There’s still momentum in Estonia’s construction sector towards carbon footprint calculations. I wrote for Kestlikkusuudised about why regulations should keep pace.
We are all at different stages of this same journey across Europe and beyond so I thought I’d share some of the main points in English so we can keep learning from each other.
As it stands in Estonia: Requirements for building carbon footprint calculations are currently delayed until 2028, but there are growing calls to reconsider this from both building product manufacturers and developers who are ahead of the curve.
We have a competitive export economy so we already have manufacturers with a good understanding of these kind of requirements abroad - and who also very well understand the growing demand for lower carbon products.
These regulations could be a burden, while also ineffective.
But they can also be well developed with industry to increase our international competitiveness, while making a positive impact for our environment.
We need to choose now because EU-wide rules are on the way.
Ultimately, the market needs to lead. But the state has a key supporting role. Clear rules with a clear timeline gives the market confidence to invest. State investments can also lead by example.
Arguments supporting the delay rest on the idea that we need to keep honing this in “laboratory conditions”. So I responded to the 4 main reasons suggested:
1. There are too many unresolved issues specific to Estonia.Our neighbours have country-specific issues too. Early implementation has actually been key to resolving them, in addition to providing a competitive advantage.
2. There’s a lack of software and tools developed for the task here.There are already a number of suitable solutions on the market, such as One Click LCA, which has already integrated the Estonian method. This market should keep pace with our rules and adoption, not the other way around. Send it a clear message.
3. We need more time to figure out how to divide responsibilities for calculations.This has been resolved across other markets so we have plenty of inspiration. It shouldn’t take years to choose what we think works best for us.
4. Faster implementation might produce a system that doesn’t actually achieve much impact.
Implementation is how we get to the most effective system. That’s the experience of other countries with this - and also our experience with other types of regulation here, like energy calculations.
What we need is more practical experience and real world data from calculating building carbon footprints in Estonia.
This is the essence of Estonia’s entrepreneurial strength. We can move fast to adapt to evolving trends and technologies, including with supporting regulation, and make improvements based on real world implementation.
Let’s not drop this approach for sustainable construction when international markets are moving full speed ahead and demand is growing for lower carbon products.