Displaying items by tag: lobbying

Australia: Adbri reported a full-year rise in sales of 8.5% year-on-year to US$1.15bn in 2022 from US$1.06bn in 2021. Its earnings before interest and taxation (EBIT) fell to US$106m, down by 10% from US$118m. The producer said that its cement sales rose by 6.3% year-on-year. Demand remained ‘solid’ in Western Australia, while sales dropped in Southern Australia, partly due to wet weather and the loss of an exclusive supply contract. Adbri noted that “The backlog of residential construction works, attributed to the shortage of trades and wet weather in 2022, will continue to underpin good order books in 2023.”

The group said “The past year has been one of the most challenging for the company in its long history. Our results were delivered against the backdrop of a difficult macroeconomic environment, which included the global economic instability resulting in inflationary pressures and wet weather events across Australia. The company also underwent a substantial leadership transition in the latter part of the year, with the former managing director and chief executive officer (CEO) and chief financial officer stepping down from active duties as the company accelerates its transformational agenda.”

In 2022, Adbri achieved a 12% reduction in operational CO₂ emissions compared to 2019. Chief executive officer Mark Irwin called on the national government and state governments to embed CO₂ emissions reduction targets in legislation, and on the former to implement a carbon border adjustment mechanism on imported cement. Irwin noted that failure to implement such measures may lead lower-emitting plants such as the Birkenhead, South Australia, cement plant to transition to grinding imported clinker or consider closure.

The Portland Cement Association (PCA) has launched a new website to promote the US cement industry’s progress towards net zero. It’s always interesting to see the different approaches the various associations around the world take in promoting the sector especially in response to mainstream media coverage that has often taken a negative view of cement and concrete. As sustainability thinking has permeated into society the stereotype that cement production releases vast amounts of CO₂ for little gain has been a hard one to shake off. Readers can draw their own conclusions on how well the PCA site works by looking at cementprogress.com.

Make no mistake, the PCA’s new website is a marketing tool designed to bring out some of the points of its carbon zero roadmap to a wider audience. Yet it is refreshing to see a national association website attempting to tell the general public what progress the cement industry is making towards reducing its CO₂ emissions. Unfortunately, it then avoids giving out any data that presents an overview of how it’s all actually going. This may come with time though as the roadmap was only released in late 2021. One number that does stick out on the site is that the PCA uses the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) carbon emissions data to calculate that the manufacture of cement accounts for 1.25% of total CO₂ emissions in the US. This is lower than the global figure of 7% that is often used from the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research - Oslo’s (CICERO) research. Both figures appear to be broadly correct based on the available data.

The real story here is to showcase the wide range of actions the PCA is taking as part of its roadmap. In the cement section, for example, the PCA is rightly able to demonstrate its recent work driving the transition to Portland Limestone Cement (PLC) production in the US. This then leads on to the usual beats of resilient construction, carbonation and a ’whole society’ approach to tackling the decarbonisation of the cement industry with suggestions that everybody from citizens to contractors to policy makers can do.

The wider context is that the big challenge facing cement advocacy groups today is that sustainability is a global issue but that such groups have generally been national or regional for most of their history. The national or regional cement associations have existed for decades serving the local needs of their members. This started to change in 1999 when the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) was created with its global approach to sustainability for the sector with its data gathering and technology roadmaps. In the 2010s global media attention started to focus on the large share of CO₂ emissions the cement industry was emitting as, coincidentally, China became the world’s largest cement producer. Then in the late 2010s the two global cement associations - the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) and the World Cement Association (WCA) - emerged with the GCCA taking over what the CSI did previously.

One problem that the PCA and the other associations face is that decarbonising the cement and concrete sectors is hard to do, expensive and will take decades. Until, or if, carbon capture is suddenly conjured up at scale, all of this work is inherently seen as boring by much of the media compared to, say. young photogenic environmental activists supergluing themselves to roads. One way to fight back against this is to show progress font-and-centre and to try and take back control of the narrative. This appears to be what the PCA is trying out in a more direct fashion than usual. The risk though is that any action by an industry-backed lobbying group to show off the work it is doing will simply be labelled as greenwashing, whether it’s fair or not. Of course, some environmentalists indulge in their own reverse version of this (industry staining?) to make the powerful but simple argument about the necessity of cutting CO₂ emissions but without taking fully into account or underplaying the scale of the societal changes necessary to do so. Either way, the cement industry and its advocates have an uphill struggle on their hands in the years ahead. This may require fresh thinking about how to win over hearts and minds.

The March 2023 issue of Global Cement Magazine includes an interview with Claude Lorea from the Global Cement & Concrete Association (GCCA)

Belgium: Cembureau, the European cement association, has warned against a proposed 2041 phase-out date for industrial CO₂ in the Commission draft Delegated Act on renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBOs). The European Commission’s (EC) draft Delegated Act on the greenhouse gas saving criteria for RFNBOs sets the rules under which such fuels can qualify as sustainable. The European Commission considers that CO₂ from industrial sources should not be allowed for the production of synthetic fuels as of 2041, as this would go against the objective of carbon neutrality by 2050.

Koen Coppenholle, the chief executive officer of Cembureau, said “By proposing an arbitrary deadline on the use of industrial CO₂, the EC severely restricts the deployment of carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) in the cement sector.” He continued “We regret that this phase-out date was established without a thorough impact assessment. This risks negatively impacting several on-going carbon capture projects in the European Union (EU), at a time of a global race for green investments.” Coppenholle also called for a “real, thorough debate on CO₂ utilisation” to ensure that EU policies support CCU and the deployment of CO₂ transport infrastructure and storage.

The association is objecting against this proposal because in its view: manufacturing synthetic fuels using industrial CO₂ make a “decisive” contribution to climate mitigation in the short to medium term; no impact assessment has been presented by the EC; the delegated act threatens the viability of existing CCU projects in the cement sector, which require a payback time of 30 - 35 years; and the Delegated Act does not recognise the reality of industrial installations like cement plants, which are faced with unavoidable CO₂ emissions, and may not have access to CO₂ geological storage sites.

The Delegated Act will be passed to the European Parliament and Council for further scrutiny until April 2023 whereupon they will either accept to reject the proposals. The scrutiny period can be extended to June 2023 at the request of either body.

Bangladesh: The European Union (EU) and Spanish ambassadors and Swiss chargé d'affaires to Bangladesh have formally requested that Bangladeshi authorities lift all restrictions on LafargeHolcim Bangladesh's sale of crushed limestone in the country. The Financial Express newspaper has reported that Bangladeshi court previously ruled in favour of LafargeHolcim Bangladesh's right to sell its crushed limestone 'on the open market' on 5 January 2022. Limestone Importers and Suppliers Group had challenged the legal status of such sales, given that the raw limestone used in LafargeHolcim Bangladesh's produces its crushed limestone production is imported from India.

The Bangladesh government granted LafargeHolcim Bangladesh, a subsidiary of Switzerland-based Holcim, a temporary licence to resume its crushed limestone operations on 27 March 2022. This resulted in protests by local limestone producers.

Europe: The European cement association, Cembureau, has 'welcomed the objectives' of the European Commission's new Green Deal industrial plan. The Green Deal attempts to create a predictable and simplified regulatory environment in which to scale up the production and implementation of net-zero CO₂ technologies.

Cembureau also issued its advise for a successful Green Deal implementation. The association said that the framework must match the US Inflation Reduction Act in its provision of tax rebates and other incentives. It said that the plan must establish stable renewable energy prices and rapid permit procedures, with a focus on deployment of renewables at industrial sites. It also called for funding under the plan to finance the development of infrastructure for CO₂ transport and storage.

Australia: The government plans to reform its CO₂ emissions Safeguard Mechanism in line with its stated goal of net zero CO₂ emissions by 2050. Under the latest proposals, 215 industrial plants, including Australia's cement plants, will have to reduce their CO₂ emissions by 4.9% year-on-year every year until 2030. The Australian newspaper has reported that the government is currently receiving submissions on the proposed reform as part of its consultation process, which will end on 24 February 2023.

The Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group have encouraged the government to introduce an adjustment mechanism for imports, based on the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), in conjunction with any tightening of the Safeguard Mechanism.

India: The government of Telangana has asked the Indian government for US$612m in funding for the planned reopening of state-owned Cement Corporation of India's Adilabad cement plant, alongside other projects. The Indian government will publish its 2023 - 2024 Union Budget in January 2023. The Times of India newspaper has reported that funding has been insufficient for the Telangana state government to realise its industrial growth plans over eight successive previous budgets.

Canada: The Mohawk Council of Kanesatake has written to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change asking for more consultation over plans for Colacem to build a new cement plant at L'Orignal, Ontario. The council also urged the government to reconsider the plan altogether. The Review newspaper has reported that the government previously rejected a request from the Kanesatake community that it consult the Impact Assessment Authority of Canada over the planned project. The plant is to be situated on the Ottawa River, opposite the area of Quebec in which the Kanesatake community's lands lie.

Europe: Cembureau has welcomed a satisfactory conclusion to talks over the new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) under the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Negotiators from different EU institutions agreed to a gradual CBAM implementation, which will officially commence in October 2023. Free allocations of ETS credits to the EU cement sector and other industries will phase out between 2026 and 2034. During this transition period, CBAM duties will apply to imported products in proportion to EU production not covered by free allocation.

Cembureau's chief executive Koen Coppenholle said “The agreements on CBAM and ETS are essential to create a global level playing field on CO₂ and support our sector in its transition to carbon neutrality. It is positive that the EU institutions strengthened some key aspects of CBAM. We however regret that the adopted texts do not provide a structural solution for exports. Some EU countries export up to 50% of their domestic cement production and these will be at risk should no concrete export solution be found before 2026.”

Coppenholle added “Looking ahead, we need to focus on CBAM implementation and its water-tightness, to ensure the mechanism fully equalises CO₂ costs between EU and non-EU suppliers. It is also essential that policymakers support EU industries like cement, which are confronted with unsustainably high energy costs at a time some of our trading partners are launching massive subsidy programmes. CBAM, ETS and a strong innovation fund are essential parts of the puzzle, but we look forward to European Commission proposals for a truly ambitious industrial policy, as requested by the European Council in its meeting of 15 December 2022.”

Vietnam: The Vietnam National Cement Association (VNCA) has spoken about the difficulties that would arise from a proposed power price rise by state-owned Electricity Vietnam (EVN). VNCA chair Nguyen Quang Cung said that cement producers foresee 'business havoc' ensuing from any further cost increase to their operations. The industry says that reduced demand has prevented them from raising cement prices amid already high costs. Coal price growth is a significant contributor, and now accounts for 60% of the industry's operating expenses.

Cung said "Many companies are suffering losses and have suspended the operations of many production lines." He continued "We understand that EVN is claiming force majeure because they face the same challenge relating to the input cost burden."