The visible lobbying work by Cembureau, the European cement association, has been building in recent months as it has started to tackle the European Green Deal. Last week’s move was its aim to align with the objectives of the new legislation. To this end it plans to review the targets from its 2050 Low Carbon Roadmap (2013/2018) to fit with what the European Commission’s (EC) policy initiatives are aiming to do. It intends to publish the new roadmap in the spring of 2020.

The immediate problem for the European cement industry is that the EC wants to pick up the pace. Before the Paris agreement in 2016 it was aiming for a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. The overall target, remember, was an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050. However, the wording from the EC to the European Parliament about the Green Deal in December 2019 is now targeting carbon neutrality and the 2030 target has increased to ‘at least 50%’ and toward 55% in a ‘responsible way.’

To give readers an idea of the uphill battle facing the cement industry. Cembureau said it was on target in 2015 with a 14% reduction in emissions per tonne of cement produced from direct, indirect and transport sources. For comparison, gross CO₂ emissions Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) data from the Global Cement & Concrete Association (GCCA) shows a 29% drop from 1990 to 2017 from Cembureau members. The EC now wants to make it even harder to meet the 2030 target.

The cement industry’s problem is that it is energy intensive and that making clinker releases CO₂ (process emissions) as limestone is calcined. Cembureau’s roadmap offered multiple paths to its end goal including resource efficiency, energy efficiency, carbon sequestration and reuse, product efficiency. However, most of these things - like lower clinker factors, production efficiency use of alternative fuels, better transport efficiency and so on - only reach a reduction of a little below 35%. We should note here that great work has been achieved in all of these with Europe leading the way for many. The other 45% was intended to come from breakthrough technologies such as carbon capture and usage (CCU) and/or storage (CCS). Again, Europe has been leading the way worldwide with its various research and pilot projects. Yet, given that there are no commercial-level carbon capture installations at any cement plants in Europe in 2020, the EC is potentially cutting off the industry’s escape route to meet the 2030 deadline.

The EC gives the impression that it knows that energy intensive industries need help meeting the targets with the publication of its masterplan for energy-intensive Industries in November 2019. CCS, CCU, biomass, alternative binders to make cement, more efficient use of cement in concrete and the use of alternative fuels were all listed as being of in use of high potential to the sector. These are similar to Cembureau’s five paths on its roadmap. Incidentally, more recently Cembureau has been promoting its so-called 5C approach: clinker, cement, concrete, construction & built environment, and (re)carbonation. This is intended to initiate a wider debate across the construction industry supply chain along similar lines to the objectives in the roadmap. It also follows the general industry pivot towards concrete.

However, just one badly-considered measure from the legislators could scupper this. The new tax on refuse-derived fuel (RDF) imports in the Netherlands is one example of this. It potentially complicates alternative fuels markets in Europe. Another, more subtle risk that Cembureau warned of in December 2019, was of the EC’s intent to propose a carbon border adjustment mechanism to reduce the risk of carbon leakage. Its argument was that a new untested scheme could create uncertainty in an industry already at risk being replaced by production capacity outside of the EU.

So now we wait to see how many more reductions Cembureau can squeeze out of its revised roadmap in the spring. It may be able to gain more from its existing measures or offset emissions more widely along the construction chain. Whether it does or does not though the bulk of emissions reduction needs to come from the continued research, testing and implementation of novel technologies like CCU/S. CCS also needs help setting up the infrastructure to move CO₂ to the storage sites. To this end the EU heavy industry expert group says that developing large-scale pilot projects on ‘clean’ technologies should be supported with EU funds and by easier access to private financing. The ongoing question is how and when can this funding be unlocked? The answer is far from clear.