In 2022, you and your practice, Effekt Architects, launched the Reduction Roadmap, a report outlining how the Danish construction industry can cut CO2 emissions to meet Paris Agreement targets. What motivated you to embark on this endeavour?
In 2022, we worked on a project called Living Places with the goal of creating low-emission homes. While we succeeded in significantly reducing CO2 emissions, we also identified a gap in Denmark’s approach: What defines a truly sustainable building? And how much CO2 per square metre can our buildings emit in the future? To address these questions, we collaborated with our engineering partners at Artelia and Cebra Architects. We were fortunate to receive support from four leading Danish universities specialising in climate science. Together, we developed a report that sets a bold target: reducing emissions by 95% within the next six to ten years. This target is grounded in scientific findings, such as those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Our report translates these global goals into actionable steps for Denmark’s construction sector, including a specific CO2 budget per square metre for buildings.
The Reduction Roadmap quickly gained the support of hundreds of stakeholders. Did that response surprise you?
The level of support has taken us by surprise. To date, over 630 companies and organisations have supported the Reduction Roadmap. Initially, we reached out to various industry stakeholders, and many expressed a desire to collectively tackle the climate challenge, knowing they couldn’t do it alone. The turning point came when the Danish government began renegotiating building regulations. We asked the industry to back a pledge to align Denmark’s building code with the Paris Agreement’s CO2 targets. Gradually, architects, engineers, building contractors, and even municipalities have joined our call. Universities, trade unions, and opposition parties were also involved. Ultimately, this was one of the very rare cases in which an entire industry pushed for stricter regulations.
Denmark was among the first European countries to introduce limits on embodied CO2 emissions in the building sector. How does this regulation work in practice?
Denmark introduced the CO2 regulation in 2021, i.e. one year before our study was published. It sets a ceiling of 12 kilos of CO2 per square metre per year for new buildings, starting in 2023, which will then be lowered by 1.5 kg each year. In the Reduction Roadmap, we argued that it is better to have differentiated goals for different types of buildings, as a laboratory building will always have higher CO2 values than a single- family house. The government has taken up this idea in a revision of the regulation. From 2025, an average limit of 7.1 kg CO2 per square metre will now apply; the individual limits range from 4.0 kg CO2 in holiday homes to 8.0 kg CO2 in offices or schools. The gradual approach remains the same as before: each year, the limit is lowered by 0.7 kg CO2.
What impact has the new CO2 regulation had so far?
The regulation has triggered a cultural change in the industry. While we haven’t seen largescale reductions in embodied CO2 emissions yet, the most significant effect is that every project now has to calculate and manage CO2 emissions. The average emissions are still above the targets that we set in the Reduction Roadmap, but the focus on CO2 budgets is empowering architects to make more sustainable choices. The industry is gradually becoming more qualified to deal with these calculations, and there’s a growing recognition that simple actions, like choosing the right materials, can lead to substantial reductions in emissions.
In the Reduction Roadmap, you call for a 95 % reduction in CO2 emissions within ten years. Is this even realistic and what consequences will it have? Can Denmark continue to afford as many new buildings as are currently being built?
The target could in fact lead to a drastic change in the building sector, by shifting the focus from new construction to the renovation of the existing building stock. There is already a growing political and social debate in Denmark about stopping the construction of particularly emission- intensive types of buildings until we have found ways to fulfil the new building regulations.
Denmark accounts for just 0.075 % of the global population. Have you encountered arguments that its efforts are pointless since it can’t save the climate alone?
Certainly. There are voices in Denmark that question whether we can really make a significant impact on climate change. However, there is also a strong sense of responsibility. Despite our small size, Denmark has historically been a leader in environmental issues, particularly in wind energy, and has committed to being a frontrunner in the fight against climate change. There is a shared belief that, even as a small nation, Denmark has a duty to lead by example.
Visionary urban development projects are as central to your practice as the realisation of individual buildings. Do you see parallels between them?
Our urban projects share a focus on systemic change in the building sector. We are rethinking construction systems to make them low-emission and circular, and we are exploring new ways to repurpose existing buildings. These efforts are part of a strategy to find solutions that can have a larger impact on the entire industry. Collaboration plays a key role in this. We focus on strategic partnerships that span multiple projects, enabling us to iterate and improve. Our aim is to include as many sectors as possible – legislation, investors, developers, architects, engineers, contractors, and material producers – in these partnerships in order to have a lasting impact.
Many of your urban visions draw on the village as a model. Does this approach still hold relevance today?
For me, the village as a model is still highly relevant. In today’s cities, there is often a lack of connection between the individual and society. This separation leaves people isolated. By focusing on the village model, we aim to create spaces where people are more connected to their surroundings and each other. In Denmark, for example, there is a clear demand for more community-oriented living, with three out of five people expressing a desire for stronger social connections around their homes.
Looking ahead, how do you see the role of climate action in Europe and the US, also in light of recent elections?
Of course, I am concerned that political delays, especially in countries like the US, could delay global climate action. However, we must continue to prepare for change and take the limits of our planet seriously. The construction industry in particular must not allow political stagnation to halt progress. Our future depends on whether we develop solutions now or face the consequences later.
