Counting CO₂ storage in biobased building materials gives a more realistic environmental picture: according to a TNO model, biobased products contribute half as much to climate change once the temporary sequestration is included. The current Dutch assessment method does not yet count this storage, which means biobased materials score worse in calculations than their actual climate profile.
That methodological difference has practical consequences. As long as sequestration stays outside the calculation rules, tenders, MPG calculations and material choices systematically undervalue the climate value of biobased products. The insight therefore does not argue for different materials, but for more complete calculation methods: only when both storage and emissions are visible can the market steer on a fair climate picture.