiol. 2023, kiad490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Booth, T.H. The need for a global tree trial database. New For. 2023, 54, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Major contributors of CO2 emissions during construction [4].
Figure 1. Major contributors of CO2 emissions during construction [4].
Engproc 53 00030 g001
Table 1. Fastest growing plants.
Table 1. Fastest growing plants.
Plants *Sukh ChainJamunKachnarDrekMulberryShisham
Scientific namePongamia pinnataSyzygium cuminiBauhinia variegataMelia azedarachMorus spp.Dalbergia sissoo
Nutritional
Requirements
Well-drained
soil, organic
mulching
Well-drained, fertile
soil, organic matter
Well-drained
soil, organic
matter, phosphorus
Various soils,
nitrogen,
phosphorus
Well-drained
soil, organic
matter, nitrogen
Well-drained
soil, nitrogen
Growth Rate10 cm/day10 cm/day1–5 cm/day10 cm/day10 cm/day10 cm/day
Water
Requirements
Mature trees are
drought-tolerant
Mature trees are
drought-tolerant
Regular
Watering
Regular wateringRequires
moist soil
Regular
watering
Temperature Tolerance10 °C (50 °F) to
40 °C (104 °F)
15 °C (59 °F)
to 40 °C (104 °F)
15 °C (59 °F) to
35 °C (95 °F)
10°C (50 °F) to
40°C (104 °F)
10 °C (50 °F) to
35 °C (95 °F)
15 °C (59 °F) to
40 °C (104 °F)
Height10 to 25 m
(33 to 82 feet)
15 to 30 m
(49 to 98 feet)
6 to 12 m
(20 to 39 feet)
6 to 12 m
(20 to 39 feet)
5 to 15 m
(16 to 49 feet)
15 to 25 m
(49 to 82 feet)
Environmental FactorsTemperature,
sunlight,
water availability
Wet and dry
season, sunlight
Wet and
dry season,
sunlight
Various
conditions
Sunlight,
soil conditions
Sun exposure
CO2 Absorbance5 to 15 kg/day5 to 20 kg/day5 to 15 kg/day5 to 15 kg/day5 to 20 kg/day 5 to 20 kg/day
References[28][29][30][31][32][28]
* For Rawalpindi, Pakistan region only.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Khan, Z.; Ali, M. Learning from Past Research for a Green Future: Harnessing Organic and Genetically Enhanced Trees to Reduce Construction-Induced CO2 Emissions. Eng. Proc. 2023, 53, 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/IOCBD2023-15210

AMA Style

Khan Z, Ali M. Learning from Past Research for a Green Future: Harnessing Organic and Genetically Enhanced Trees to Reduce Construction-Induced CO2 Emissions. Engineering Proceedings. 2023; 53(1):30. https://doi.org/10.3390/IOCBD2023-15210

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khan, Zeenat, and Majid Ali. 2023. "Learning from Past Research for a Green Future: Harnessing Organic and Genetically Enhanced Trees to Reduce Construction-Induced CO2 Emissions" Engineering Proceedings 53, no. 1: 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/IOCBD2023-15210

APA Style

Khan, Z., & Ali, M. (2023). Learning from Past Research for a Green Future: Harnessing Organic and Genetically Enhanced Trees to Reduce Construction-Induced CO2 Emissions. Engineering Proceedings, 53(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/IOCBD2023-15210

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop