It’s absurd that we even have to argue the sustainability of timber when the facts are so overwhelmingly in its favour. Timber is the only truly renewable building material—it literally grows back. Unlike concrete and steel, which require vast amounts of energy and emit enormous amounts of CO₂ during production, timber is a carbon sink, absorbing CO₂ from the atmosphere as it grows. Every cubic metre of wood used in construction can store around 1 tonne of CO₂, while producing 1 tonne of steel releases around 1.8 tonnes of CO₂, and 1 tonne of cement contributes about 0.9 tonnes of CO₂. The comparison isn’t even close.
Beyond carbon emissions, timber is also far less energy-intensive to produce. The energy required to manufacture steel is about 40 times higher than timber, and concrete is still about 3 times more energy intensive. This means that choosing timber over other materials drastically reduces the environmental footprint of any project. And yet, despite this, some people still try to argue that timber isn’t the best choice for sustainability. It’s mind-boggling.
The argument against timber often comes from those who misunderstand deforestation versus responsible forestry. Sykes Timber source wood from sustainably managed forests where trees are replanted faster than they are harvested. In Europe, for example, forests are actually growing, with an increase of over 600,000 hectares per year due to strict sustainability practices. The same cannot be said for the industries producing steel and concrete, which rely on non-renewable raw materials and leave behind massive environmental scars.
So why is there even a debate? Timber is the only building material that is renewable, low-carbon, energy-efficient, and biodegradable. The real question isn’t whether timber is sustainable—it’s why we’re still considering anything else.