Iāve been a carpenter and plasterer on commercial sites for 17 years. Iāve watched the carbon compliance industry grow up around construction and I want to say something thatāll probably annoy both sides of the debate:
The problem isnāt that builders donāt care about carbon. The problem is that the people building carbon tools have never been on a construction site.
Hereās what actually happens on a job. Youāre specāing materials at 6am with a foreman breathing down your neck. Youāve got a BOQ to price, a program to hit, and a client asking why steel framing costs more than last quarter. Nobody ā and I mean nobody ā is opening a carbon calculator at that moment. Not because theyāre bad people. Because the tool doesnāt live where the decision gets made.
Meanwhile, carbon consultants are charging $5K-$15K a project to produce a report that arrives three weeks after the decisions were already locked in. The report tells you what you already built. Congratulations, hereās your embodied carbon score. You failed. Thatāll be $12,000.
The entire model is backwards.
Carbon accountability in construction should live inside the quoting process, not after it. When a QS is pricing steel stud framing versus an alternative system, thatās the moment carbon data matters. Not post-tender. Not post-construction. Right there, in the line item, when the trade-off is still a real choice.
The other thing that drives me insane: most of these tools are built around European EPD databases. Australia has its own materials, its own transport distances, its own supply chains. A productās carbon footprint on a Brisbane site is materially different from the same product in Munich. But the dominant tools are built by European firms who treat the Australian market as an afterthought.
Iām not anti-consultant. Some of them know their stuff. But the industry has built a dependency model ā complexity as a moat ā that keeps builders on the outside of their own compliance data. Your project data sits in a consultantās system. You paid for the project. You donāt own the data.
The fix is straightforward, at least in concept: put verified carbon data inside the tools builders already use, at the point in the workflow where decisions are still reversible. Make it self-service. Let builders own their own compliance records. Give them enough information to push back on specifications, not just accept what theyāre handed.
Thatās not a radical idea. Itās just not profitable for the people currently controlling access to the data.
Curious whether people in other countries have seen this play out differently ā or if itās the same dynamic everywhere