by Nick Miranowski
November 4th, 2026
Conversations about a building’s carbon often focus on energy use. That makes sense. Operating energy is measurable, it shows up on utility bills, and our industry has spent years learning how to reduce it. But the materials that go into a building also carry a carbon cost, and that cost is locked in before the building opens.
Building systems are part of that picture. The ductwork, piping, equipment, conduit and fixtures we design all have a material footprint. At MCE, we’re working to bring that footprint into the design conversation so project teams can weigh carbon alongside performance, cost and long-term goals.
Why Building Systems Deserve a Closer Look
Heating, cooling, electrical, plumbing and fire protection systems are what make a building work. They are also made of steel, copper, aluminum and manufactured equipment, and each of those materials and products carries an environmental impact.
Embodied carbon gives architects, engineers and owners a way to see that impact. It doesn’t replace the questions teams already ask about a system. It adds one more to the list.
How MCE is Approaching It
We’re pairing custom automation with Autodesk Carbon Insights. Our automation pulls information from the systems we design, and Carbon Insights helps us explore carbon impacts across the building. The tools don’t do the thinking for us. Our engineers still decide what the information means, which comparisons are worth making and how to present them.
The goal is practical: organize the data, explore design options and explain the findings in terms a project team can use.
Making the Comparisons Useful
A carbon number on its own doesn’t tell anyone much. Comparison is what makes it useful. Which systems account for the largest share of estimated material impact? Where could a different material or design approach change the result? How do suitable alternatives stack up against each other?
We’re building clear visual summaries to help answer those questions. They let teams see the trade-offs side by side and weigh them against the engineering requirements every system still has to meet.
What It Means for Architects and Owners
For project teams, this offers a more informed starting point. Sustainability goals are often set at a high level. This work helps connect those goals to specific system choices, and it gives everyone a clearer way to explain why a choice was made.
It also helps teams focus. Not every decision carries the same weight. Knowing where the larger impacts sit makes it easier to spend time on the opportunities that deserve a closer look.
Where We Go From Here
We’re currently applying this approach to a project model. We’re checking the information behind the estimates, refining the comparisons and working toward a practical demonstration. That work will help us establish a consistent approach we can use more broadly.
Throughout, we’re holding to a simple standard: the information should be understandable, grounded in the actual design and useful to the people making decisions.
Carbon is one more factor in building systems design. Our job is to make it visible, so project teams can see their options clearly and make choices that support their sustainability goals.
