Displaying items by tag: Sustainability

Cemex last week. HeidelbergCement and LafargeHolcim this week. China yesterday. One can’t seem to move for major building materials companies (or their owners) issuing carbon neutral strategies at the moment. This week HeidelbergCement first launched its ‘Beyond 2020’ plan, a mixture of financial, portfolio and sustainability goals. Then, LafargeHolcim said that it had signed a pledge with Science-Based Targets (SBT) towards meeting intermediate targets by 2030. Last night, President Xi Jinping told the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in New York that China was aiming to hit peak emissions before 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060.

The timing of these various sustainability goals are directly or indirectly linked to Climate Week NYC, a notable annual event on the climate change calendar that is taking place at the moment. So it’s a good time for large-scale industrial CO₂ emitters, like building material producers, to have something positive to say.

China’s announcement steals the limelight given that the country produces around half of the world’s cement and holds a higher share of clinker production capacity. Western media has pointed out the geopolitical implications of Xi’s statement that was delivered shortly after a speech by US president Donald Trump, a notable climate change sceptic. Xi’s speech didn’t contain any details so it may simply have been an attempt to demonstrate global leadership. Yet if the Chinese government makes a go of it, the effect could be profound. Data from the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO) shows that the Chinese cement industry emitted an estimated 782Mt CO₂ in 2018 compared to 1.50Gt CO₂ from the cement industry globally and 37.1Gt CO₂ from all human-related sources. In other words, the Chinese cement industry was responsible for 2% of all CO₂ emissions in 2018. And this industry is mostly owned by a government that has just publicly declared a carbon neutral target.

In some ways the other announcements, by the western-based multinational building material companies, are even more radical since these producers are subject to market forces. These companies don’t have to do this. They also contain more specifics than Xi’s words so far.

HeidelbergCement says it has brought forward its CO₂ emissions target for 2030 of 525kg CO₂/t (specific net CO₂ emissions per tonne of cementitious material) to 2025. That’s a 30% decrease from 752kg CO₂/t in 1990. Its new goal for 2030 is below 500kg CO₂/t. The main emission reduction methods it outlines include: increased use of alternative raw materials and fuels; increased use of secondary cementitious materials to reduce the clinker factor of cement; investment in plant efficiency and CO₂ reduction at the plant level; and increased share of low-carbon concrete products.

Chart 1: HeidelbergCement’s path to net carbon zero concrete: Source: Leading the way to carbon neutrality, HeidelbergCement.

Chart 1 above outlines HeidelbergCement’s thinking post-2030 with further reductions to CO₂ emissions mainly achieved through circular economy methods and different carbon capture techniques. Two points to hold in mind here. One: note the current uncertainty about which route will provide the biggest share of the reduction. Two: this chart considers concrete, not cement.

LafargeHolcim’s announcement was that it has joined Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) ‘Business Ambition for 1.5°C.’ It says that by doing so it has become the first global building materials company to sign the pledge with intermediate targets for 2030, validated by SBTi. This is slightly confusing given that other building materials companies have had different dealings with the SBT as it has worked towards its current scheme. Earlier this month, for example, we reported that Taiwan Cement had started an SBT project in 2019 and had some targets approved by the SBTi in June 2020. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua (GCC) said it was joining SBTi at the start of 2020 and HeidelbergCement reported its SBTi approved targets in mid-2019. Finally, India-based Dalmia Cement is also on the SBTi ‘Business Ambition for 1.5°C’ list but it is a stretch to describe it as a ‘global’ company.

The core of LafargeHolcim’s statement is a further reduced target for CO₂ intensity in cement of 475kg CO₂/t by 2030. So far it’s decreased its CO₂ intensity by around 23% to 516 kg CO₂/t in 2019 from ~730kg CO₂/t in 1990. There’s less looking ahead after 2030 compared to HeidelbergCement but the measures outlined until then include: more use of low-carbon and carbon-neutral products; increased use of alternative raw materials and fuels; doubling waste-derived fuels in production to reach 37%; greater use of calcined clay and developing novel cements with new binders; and operating the company’s first net zero CO₂ cement production facility.

Many of the various networks and initiatives across the climate action community came together in June 2020 as part of the UN backed ‘Race To Zero Campaign,’ an attempt to align the disparate leading net zero initiatives ahead of the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP), due to take place in November 2021 in Glasgow, Scotland. This swirl of different net zero schemes also partly explains the confusion over the different organisations backing sustainability targets that companies can sign up to. So it’s a good thing to see closer collaboration here.

More cynical readers will have latched on to president Xi’s opportunity to show up President Trump in the climate change action stakes. They may also prefer news stories about activist investors prompting change at shareholder-owned companies as they increase their portfolios or stories like Morgan Stanley’s announcement this week that it has a new commitment to reach net-zero financed emissions by 2050. If the investment bank actually means it and other financiers follow suit then the fiscal incentives for net zero draw closer and the rest should follow. Moneys talks… and hopefully CO₂ stays buried in the ground.

For sustainability comparisons among the top global cement producers see the October 2020 issue of Global Cement Magazine

Switzerland: LafargeHolcim has signed the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) Business Ambition for 1.5°C pledge, which commits it to net-zero carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions by 2050. Additionally, the company has committed itself to a 20% reduction in its CO₂ intensity between 2018 and 2030.

The company says that over the period it will: “accelerate the use of low-carbon and carbon-neutral products such as ECOPact and Susteno, recycle 100Mt of waste and by-products for energy and raw materials, scale up the use of calcined clay and develop novel cements with new binders, double waste-derived fuels in production to reach 37%, reach net CO₂ emissions 475kg/t of cementitious material and open and operate its first net-zero CO₂ cement plant.

Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Jan Jenisch said, “I believe in building a world that works for people and the planet. That’s why we are reinventing how the world builds today to make it greener with low-carbon and circular solutions. I am very excited to be working with SBTi, taking a rigorous science-based approach to shape our net zero roadmap and accelerating our efforts to substantially lower our CO₂ footprint. I will not stop pushing the boundaries to lead the way in green construction.”

Germany: HeidelbergCement has presented a new business strategy, involving an accelerated climate action plan, called Beyond 2020. Under the Strategy, the company will aim to reduce its specific carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions by 10% to 525kg/t of cement by 2025 from 585kg/t in 2019. Its financial targets over the period are “a significant increase in earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) margin by 300 basis points and return on invested capital (ROIC) to clearly above 8%. The group says that it will target a leverage ratio between 1.5 and 2 times its result from current operations in 2020.

Chief executive officer (CEO) Dominik von Achten said, “We see climate change and digitalisation as the two central challenges of the future for society and for our company. As one of the world's leading building materials producers, we have the ambition and the innovative strength to actively shape this change in a pioneering role. At the same time, we see further optimisation potential in our plants and processes. Ecology and economy are not contradictory. Our new medium-term targets for 2025 illustrate this claim.”

US: The Portland Cement Association has announced the winners of the Energy Environment Awards 2020. Cementos Argos’ 1.1Mt/yr Harleyville, South Carolina cement plant won the Energy Efficiency Award “by reducing kiln specific heat consumption and increasing the utilisation of the new vertical cement mill,” while CRH subsidiary Ash Grove Cement’s 1.0Mt/yr Midlothian cement plant won the Environmental Performance Award for “operating a whole-tyre burning system utilising a first-in-the-US hot disk system supplied with whole tyres from a nearby tyre recycling company.” Other winners were GCC’s 0.9Mt/yr Odessa, Texas cement plant for Innovation, LafargeHolcim’s 2.2Mt/yr Holly Hill, South Carolina plant for Land Stewardship, Titan Cement's Roanoke Cement Troutville plant for Outreach and HeidelbergCement subsidiary Lehigh Hanson’s 3.2Mt/yr Union Bridge, Maryland plant for Overall Environmental Excellence.

PCA president and chief executive officer (CEO) Michael Ireland said, “America’s cement manufacturers continue to focus on researching and developing new and innovative ways to reduce environmental footprint. The companies receiving these awards are great examples of our industry’s commitment to sustainability and energy efficiency.”

US: Solidia Technologies and France-based Chryso have announced a collaborative partnership for the further development of the Solidia ‘ultra-low’ CO₂ concrete product. The companies plan to use their “combined expertise to improve the sustainability performance and material properties” of the concrete.

“Incorporating Chryso’s exclusive water-reducing admixtures adapted to the specific chemistry of Solidia Concrete, will further reduce water consumption in the curing process,” said Tom Schuler, president and chief executive officer (CEO) of Solidia Technologies.

UK: Cemex UK says that construction company Kier used concretes from its reduced-carbon dioxide (CO₂) Vertua range to complete a net-zero CO₂ residential construction project at the University Warwick. Sales executive Matthew Doran said that the student accommodation, called Cryfield, “was the first project for which Kier has chosen to use the Vertua range and it was an exciting opportunity for Cemex to demonstrate the value of this product as both a high-performance and sustainable choice.”

The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) has warned local cement producers to rein in their more outlandish claims. In a letter reported upon by the Economic Times newspaper this week, the government department has accused some manufacturers of making both objective and subjective claims about their products that strained credulity and didn’t fit the corresponding official standards. One industry source from the newspaper blamed the crackdown on some producers claiming that their cement products helped protect people from Covid-19! In their view the bureau was now over-enforcing its rules in retaliation. Given the severity of the outbreak in India - it has the second highest number of reported cases in the world this week - the response of the authorities is understandable to say the least.

The distinction between objective and subjective exaggeration that the BIS makes it worth looking at in more detail. For example, objective or supposedly fact-based claims the BIS cited included: ‘Protect Steel in Concrete’; ‘Protect Concrete from Corrosion’; ‘Corrosion Resistant’; ‘Weather Proof’; and ‘Damp Proof.’ Then, there were subjective, or more emotionally evocative, claims along the lines of ‘strong’ or ‘high performance.’ The BIS then outlines the specific ways in which objective and subjective assertions can be used. Objective claims should be avoided on marketing and packaging material. Subjective claims should, “explicitly indicate that such claims are not covered under the scope of BIS licence granted to them and the responsibility of such claims lies with them.”

Marketing is a big part of standing out in the crowded Indian cement market with producers sponsoring major sports teams. This might seem odd to readers elsewhere in the world but it demonstrates the target market, the importance of cement as a commodity to the general public and the power of brand awareness. Amubja Cement’s logo of a man with a Charles Atlas style physique cuddling a building sums up the message they want to convey: strength. No wonder producers are wary of the BIS wading in.

Standards also appeared in another news story this week with the announcement that Taiwan Cement Corporation (TCC) had obtained the first cement product carbon footprint label issued by the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) in the country. Its products will be marked with carbon footprint labels from the fourth quarter of 2020.

This shows a general trend in cement products towards showing sustainability credentials from putting environmental footprint data in front of specifiers for large projects towards making it a more basic retail selling point. Lots of other cement producers around the world have done and/or are doing similar things, from the dedicated slag cement manufacturers to the larger producers routinely releasing and promoting new low-CO₂ products. To pick one example from many, in July 2020 LafargeHolcim France introduced ‘360Score CO₂ emissions reduction ratings’ to its bagged cement range. The score, between ’A’ and ’D,’ corresponds to the factor of CO₂ compared to CEM-I Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), with ‘A’ products producing less CO₂ than ‘D’ products in their overall creation.

To look at an older example of the need for standards generally, building collapses in Nigeria appeared to increase post-2000, with the misuse of lower-grade cements blamed for the situation. The Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON) took action in 2014, local producers introduced higher strength cements and the problem was reduced. Given the intangible nature of measuring sustainability in cement products there is a need for reliable standards. Unlike performance metrics, such as a strength or durability, the CO₂ footprint of a cement product will generally remain utterly intangible for most end-users. The effects of CO₂ emissions are continually analysed and debated, but the negative climate effects of cement products are more akin to someone else’s house flooding on the other side of the world 50 years later, than one’s own house falling down a decade later due to using the wrong strength cement. So, some form of trustworthy enforcement for sustainability standards is crucial. Standards may represent ‘boring’ bureaucratic red tape at its most officious but we need them. In India and elsewhere though, the debate on enforcement continues.

Taiwan: Taiwan Cement has been awarded the first product carbon footprint label by the local Environmental Protection Administration (EPA). It follows its completion of the structure of product category rules (PCR) in early August 2020 and inspection by the EPA. TCC's products will be marked with carbon footprint labels from the fourth quarter of 2020. The Taiwan-based cement producer has also announced support for the Global Cement and Concrete Association’s (GCCA) 2050 Climate Ambition plan.

TCC started its Science-Based Target project in 2019 and says it became the first cement company in the Greater China region to complete target setting and was approved by Science-Based Target initiatives (SBTi) in June 2020. Following the science-based methods promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from the United Nations, TCC set a target to reduce carbon emissions by 11% in 2025, using 2016 emissions as the base. TCC completed carbon footprint certification for the most popular cement products, Portland Type I cement and Ready-Mixed Concrete 3000psi, in July 2020.

Europe: Cembureau, the European Cement Association, has announced that its ‘Cementing Europe’s Future: Building the Green Deal’ webinar will take place on 13 October 2020. The programme includes keynote speeches from association president Raoul de Parisot and German Minister of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety Jochen Flasbarth. Additionally, members of the European Parliament and representatives of the European Commission, LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement and several other companies involved in the European cement industry will speak.

It’s back to work for many in Europe this week following the summer break and so too for the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) with the release of its 2050 Climate Ambition mission statement. Talk about setting the bar high for the rest of us struggling to remember how to log into our computers! The short version is that the association aspires to deliver society with carbon neutral concrete by 2050. The actual detail will be published in the second half of 2021.

What it does say is that, “detailed actions and milestones” will be set out in the forthcoming roadmap. This will include, “working across the built environment value chain to deliver the vision of carbon neutral concrete in a circular economy, whole life context.” This focus on concrete and end-product life-cycles looks likely to be the wriggle room cement and building materials producers need to actually meet the goal. To put it another way, as the press release helpfully reminds us, things that people need are made out of concrete. So, until a viable alternative to clinker turns up, the cost in CO₂ emissions needs to be spread as far and wide as possible. At the same time everyone needs to be continually told how much they need cementitious products: don’t think of the CO₂ released to build your new house. Rather: think of the CO₂ saved annually by living in a well-constructed dwelling, as opposed to the alternatives, and consider what happens to the concrete once the structure is demolished.

A few ideas of what strategies the roadmap may use to reach its target are revealed. This is fairly standard current thinking including: cutting direct energy-related emissions; increasing co-processing; increased renewable electricity usage; reducing process emissions through new technologies and deployment of carbon capture at scale; reducing the content of both clinker in cement and cement in concrete; more efficient use of concrete in construction; reprocessing concrete from construction and demolition waste to produce recycled aggregates; and quantifying and enhancing the level of CO₂ uptake of concrete through recarbonation in a circular economy, whole life context.

It’s early days yet, with the roadmap not due for at least a year, but deploying carbon capture methods at scale will be expensive and difficult. Whatever target the GCCA sets here will be keenly observed, especially so given that the association is a global concern. So far carbon capture in the cement industry has generally been linked to regions with market or legislative encouragement. How, for example, would a producer in a country with low environmental restrictions react to its peers trying to get it to make cement production more expensive? The rest of the points seems more tangible at the moment but will require lots of work to realise. They are also interlinked and this reinforces the need for someone to continually remind society about the life cycle of concrete. Taking concrete recycling into the mainstream is great but the world has to be told that it is happening.

This last point brings us to the perceived success of the GCCA’s ambitions: will a successfully realised strategy to make carbon neutral concrete by 2050 be enough to make environmental activists like Greta Thunberg happy? Probably not. Pure environmentalists seem unlikely to accept whole lifecycle thinking while limestone decomposition in kilns continues without capture or cessation. Even if the cement and concrete industries hit the target they will have to shake off the taint that the achievement was at least partly down to sneaky carbon accounting. Suddenly saying that concrete buildings have been sucking up CO₂ all along and that the industry is now, say, 20% closer to its carbon neutral target may feel like cheating to some observers. Step forward a global association to say otherwise. The need for industry associations making the case for the sector’s aspirations seems more essential than ever.