Glossary

Plastic Footprint Part II: Mitigation Metrics That Matter

The critical connection between plastic mitigation and corporate leadership

by: Leticia Socal | May 24, 2023

Part I of this blog series showcased the benefits of executing a baseline plastic footprint analysis. Now it is time to understand that the risks at stake are equally valuable.

Part II outlines the key metrics corporate leadership will find interesting when planning and budgeting for their plastic mitigation strategy. Once the scope and execution of a plastic footprint has been mapped, planning internal buy-in to implement mitigation actions is essential. Acting now is vital for corporations due to timely institutional changes and because circular plastic is still in its pioneer stage. Early and effective action will establish participants at the forefront of development and influence acceptance in the circular economy.

Costs of Non-Involvement?

Although variable and obscure, the costs of opting out of a plastic survey is risky and can be detrimental in its ever-changing landscape. According to The Minderoo Foundation, conservative, near-term (2022-2030) estimates of corporate plastic liability (US only) land at around $20 billion. This liability estimates ranges from bodily injury, property damage, and loss of shareholder value. And it’s not limited to the cost of liability from “misleading consumer statements” and greenwashing, expected to be penalized with “significant fines and sanctions.” [1]

Beyond liability, operational costs are considerable as well. A study by Pew Trust foresees companies operating at business-as-usual in the 2040s accruing $100 billion in virgin plastic taxes and/or responsible disposal fees with extended producer responsibilities (EPR) [2].

Comparatively, companies that chose to act today towards reducing their plastic impact and building a solid baseline would incur a fraction (~0.5%) of the costs of greenwashing litigation or an EPR non-compliance fee. Familiarizing leadership with this topic’s go-to advisory policymakers, insurers, investors, and corporate leadership would be wise to add to your to-do list.

The intangible costs are also notable, as seen in Part I of this series. Refusing to collect sustainability data on your products’ life cycle and overall footprint excludes vital product information from your operation—closing doors on opportunities to expand consumer messaging, innovate product design, diversify market offerings, and differentiate from the competition. Without knowledge, there is little to prepare for – plastic footprinting is a unique approach to understanding potential supply chain vulnerabilities (i.e., deforestation on ingredient plantations) and exposure to public criticism (political opinion on local vs. international labor).

Is the Market Demanding More Sustainable Products?

Making operational changes can be disruptive, laborious, and expensive. If cash flow is suffering, it’s easier to justify implementing product changes that take away time and energy from sales. Business owners typically want low-risk and high ROI. Fortunately, the data highlighting the impacts of performing an analysis or “pedicure” on your products and/or business is positive. A 5-year study by NYU showed that sustainability marketed products grew more than seven times faster than their conventional counterparts, selling at a 39% higher premium [3]. The sustainability market can be considered recession-proof since this study was collected amidst the COVID-19 global pandemic [4]. With all things considered, sustainability marketed products have continued to grow throughout the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression [5]. This raises the question, is now the right time?

Who’s Holding You Accountable?

Failing to act before an official and legislative change is mandated will no doubt decrease the market effectiveness and opportunity to set yourself apart from competitors before it is streamlined and mandated. There is still time to perform a footprint analysis and implement changes before the United Nations (UN) Plastics Treaty is ratified in June and December 2023 [6].

If your company is one of the 18,000 that has disclosed to CDP (formerly Carbon Disclosure Project) for climate change, water quality, or forests in the past or funded by investors with a vested interest in public disclosure, thinking about your plastic impact may come down to bargaining with your financial support. In 2023, the CDP disclosure questionnaire piloted a new set of plastic-related voluntary questions under the Water Quality survey in a growing global response to plastic pollution disclosure and responsibility. These investors are forcing the hand of their companies, thus opening the floodgates of data needed for policymakers to make viable mandated solutions that drive actualized change [7]. This top-down pressure will only increase as the Plastics Treaty makes headway. In the wake before US-mandated disclosure breaches the horizon, familiarizing your business with the conduct of disclosure is both wise and forward-looking.

What’s Next?

The world is at the precipice of significant change—the role of plastic materials is at a tipping point, shifting in its value and applications. The United Nations Environment Programme approaches plastic circularity with three easy steps: eliminate, innovate, and circulate [8]. The role plastic footprints play in larger mitigation measures and Environmental, Social & Governance (ESG) targets is just one step towards a more circular, efficient, and cost-saving operation, whether applied to events, concerts, products, or company offices or operations. Although new and sometimes misinformed, multiple data sources frame plastic mitigation and circular innovation as a sound investment, both operationally and financially. Now that you have the data to assure leadership to buy into plastic initiatives, congratulate yourself for being a thought leader towards corporate change with visible impact.

Understanding your impact is the first step towards change, and there are multiple options available for companies actively planning to meet their ESG targets.

Our global teams are ready to work with you – let’s connect, begin setting targets, assess and mitigate your plastic footprint.

[1] The Price of Plastic Pollution: Social Costs and Corporate Liabilities
[2] Breaking the Plastic Wave: Top Finding fo Preventing Plastic Pollution
[3] 2020 Sustainable Market Share Index (nyu.edu)
[4] Risk of Global Recession in 2023 Rises Amid Simultaneous Rate Hikes
[5] The Great Lockdown: Worst Economic Downturn Since the Great Depression
[6] Plastic Treaty progress puts spotlight on circular economy
[7] Businesses encouraged to disclose plastics footprint through CDP for the first time
[8] Plastic Treaty progress puts spotlight on circular economy

About the Author

Leticia Socal is a chemist and seasoned plastic industry professional with over 15 years of experience spanning R&D, intellectual property, market research & strategy. Leticia is a certified TRUE Zero Waste advisor and a Blue Consultant. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Industrial Chemistry, a Master of Science in Materials Engineering, and a Ph.D. in Polymer Science.

Carbon Capture & Storage: The Need, The Landscape, The Opportunity

by: Jessica Campbell | April 26, 2023

The Need

The scaling of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) globally is now widely accepted as necessary (rather than desired) when it comes to achieving net-zero commitments and the targets set out in the Paris Agreement. McKinsey & Company estimated that we need to reach at least 4.2 gigatons of storage per annum (GTPA) by 2050, which represents a growth of 120 times current activity level [1]. Estimates by other groups, including the International Energy Agency (IEA), place the volumetric need anywhere between 3 – 10 GTPA to get us 5 – 10% of the way to net-zero. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has indicated that under ideal economic conditions, CCS has the potential to contribute between 15–55% of the cumulative mitigation efforts required to stay within 1.5 degrees. However, for this economic potential to be reached (i.e., to achieve economies of scale), “several hundreds of thousands of [carbon dioxide] CO₂ capture systems would need to be installed over the coming century, each capturing some 1 – 5 MTCO2 per year” [2]. This represents a deployment of projects and technology that is unprecedented in its rate and scale. All this to say, no matter which source you look at, the message is clear; we need tremendous amounts of geologic CO2 storage, and we need it at pace.

The Landscape

Despite the scientific consensus on the need for CCS, the path to implementing projects at scale comes with challenges. For one, the regulatory landscape of countries and jurisdictions to deploy CCS at scale are at varying readiness levels, with most falling in the ‘dismally unprepared’ category. Fortunately, there are many regions throughout Europe, the US, and Canada, where the regulatory frameworks are well developed due to decades-long oil and gas activity, including some dedicated geologic CO₂ storage and its relative – Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). Even with more advanced regulatory frameworks, CCS projects still face a series of other challenges, including (but not limited to): 1. mineral rights ownership and disputes, 2. back-logs and long lead times for appropriate well permitting (i.e., Class VI in the US), 3. lack of CO₂ transport and pipeline infrastructure, and 4. public opinion/acceptance.

The last one, ‘public opinion and acceptance’, often does not receive the attention it deserves as a potential disruptor and real threat to progress on scaling CCS. In just one example, an open letter to the US and Canadian governments was signed by over 500 groups in 2021, calling for a halt to all support for CCS projects [3]. Due to the complex nature of our energy systems, how they interface with society, and an unfortunate history of ecosystem and environmental justice abuses, it should not come as a surprise that CCS is caught in the crosshairs given the size and the wide variety of potential applications for the projects, cross-sectoral and economy-wide. It will take a cohesive, patient, and relationship-based approach to help educate and repair some of the damage done. Unfortunately, it is a common misconception that CCS is a band-aid solution that will distract from the energy transition and investment in alternate fuels. The reality is that CCS will enable the energy transition, with the key word being transition. CCS will allow the production of lower-cost low-CI hydrogen and other alternate fuels needed to reduce emissions in hard-to-abate sectors. Short-term access to these fuels is critical to achieving emission reductions now and allows time for the supply of renewable fuels and energy sources to ramp up to meet the ever-growing demand.

Regarding environmental markets, CCS projects are considered an emissions avoidance rather than a removal since the CO₂ never actually enters the atmosphere. Logically, the prevention emissions should be valued equally compared to removing them after the fact. Nevertheless, a false dichotomy occurs in the market, where removal-based credits are viewed as superior to (i.e., trading at 2–3 times the price) avoidance credits and activities. The value differential is a function of capital cost – direct air capture (DAC) and other carbon removal technologies and activities are currently more expensive to implement. Still, there is also a component associated with optics, which is unfortunate. Analogous to a bathtub full of water, the bath would never drain if one pulled the plug but kept the tap running. Removals are an exciting technology development associated with vital natural system restoration projects and activities. However, we are still too early in the energy transition to focus our attention too squarely on removals – we still need high-quality avoidance projects that have the potential to mitigate emissions on the gigaton scale, which includes CCS. As is a common theme throughout this blog, we need more of both, not either/or.

Despite the regulatory challenges and bumpy road ahead, hundreds of companies have either proposed CCS projects or are evaluating opportunities, including many of ClimeCo’s clients. In this valiant pursuit, ClimeCo has accepted the challenge and is working to support our clients through strategic advisory services and de-risking investment through partnerships and optimization of multiple potential revenue streams.

The Opportunity

The recent changes to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the opportunities it has created for CCS are generally understood – albeit in theory. Projects that plan to sequester CO₂ in secure, geologic formations can receive up to $85 per tonne of CO₂ injected under the 45Q tax credit. What is often less clear are the opportunities for additional revenue streams, specifically within the voluntary carbon market (VCM), and the rules around stacking the various available incentives. Opportunities for value creation outside of the VCM arise from low-carbon fuel markets and green premiums for low-carbon products. How these fit together within an optimized organizational strategy while achieving broader emission reduction goals can be challenging to navigate. Although ClimeCo takes a holistic approach to value creation via all channels, the paragraphs below will highlight the recent developments that will open pathways in the VCM.

Historically, North America’s only VCM methodologies for generating carbon credits from CO₂ sequestration activities were specifically designed for and limited to EOR. The absence of a methodology for geologic storage was just a symptom of the economic realities of pure geological storage projects – most would just not pencil at previous incentives levels, even with stackable carbon credits. However, the new IRA is a game changer, placing hundreds of millions more tonnes per annum within the realm of potentially economical or marginal. The VCM is ramping up to help projects falling in the ‘uneconomic’ or ‘marginal’ categories to be economic and to de-risk the investments by diversifying the revenue streams. The cost of CCS projects varies widely by industry. Those in hard-to-abate sectors have a particularly high cost of capture to low purity and/or concentration of CO₂ streams. Fortunately, there will be at least one, if not two, new VCM methodologies available in the near term that will allow for the creation of voluntary carbon credits from CCS. This opportunity will be particularly advantageous for those in hard-to-abate sectors where the $85 per tonne alone is not enough.

The American Carbon Registry (ACR) is in the process of finalizing its methodology that would allow for carbon credits created from the following activities: geologic storage, direct air capture (DAC), EOR, and bioenergy with CCS (BECCS). We expect the methodology to be available by the end of 2023.

Verra is working with the CCS+ Initiative to develop a series of modules for CCS projects for credit creation in the VCM. Verra has indicated that the first module will allow for crediting of the same activities as under the ACR methodology; however, it needs to be clarified as to whether any negative emissions (i.e., removals) associated with BECCS will be included in the first release.

For organizations at various stages in the CCS project development journey, it will be necessary to understand all the potential revenue streams associated with the project, including voluntary carbon credits as well as other value-creation opportunities in low-carbon fuel markets, compliance markets, and additional government grants and funding and the associated value, risks, challenges, and optimization opportunities. It is also important to understand how utilizing the VCM fits within the broader organizational strategy, emission reduction targets, and a product’s value in the market (i.e., green premiums).

[1] McKinsey & Company, Scaling the CCUS Industry to Achieve Net-Zero Emissions
[2] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage
[3] Oil Change International, Open Letter to US and Canadian Governments

About the Author

Jessica Campbell, Director of Energy Innovations, leads ClimeCo’s CCS and Low Carbon Fuels Program. She is passionate about the power of utilizing environmental markets to expedite decarbonization goals and supporting our clients through the energy transition.

ClimeCo Acquires 3GreenTree To Enrich Ecosystems Around the World

NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION
CONTACT
Nancy Marshall, SVP, Marketing
+1 484.415.7603 or nmarshall@climeco.com

ClimeCo Acquires 3GreenTree To Enrich Ecosystems Around the World

BOYERTOWN, Pennsylvania (January 25, 2023) – To enhance the sustainable management of nature and deliver environmental, social, and economic benefits, ClimeCo is excited to announce the acquisition of 3GreenTree Ecosystem Service Ltd. (3GreenTree). ClimeCo, a global sustainability advisor with a harmony of industrial and nature-based carbon solutions that meet the diverse needs of their clients’ climate programs, believes that resilient systems depend on locally derived and market-based solutions.

“We are delighted to add the depth and breadth of experience that 3GreenTree brings to ClimeCo,” says Erika Schiller, ClimeCo’s Senior Vice President of Project Development. “Our Project Development Team has been working with 3GreenTree on many opportunities to build carbon models, assess and manage risk, and deliver better turn-key projects. They are integral to ClimeCo’s growth and investment in carbon removals.”

Since 2008, 3GreenTree has developed environmental credits from forest carbon removal projects, generating maximum value and putting markets to work on the path to net-zero emissions. They’ve established an unparalleled reputation for excellence and quality service regarding emission reduction targets, project development, and natural resource analysis and modeling.

“With ClimeCo’s talent and resources and 3GreenTree’s leading-edge carbon expertise, we can now develop turn-key projects in new and important ecosystems,” says Clive Welham, ClimeCo’s new VP of Nature-Based Solutions (formerly 3GreenTree’s Managing Director). “Repositories of vast stores of blue carbon, such as mangroves, sea grasses, and tidal wetlands, are badly degraded or completely lost. Together, we will enhance our removal project efforts by contributing to climate change mitigation, water and food security, water pollution abatement, improved human health, biodiversity loss, and reduced disaster risk.”

ClimeCo is excited about the opportunities to capitalize on developments in the nature-based solutions space and is inspired to generate results that benefit people, the environment, and the climate.

About ClimeCo

ClimeCo is a respected global advisor, transaction facilitator, trader, and developer of environmental commodity market products and related solutions. We specialize in voluntary carbon, regulated carbon, renewable energy credits, plastics credits, and regional criteria pollutant trading programs. Complementing these programs is a team of professionals skilled in providing sustainability program management solutions and developing and financing of GHG abatement and mitigation systems.

For more information or to discuss how ClimeCo can drive value for your organization, contact us through our website climeco.com. Follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter using our handle, @ClimeCo.

Blue Carbon 102

Red, White, & Blue (Carbon): The Global Distribution of Blue Carbon Projects and Opportunities in the United States

by: Allyson Ulsh | January 19, 2023

Indonesia is home to the largest percentage of mangrove ecosystems globally. Mangroves are critical ecosystems that can sequester and store carbon dioxide, referred to as blue carbon due to their coastal nature.

Where is Blue Carbon Located?

Our team dove headfirst into the world of blue carbon in a previous blog post, Blue Carbon 101. Through exploring how blue carbon differs from ‘regular’ carbon, which ecosystems sequester it, and the interwoven community and biodiversity benefits, it’s clear that blue carbon projects have a fundamental role in addressing and mitigating climate change. Even with the understanding that mangroves, seagrass meadows, and tidal marshes are responsible for sequestering blue carbon, it’s difficult to envision precisely where these critical ecosystems are in the world.

Mangroves are found worldwide in the intertidal zones along coastlines, with a large percentage of the species’ density and diversity in Southeast Asia. Indonesia has over 3.3 million hectares (approximately 8.2 million acres) of mangroves along its coastlines, accounting for nearly 20% of the world’s global mangrove inventory [1]. Brazil, Nigeria, and Mexico jointly account for another 20% of total mangroves worldwide [2].

Seagrasses (not to be confused with seaweed) can be found globally along coastlines, including regions along the Artic circle. Similar to mangrove distribution, the density and diversity of seagrasses are highest along the coasts of Southeast Asian countries throughout the Pacific [3]. Tidal marshes, defined as the wetland areas along and between coastal areas that are inundated by daily tidal patterns, can also be found globally. The contiguous United States, excluding Hawaii and Alaska, has over 2.9 million hectares (7.2 million acres) of intertidal vegetated coastal wetlands, with mangroves and tidal marshes included in this inventory [4].

Unfortunately, mangrove, seagrass, and tidal marsh ecosystems face significant global threats. In addition to removing existing habitats, coastal development alters the hydrology and increases pollution and sedimentation, putting additional pressure on these blue carbon ecosystems. Mangrove ecosystems suffer from deforestation due to increasing pressures from coastal agriculture, including but not limited to shrimp farming, fishing, and salt production. Rising sea levels, changing salinities, and increasing temperatures all stress these critical environments, contributing to further habitat loss across all coastal ecosystems.

Seagrass meadows play an essential role in sequestering and storing blue carbon in the ocean.

Where Are Today’s Blue Carbon Projects?

Current blue carbon projects listed on Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) and Community, Climate, and Biodiversity registries focus primarily on mangrove restoration across four continents. These mangrove projects highlight how carbon finance can be coupled with local conservation organizations to scale restoration efforts. Mirroring the mangrove hotspots discussed above, many of these projects are in the coastal regions of Indonesia, India, China, Nigeria, Senegal, and Mexico. There are currently 28 mangrove projects across 13 countries listed on the VCS registry at various points of project development.

Within the blue carbon space, ClimeCo has partnered with YAKOPI to fund and restore 6,000 acres of mangroves in Indonesia’s Aceh and North Sumatra regions. This mangrove restoration project involves the community throughout the entire process. Including collecting seeds from mangrove propagules, propagating the seeds in nurseries, assessing planting locations, planting the mangroves, and monitoring and maintaining the stand health. More details on this project will be shared in a forthcoming blog post highlighting the incredible community and project partners that have made this project possible.

While several mangrove restoration projects are listed on Verra’s registries, only one listed blue carbon project exists within the United States. This project involves the restoration of seagrass meadows through the direct seeding of seagrass species along Virginia’s coastline. With blue carbon ecosystems accounting for less than 1% of the United States’ natural land area, the opportunity for U.S. blue carbon projects exists but certainly with its own set of challenges.

Blue carbon project locations based on project information publicly available on Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard Registry. Smaller countries on the map may only have one icon representing multiple projects in proximity.

A Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Marsh Master moving through Louisiana’s tidal wetlands. Louisiana’s coastline is home to the largest, most productive tidal wetland area across the United States.

Coastal Blue Carbon in the United States

David Chen and I attended the Restoring America’s Estuaries: Coastal and Estuarine Summit early in December 2022 to learn more about the prospects of blue carbon projects in the United States. More than 1,375 coastal restoration professionals joined us to learn about opportunities and challenges surrounding blue carbon projects across the United States. Through attending several blue carbon sessions, we learned about topics such as seagrass carbon variability in California, the blue carbon market potential in Texas, and how to utilize blue carbon to support coastal wetland restoration in the Northeast.

While it’s clear that blue carbon projects have a fundamental role in addressing and mitigating climate change, it’s also evident that sea-level rise and its variable effects across different blue carbon ecosystems will complicate future project planning and development. Existing coastal marshes across the mid-Atlantic region are forecasted to be significantly vulnerable to sea-level rise. However, an opportunity exists for transitional zone habitats to migrate inland. Sea level rise will need to be accounted for in all aspects of blue carbon project development planning and implementation to ensure ecosystem, and subsequent carbon, permanence.

Additionally, there was a degree of uncertainty addressed in relation to the most effective restoration techniques for tidal marshes and seagrasses. Localized considerations, such as hydrology, in-land development, water quality, and salinity, among others, all play a role in the carbon sequestration rates across ecosystems. Careful consideration of the science behind blue carbon restoration will need to be accounted for in the quantification of carbon emission removals across landscapes.

Lastly are the challenges posed by jurisdictional claims. Carbon rights for the coastal and seafloor blue carbon ecosystems in the United States lie within different governmental agency jurisdictions. All blue carbon projects must involve the appropriate governmental agencies and foster relationships with the state legislature to ensure that projects and partners meet both state-led initiatives and voluntary carbon market standards. As sea-level rise affects these vulnerable ecosystems, the question of jurisdiction will become more complicated.

The scientific expertise and restoration partnership experience was unparalleled across the presentations. Our team’s overall takeaway from the conference was that while developing blue carbon projects in the United States is challenging across several facets, it is certainly possible. As a leader in developing and managing environmental commodities, we are excited to see how blue carbon projects will continue to expand and how we can be at the forefront of domestic blue carbon project development.

[1] The Economics of Large-scale Mangrove Conservation and Restoration in Indonesia (worldbank.org)
[2] Global Forest Resources Assessment (fao.org)
[3] Seagrass and Seagrass Beds | Smithsonian Ocean (si.edu)
[4] Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2020

About the Author

Allyson Ulsh manages ClimeCo’s portfolio of nature-based solutions projects. From reforestation in tropical cloud forests to replanting bald cypress trees in Louisiana, Allyson understands the importance of coupling carbon finance with local stakeholder engagement to scale restoration efforts. Allyson is a Project Associate working within the Nature-Based Solutions project team. She received her Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Resource Management from Pennsylvania State University, Schreyer Honors College.

A Concrete Path to Decarbonizing Cement

by: Kayla Carey and Andrew Primo | October 27, 2022

Cement is a powdery substance that can be mixed with sand, water, and gravel to form concrete.

Most people are familiar with cement, the key ingredient in concrete, but few are likely aware of how foundational this material is to contemporary life. Buildings, roads, bridges, canals, sidewalks, railways, ports, power lines, wind, and solar farms… nearly all infrastructure requires cement and lots of it. The International Energy Agency estimates that nearly 4.3 billion tons of cement were produced in 2021 alone, making enough concrete to build the equivalent of over 2,800 Hoover Dams.

And this number will only grow. By mid-century, the global population is expected to approach 10 billion people, over two-thirds of whom will live in cities, according to the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Add to that the massive buildout of electricity, renewable energy, efficient transportation, and carbon capture infrastructure required to support a decarbonized society, and the need for a significant increase in today’s already record-high cement production levels becomes abundantly clear.

Why are cement emissions so difficult to reduce?

There is, however, a fatal catch to this skyrocketing demand: cement, as it is produced today, has a tremendous greenhouse gas footprint. And decarbonizing isn’t as simple as substituting coal with renewable energy or electrifying vehicles. At least half of all emissions generated from the production of Portland cement (the global standard) are released during production through the creation of “clinker,” one of the primary steps in cement production.

Clinker is produced in giant kilns, where limestone and other minerals are superheated to temperatures up to 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit. The chemical byproduct of this process is tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide (CO₂): in the United States, one metric ton of CO₂ is emitted for every metric ton of Portland cement produced. Because of the difficulty in avoiding the process emissions from this critical step in production, cement is considered a “hard-to-abate” industry.

Clinker production requires high heat and releases carbon dioxide as waste. Image Source: Cement Association of Canada

With such huge volumes of cement produced each year at such high emission rates, the cement industry has become one of the most carbon-intensive on the planet, contributing approximately 2.4 billion metric tons of CO₂. That’s more than all aviation and maritime shipping emissions combined, and these will only continue to increase unless rapid steps are taken to reduce cement’s carbon intensity.

How can we reduce cement’s hard-to-abate emissions?

With the increasing demand for infrastructure paired with the urgency for decarbonization, how can the cement industry balance this paradox? Unsurprisingly, there is not a single or simple solution.

The Global Cement and Concrete Association’s (GCCA) 2050 Net-Zero Roadmap identifies several actions that the cement industry can adopt to slash greenhouse gas emissions and limit the most severe consequences of climate change. These strategies include:

Improving operational efficiency;
Switching to less carbon-intensive fuel sources;
Replacing traditional limestone-derived clinker with alternative materials; and
Deploying carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) technologies.

Each pathway can have a significant impact on lowering the carbon intensity of cement; however, only a couple of technologies can reduce the troublesome emissions released during clinker production – clinker replacement and CCUS.

Clinker Replacement: In certain applications, clinker can be at least partially replaced with alternative products called supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). Typical SCMs are byproducts of industrial processes, such as coal and steel production; however, transitions in these industries, such as the closing of coal-fired power plants and the shift to more efficient steel-production furnaces, have limited the availability of these commonly used SCMs, creating a gap between supply and demand. Some companies have launched demonstration projects to produce additional clinker replacements, such as fly ash harvested from landfills and naturally occurring substances—known as “natural pozzolans”—like volcanic ash. But producing and treating these materials so that they can be used in cement is complicated and expensive, and they have not yet reached the scale needed to meet the worsening SCM supply void.

Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage: CCUS—in which the CO₂ released in clinker production is captured and stored or used in other applications—is another key approach to reducing cement’s process emissions. Very few CCUS projects currently exist, especially at cement plants. Nearly all CCUS projects worldwide are still in the pilot phase as the technology faces substantial implementation challenges and is extremely cost-prohibitive.

Nearly 4.3 billion tons of cement were produced in 2021, which is enough concrete to build the equivalent of over 2,800 Hoover Dams.

Leveraging the Voluntary Carbon Market

For hard-to-abate sectors to meet net-zero targets on time, they must work together to employ a mix of proven and emerging technologies, such as clinker replacement and CCUS. But how can the industry overcome existing economic and technical challenges to scaling these technologies? The voluntary carbon market could be an important lever in bringing new SCMs to market and making CCUS more economically viable.

Today, there are a growing number of opportunities for the cement industry to generate voluntary carbon credits. One of the most trusted carbon offset registries, the Climate Action Reserve, recently announced the development of a Low-Carbon Cement Protocol that will incentivize the production of innovative SCMs to address the current supply gap. In addition to tax incentives, new opportunities are also emerging to generate carbon credits from CCUS projects. The cement industry can leverage the voluntary carbon market to direct much-needed financing to the sector and accelerate the road to decarbonization.

About the Authors

Kayla Carey is a Manager for Program Development, specializing in decarbonization for hard-to-abate sectors. With experience in sustainability management and energy policy, she helps energy and industrial clients navigate environmental markets and develop new quantitative methodologies. She holds a master’s degree in Environmental and Natural Resources Policy and a Bachelor of Arts in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, both from the University of Colorado Boulder.

Andrew Primo is a Manager on ClimeCo’s Program Development team, based out of Denver, Colorado. He assesses the feasibility of new emission reduction projects in hard-to-abate sectors, including heavy industry, waste management, and shipping. He works with corporate partners and carbon registries to develop new technical methodologies for carbon crediting programs.

« Older Entries

Glossary

Plastic Footprint Part II: Mitigation Metrics That Matter

Plastic Footprint Part II: Mitigation Metrics That Matter

Carbon Capture & Storage: The Need, The Landscape, The Opportunity

Carbon Capture & Storage: The Need, The Landscape, The Opportunity

ClimeCo Acquires 3GreenTree To Enrich Ecosystems Around the World

ClimeCo Acquires 3GreenTree To Enrich Ecosystems Around the World

Blue Carbon 102

Blue Carbon 102

A Concrete Path to Decarbonizing Cement

A Concrete Path to Decarbonizing Cement

Sources

Additional Resources