The environmental footprint of CLT is frequently dis- cussed as potentially beneficial when compared to func- tionally equivalent concrete systems. Inherent to that dis- cussion is an assumption that the comparative environ- mental profile of CLT will be lower, based on the generic life cycle analysis (LCA) profiles of wood and concrete. In particular, CLT (because it is made of wood), is assumed to have a small carbon footprint, due to relatively low em- bodied greenhouse gas emissions in wood versus con- crete, and due to the carbon