Should we bin the brick?
Posted on: 1 August, 2025
In light of the recent news on carbon-capturing bricks, University of the Built Environment Programme Leader James Ritson raises an essential challenge: even if bricks become more carbon-efficient, is it wise to rely on a material that may no longer be appropriate for sustainable construction models?
Should we bin the brick altogether?
By Dr James Ritson, Programme leader for MSc Innovation in Sustainable Built Environments, and Linda Serck, Content Marketing Manager
Carbon-storing bricks
A new range of carbon-storing bricks, developed by sustainable materials start-up earth4Earth, is the latest in an encouraging line of innovations for tackling built environment emissions.
Their bricks use Direct Air Capture (DAC) technology to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, enabling buildings to function as carbon sinks. The first batch is now being piloted in the UK.
Crucially, these bricks are manufactured using excavated soil that would otherwise go to landfill, bound together with a binder especially developed by earth4Earth.
Unlike traditional lime binders, which are notoriously carbon-intensive to produce, this new binder is designed to minimise emissions during the manufacturing process by a “unique” lime production process that can be done at room temperature, according to Professor Theodore Hanein, co-founder of earth4Earth.
He adds: “All of the carbon produced during the manufacture of the e4E binder is also permanently stored in a solid form, rather than being released into the atmosphere as CO2.”
Why bricks may no longer lead
With traditional brickmaking responsible for more than 1.3 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually, innovations such as these are a welcome step.
As Professor Hanein states: “We are incredibly excited about how our work is going to help construction projects achieve net zero, and the huge difference it will make in restoring planetary health.”
However, there is a question mark over whether improving the carbon profile of bricks is really enough.
James highlights the following issues:
- Bricks require high-carbon mortar, and bricklaying is labour-intensive and therefore expensive.
- Bricks are a decorative material, as modern buildings use internal blockwork for load-bearing.
- Replacing bricks with stone or alternative materials could cut millions of tonnes of carbon emissions.
James said: “The question should not be how to make bricks lower carbon, but why are we using bricks in the first place in new designs? There is no doubt that bricks have use in retrofit and conservation projects, but I question their widespread use in new designs when there are so many low-carbon alternatives.”
Mindset over material
James emphasises that favouring brick often reflects tradition – not necessity.
With bricks considered a “vernacular material”, it can be argued that cultural identity – in Manchester’s red brick, London’s yellow brick, or Midlands darker brick – will ultimately override environmental concerns.
There is also a mindset challenge in how the property-buying public view new builds that aren’t made of traditional brick. Is it the aesthetic that holds us back?
Rebuilding the narrative
By naming bricks as part of the problem – not just the target – we are shifting the narrative from incremental improvements to transformative choices. It invites the construction sector to re-evaluate not only what we build with but why we build with it.
At a time when every kilogram of carbon counts, the built environment may not need better bricks, but braver questions.
Modern alternatives to traditional bricks
- Bio-integrated bricks: uses living moss to absorb CO₂, purify urban air, and support biodiversity. They also offer passive cooling benefits.
- Cladding alternatives such a stone, timber and composite panels
- Waste-based bricks such as K‑BRIQ® and FRONT’s WasteBasedBrick: diverted waste, huge CO₂ savings, aesthetically similar.
- Bio-based materials: Ecovative’s mycelium composites (carbon negative), and algae/oyster shell bricks that continue absorbing CO₂ in situ.
- 3D‑printed earth products (Lib Earth, TECLA): use local materials (soil, clay), low energy, minimal cement, seismic resilience.
- Straw panels and hempcrete: negative CO₂ footprints, strong insulation, fire-resistance, circular end-of-life.
- Mass timber or stone structures: CLT buildings and structural stone reflect both a return to vernacular strengths and lower embodied carbon.
Interested in shaping a lower-carbon built environment?
Explore UBE’s MSc Innovation in Sustainable Built Environments and other postgraduate courses in sustainability and construction.
