Potentially, if the material earns its place. Lower-carbon concrete helps when its footprint is documented in a verified product declaration and its structural and durability performance is proven, not assumed.
Cement is the carbon problem inside concrete. Chatham House estimated in 2018 that more than 4 billion tonnes of cement are produced each year, accounting for around 8 percent of global CO₂ emissions. The figure is for cement, not concrete, and it is often misquoted. It still explains why any building type that pours a lot of foundation, slab and structure attracts attention to its mix design, and large data center campuses pour a great deal.
How lower-carbon claims are measured
The working tool is the environmental product declaration (EPD). A product-specific Type III EPD, verified by a third party and conforming to ISO 14025 and ISO 21930, reports the global warming potential (GWP) of a specific mix from a specific plant. That lets a specifier compare products on a common basis and write a limit into a specification.
The General Services Administration built its low-embodied-carbon requirements on exactly that approach. Its criteria require a product-specific, verified EPD and set GWP limits in three tiers: top 20 percent, top 40 percent and better than average. Concrete limits vary by strength class, and the requirements also cover cement, masonry units, asphalt, steel and flat glass.
What changed in 2025
Those requirements were funded by the Inflation Reduction Act. GAO reported in April 2025 that GSA had obligated $767 million, about 36 percent of the available funds, by the end of January 2025. On July 4, 2025, Public Law 119-21 rescinded the unobligated funding for low-carbon materials in federal buildings, and separately rescinded funding for EPA's low-embodied-carbon labeling program. GSA's criteria page remains online, but the incentive behind it has largely gone.
The measurement method survives the funding. EPDs, GWP limits and product category rules are still the way owners, lenders and insurers compare materials, and private buyers with their own carbon targets continue to use them.
Where recovered carbon fits
Recovered carbon from waste tires is sometimes proposed as a concrete additive. The early laboratory evidence is mixed and dose dependent, as we discuss in Can Waste Tires Become an Infrastructure Material? Any such mix has to answer the same questions as any other: what its verified GWP is, how its strength and durability compare with the reference mix at the same strength class, and whether it behaves consistently from batch to batch.
What owners should ask for
- Product-specific, third-party-verified EPDs for each mix, not industry averages.
- GWP limits written by strength class, so structural requirements are not traded away for a lower number.
- Durability data relevant to the exposure, including freeze-thaw and chloride where they apply.
- Consistency evidence from the producing plant.
A lower-carbon claim is only as good as its declaration and its test data. With federal incentives gone, the claims that last will be the ones that can stand on documented performance.
Sources
- Chatham House, Making Concrete Change (June 13, 2018)
- GSA, IRA Low Embodied Carbon Material Requirements
- GAO-25-107349 (Apr. 29, 2025)
- Public Law 119-21 (July 4, 2025)
- U.S. EPA, Final product category rule criteria (Aug. 2024)
Cite this article: Authentic Intelligence Research, “Can Lower-Carbon Concrete Shrink the Data Center Footprint?” Authentic Intelligence, September 30, 2026, https://authenticint.com/articles/carbon-concrete-and-the-data-center-footprint.html.