This is a great conversation - it really sheds a light to the complexity behind the topic of embodied carbon, EPDs, and PCRs, and the missed information when products are strictly compared based on their published GWP values.
@ScottFarbman to address your earlier question, the ROCKWOOL Group is investing in decarbonizing our operations. We have committed to reducing our carbon intensity (CO2/t stone wool) by 20% by 2020, as well as absolute scope 1 and 2 SBTi by 38% by 2034. A number of our facilities globally are either currently running or have planned conversions to electric melting technologies, specifically in locations tied to a cleaner grid. Our facility in Grand Forks, BC is one of the factories already using an electric melter.
The newest facility in West Virginia uses natural gas which will have lower carbon emissions in comparison to running on coal. We will of course be including our new facility in our EPDs once the appropriate time has passed to collect the necessary data.
Our current EPD is a product specific weighted average between our NA facilities (excluding our newest one in WV), using scale factors to calculate for individual products. The A1-A3 GWP for Comfortboard 80 is approx. 4.1 kg CO2 eq, which is below the comparable NAIMA industry value.
As with all products selected to use in our buildings, taking a holistic approach to evaluating and comparing the benefits is critical. As has been discussed, there are concerns around using foam plastics that don’t appear when you rely on their published A1-A3 GWP at face value such as those shed by Sara.