The construction industry is under considerable legislative pressure to reduce its CO(2) emissions. The current focus is on operational CO(2) emissions, but as these are compulsorily reduced, the embodied CO(2) of structural components, overwhelmingly attributable to the material from which they are manufactured, will become of greater interest. Choice of structural materials for minimal embodied CO(2) is currently based either on subjective narrative arguments, or values of embodied CO(2) per unit volume or mass. Here we show that such arguments are invalid. We found that structural design parameters (dimensions, section choice, and load capacity) for fundamental structural components (simple beams and columns) are at least as important as material choice with regard to their effect on embodied CO(2) per unit load capacity per unit dimension, which can vary over several decades within and between material choices. This result demonstrates that relying on apparently objective analyses based on embodied CO(2) per unit volume or mass will not lead to minimum carbon solutions; a formal definition of the correct functional unit for embodied CO(2) must be used. In short, there is no such thing as a green structural material.