Displaying items by tag: Sandbag

The European Union’s (EU) verified CO₂ emissions figures were released earlier this week on 1 April 2019. The good news is that no cement plant is within the top 100 largest emitters. All the top spots are held by power plants, iron and steel producers and the odd airline. Indeed, out of all of the verified emissions, cement clinker or lime production only represents 7% of the total emissions. Of course this is too much if the region wants to meet its climate change commitments but it is worth remembering that other industries have a long way to go as well and they don’t necessarily face the intrinsic process challenges that clinker production has. If the general public or governments are serious about cutting CO₂ emissions then they might consider, for example, taking fewer flights with airlines before picking on the cement industry.

The EU emitted 117Mt of CO₂ from its clinker and lime producers in 2018, a 2.7% year-on-year decrease compared to 120Mt in 2017. This compares to 158Mt in 2008, giving a 26% drop in emissions over the decade to 2018. However, there are two warnings attached to this data. First, there are plants on this list that have closed between 2008 and 2018. Second, there are plants that provided no data in 2018, for example, all the plants in Bulgaria. Climate change think tank Sandbag helpfully pointed out in its analysis of the EU emissions data that industrial emissions have barely decreased since 2012. The implication here being that the drop from 2008 to 2012 was mainly due to the economic recession. Sandbag also made the assertion that 96% of the cement industry’s emissions were covered by free allocations in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) thereby de-incentivising sector willingness to decarbonise.

By country the emissions in 2018 from cement and lime roughly correspond with production capacity, although this comes with the caveat that emissions link to actual production not potential capacity. So, Germany leads followed by Spain, Italy, Poland and France. Of these Poland is a slight outlier, as will be seen below.

Table 1: Top 10 CO₂ emitting plants in the European Union in 2018. Source: European Commission.

Poland leads the count in the top 10 EU CO₂ emitting cement plants in 2018 with five plants. Greece follows with two plants. This list is deceptive as all of these plants are large ones with production capacities of 2Mt/yr and above. As it contains many of the largest plants in the EU no wonder the emissions are the highest. It is also worth considering that there are far larger plants outside of the EU.

In summary, as most readers will already know, the cement industry is a significant minority CO₂ emitter in the EU. Countries with larger cement sectors emit more CO₂ as do larger plants. So far, so obvious. Emissions are down since 2008 but this mostly seems to have stalled since 2012, bar a blip in 2017. The change though has been the rising carbon price in the EU ETS in 2018. Coincidentally the carbon price has been fairly low and stable since 2012. If the mechanism is working properly then changes should start to appear in 2019. Already in 2018 a few European cement producers announced plant closures and blamed the carbon price. Watch this space.

The Global Future Cement Conference & Exhibition on low and zero CO2 cement production will take place in Brussels, Belgium on 22 - 23 May 2019

Two reports out this week have looked at the carbon footprint of the cement industry. The first, a technology roadmap by the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), laid out a technology pathway for the sector to reduce its direct CO₂ by 24% from current levels by 2050 to meet the IEA’s 2°C scenario (2DS). The second, a report by the CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) on the progress of 13 major cement producers to reduce their emissions, was a progress report on the business readiness for a low carbon economy transition.

Graph 1: European Union industry emissions by sector, 2013 - 2017. Source: Sandbag, European Commission.

The scene was set last week when the environmental campaign group Sandbag picked up on the latest emission data from the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Industrial emissions as a whole rose by 2% year-on-year to 743Mt in 2017. The cement and lime industry reported a rise of 3% to 148Mt in 2017 from 144Mt in 2016. As Sandbag reported, industrial emissions have remained ‘stubbornly high’ for the duration of the ETS. It then went on to say that, “the EU urgently needs a new industrial strategy to bring about radical industrial process changes and/or carbon capture and storage, especially for the high-emitting steel and cement sectors.”

The CDP’s report provided a global scorecard on the readiness of the cement industry to adapt to a low-carbon future. Unfortunately, the report used data from self-reporting questionnaires and it lacked data from the two largest Chinese cement producers, Anhui Conch and China National Building Materials (CNBM), although it did try to compensate for this. The CDP assessed companies across four key areas aligned with the recommendations from the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).

Graph 2: Opportunity vs. risk for low-carbon transition. Source: Building Pressure report, CDP.

Surprisingly, the study, even with its limitations, found regional variation. As can be seen in Graph 2, the Indian cement producers came out on top from the criteria used: transition risks, physical risks, transition opportunities and climate governance and strategy. CDP pinned this on better access to alternative materials such as fly ash and slag coming from other carbon intensive sectors, such as thermal power generation and steel production. Reported process emissions measured by the clinker ratio for the Indian companies was 69% versus 78% for the other companies. They also benefited from newer cement plants driven by high market growth in the region compared to older plants in Europe.

The technology roadmap from the CSI and the IEA set out key actions for the industry to take by 2030 to have at least a 50% chance of achieving the 2°C 2DS scenario followed by a possible transition pathway that could be achieved through technology, legislation and investment. The key actions are protecting carbon pricing mechanisms from carbon leakage, putting new technology into action and supporting it by legislation, and greater government support for products with a lower clinker factor.

The CSI’s and IEA’s targets for 2030 included reaching a clinker to cement ratio of 0.64 in 2030 from 0.65 in 2014, a thermal energy intensity of clinker of 3.3GJ/t from 3.5GJ/t, an electricity intensity of cement of 87kWh/t from 91kWh/t and a alternative fuel co-processing rate of 17.5% from 5.6%. Perhaps the most optimistic is a CO₂ capture and storage amount of 14MtCO₂/yr in 2030 from nothing at the moment. This last target seems unlikely to be achieved given the lack of projects outside of the pilot stage, but it’s not impossible.

This column barely touches on the detail within either report or even the latest data from the EU ETS. Both reports offer ways forward to meet the 2°C global warming target outlined in the Paris Agreement. It’s easy to be pessimistic given the on-going clash between environmental optimism and business logic but both reports offer a way forward. The CDP report sets out a baseline with a look to the future, whilst the CSI/IEA roadmap offers what it says is a realistic route to reach that 2DS target. Lastly, if the CDP’s assessment is correct about the Indian producers then it’s possible that other developing cement industries may inherently be cleaner due to their use of newer plants and equipment. If worldwide government support can be provided for use of alternative fuels and materials on a much larger scale, as well as all the other recommendations, then meeting the Paris agreement may be easier than expected as new markets build new production capacity.

Two examples of carbon capture utilisation and sequestration projects will be covered in the May 2018 issue of Global Cement Magazine

Belgium: The European Parliament and Council have reached a provisional agreement to revise the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) for the period after 2020. This revision is intended to help the EU on track to achieving its commitment under the Paris Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2030. The deal between the parliament and council follows more than two years of negotiations, following the European Commission's proposal to revise the EU ETS in July 2015.

The main improvements agreed by parliament and council include changes to the system in order to hasten emissions reductions and strengthen the Market Stability Reserve to speed up the reduction of the current oversupply of allowances on the carbon market. Additional safeguards have been proposed to provide European industry with extra protection, if needed, against the risk of carbon leakage. Several support mechanisms have also been added to help industry meet the innovation and investment challenges of the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Cembureau, the European Cement Association, said that it had hoped, “…for a stronger signal towards best performing plants that their investment efforts will be honoured through a full protection against carbon leakage and is still concerned about the impact of a cross-sectoral correction factor.” However, it added that it was pleased that the EU had withstood attempts to differentiate between sectors in applying the rules of the ETS scheme.

Environmental campaign group Sandbag criticised the amendments for not going far enough to cope with a gap between allowance supply and emission. “The logic of the Paris Agreement is that all countries need to step up ambition to cut emissions. With the ETS hobbled, the EU and Member States must now immediately look to how emissions can be cut rapidly before 2020 and in the period up to 2030. Accelerating coal plant closures and supporting the efforts of industry to decarbonise, is essential,” said Sandbag’s managing director Rachel Solomon Williams.

Following the political agreement between the parliament, council and commission, also known as a trilogue, the text will have to be formally approved by the parliament and the council. Once endorsed by both co-legislators, the revised EU ETS Directive will be published in the Official Journal of the Union and enters into force 20 days after publication.

It looks like Cembureau, the European Cement Association, got its own way on the proposal to amend the European Union's (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) that the European Parliament voted on last week. The system has been tightened but not enough to make the cement industry suffer, for now. Naturally, the environmentalists are outraged.

The key reform was that the carbon credits reduction rate (the linear reduction rate) will increase and the market stability reserve (MSR) will double its capacity to absorb excess allowances on the market. However, the big battle was fought over whether to include an importer inclusion scheme (or Border Adjustment Measure) or not. Lots of political 'horse-trading' took place right up to the vote on 15 February 2017 to adopt the draft proposal, with particular battles over the importer inclusion scheme. Negotiations will now continue with the Council of the European Union before the proposal returns to the European Parliament for a final vote.

Cembureau seemed pleased with the outcome. It supported the proposal principally for maintaining competitiveness and for not ‘deliberately discriminate between sectors.' It also liked the inclusion of dynamic allocation, a benchmark based on what it said was real data, a flexible reserve in relation to the allowances available for free and those designated for auctioning and an impetus towards funding carbon capture and storage. It also singled out its pleasure that an amendment for an importer inclusion scheme had not been accepted.

This last point caused a spat between Cembureau and Bruno Vanderborght, a former executive at Holcim, at the end of January 2017 in the lobbying frenzy before the vote. In robust language Vanderborght accused the European cement industry of using the ETS for negative leakage. His argument was that the free allocation of carbon credits given to the cement industry had been used to 'maximise gross margin.' Instead of spending the money on upgrading inefficient units, the industry had used its same inefficient units to increase exports of clinker to outside the EU, to places like Africa. Cembureau countered that it had been taken out of context by Vanderborght and that arguments he levelled, such as data from the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) suggesting that the EU has the highest share of clinker production in old, energy-intensive installations worldwide, were misleading since CSI reporting may not be as thorough outside of Europe.

Predictably, the proposal didn't please the environmental lobby, which denounced the deal as toothless. Environmental campaign group Sandbag has been on the case of the cement industry for several years, pointing out that its own research shows that cement producers have 'abused' the free allocation scheme for profit and that emissions have actually increased under the ETS so far. Its headline figure in the wake of the vote was that the cement sector was set to rake in a surplus of allowances worth Euro2.8bn by 2030.

Following the vote Sandbag took no time to point out that the ETS carbon price had sunk below Euro5/t. In its assessment, a carbon price of least Euro50/t is required to stimulate low carbon investment. However, the carbon price soon rose back up. Little impartial analysis is available on whether the amended proposal will actually deliver its aims, although a Thomson Reuters analyst did describe the outcome as one that 'significantly tightens the market balance.'

In a final twist, the lead rapporteur for the reforms to the EU ETS is a UK member of the European Parliament (MEP). Depending on how the Brexit negotiations go, the guy marshalling the amendments to the EU ETS won't be subject to its eventual implementation.

The EU ETS is slowly starting to improve through reforms such as those voted on last week but it remains very much in doubt whether it will be able to deliver solid meaningful reductions in carbon emissions. Cembureau is rightly protecting the industry it represents but at present the price of coal appears to be a better driver of measures such as increased use of alternative fuels than the ETS. The ETS has had the misfortune in operating for the last few years throughout a market depression in Europe where it has been propping up some cement producers and now it’s helping them get back on their feet as they export their products out of the continent. In a world awash with excess clinker the policy makers are eventually going to have to decide how much they want to damage industry in order to meet their environmental aims. We need cement and we need to cut carbon emissions. Someone is always going to be unhappy in this situation.

France: The European Parliament has voted to approve a proposal by the European Commission to reduce carbon credits by 2.2%/yr from 2021 in its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). This is an increase from the 1.74% reduction specified in existing legislation. It will also double the capacity of the 2019 market stability reserve (MSR) to absorb the excess of credits or allowances on the market.

Members of the European Parliament (MEP) want to review the so-called ‘linear reduction factor’ with the intention to raising it to 2.4% by 2024 at the earliest. In addition MEPs want to double the MSR’s capacity to mop up the excess of credits on the market. When triggered, it would absorb up to 24% of the excess of credits in each auctioning year, for the first four years. They have agreed that 800 million allowances should be removed from the MSR as of 1 January 2021. Two funds will also be set up and financed by auctioning ETS allowances. A modernisation fund will help to upgrade energy systems in lower-income member states and an innovation fund will provide financial support for renewable energy, carbon capture and storage and low-carbon innovation projects.

The draft measures were approved by 379 votes to 263, with 57 abstentions. MEPs will now enter into negotiations with the Maltese Presidency of the European Council in order to reach an agreement on the final shape of the legislation, which will then come back to Parliament.

Environmental campaign group Sandbag has complained that the new proposal fails to hold to the European Union’s (EU) emissions reduction targets by 2030 that were signed as part of the Paris Agreement in 2016.

“Unless the Council intervenes to substantially strengthen the System, the EU ETS will now become simply an accounting mechanism, leaving meaningful climate action to happen elsewhere. The fact that the carbon price is unchanged as a result of the vote, still at a paltry Euro5, speaks volumes. Without being realigned with real emissions levels in 2020, the EU ETS may well end up existing for 25 years by 2030 without giving the any substantial impetus to decarbonisation,” said Rachel Solomon Williams, Managing Director at Sandbag.

Belgium: Environmental campaign group Sandbag says that research it has conducted has shown that proposed tariffs can protect European Union (EU) cement from ‘dirty’ competition and reward EU companies that produce low-carbon cement. It has released its data ahead of the a vote by the European Parliament in mid-February 2017 to decide on whether to adopt a new border adjustment mechanism (BAM) proposed by the Parliament’s Environment Committee.

The non-government organisation says that a BAM would require importers of cement and clinker into the EU to surrender emissions permits corresponding to the embedded carbon in their products, in the same way that domestic EU cement manufacturers are required to do at present. At the same time, cement, would no longer receive free allocation.

Previous research carried out by Sandbag suggests that the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has driven cement emissions higher, whilst other European and national regulations and product standards discriminate against low-carbon cement companies. Over the last decade, the EU carbon market may have delivered more than Euro4.7bn in ‘windfall’ profits to cement companies. However, Sandbag say that border taxes could set cement producers on a level playing field by harmonising incentives to reduce product emissions within the EU.

“The EU can now implement a pragmatic and politically feasible solution for boosting low-carbon cement in Europe, and ending the scandal of enormous windfall profits to cement companies. However, this isn’t simply about cement. In a world of developing carbon markets with no unified set of rules, it is necessary to account for discrepancies in order to avoid offshoring of production,” said Wilf Lytton, an analyst at Sandbag.

Europe: Cembureau, the European Cement Association, has raised concerns that amendments submitted by the European Parliament’s Environment Committee, which foresee in an introduction of a Border Adjustment Measure (BAM) with the loss of free allowances for the cement sector in Phase IV of European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), starting in 2020, will be detrimental to the local cement industry. The association is concerned that the changes unduly affect the cement industry, although lime, brick and tile industry have been included also.

The association described included that a BAM against certain but not all sectors as 'discriminatory and legally flawed.' It raised the problems that the policy would bring for the competitiveness of the cement industry both globally and internally. It also blamed the influence of reports by non-government agencies upon policymakers.

Environmental campaign group Sandbag defended the changes as ones that could put a stop to the, ‘cement sector’s windfall profits from the ETS.’ It argued that the proposed import inclusion carbon mechanism would expand the scope of the ETS to
include imported materials for a number of sectors, meaning that products sold in the EU would face the same costs for carbon compliance, regardless of their origin.

"In a number of ways, this proposal marks a huge step forward in the evolution of the ETS. The proposed border adjustment measures are a good starting point for levelling the playing field for all cement producers," said Wilf Lytton, Industrial Carbon Researcher at Sandbag.

Belgium: Data from the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) suggests that the carbon intensity of European Union (EU) cement increased from 2008 to 2014, according to analysis by the environmental campaign group Sandbag. It adds that the sector made greater strides in reducing emissions in the years prior to the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). Since 2011, the EU cement sector has increased exports of cement clinker outside the EU, demonstrating that the EU ETS has not made the sector globally uncompetitive.

“EU policymakers have overprotected the cement sector in the EU ETS to such an extent that companies have not taken any action to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The EU’s approach is killing with kindness; by maintaining the status quo on free allocation of allowances they are making their own climate targets undeliverable,” said Wilf Lytton, analyst at Sandbag.

Sandbag say that this highlights the inability of the EU’s climate policy, as currently designed, to address European cement sector emissions. Meanwhile, low-carbon new entrant cement companies operating outside of the EU ETS have commercialised technologies to dramatically reduce the carbon footprint of cement, yet are struggling to scale-up as they fight through a mass of regulation and product standards that support the high-carbon status quo.

Research by Sandbag revealed in March 2016 that incentives in the design of the EU ETS have driven higher greenhouse gas emissions emissions in the cement sector.

Sandbag, a climate policy think tank, published its report on the European cement sector entitled ‘Cement - The Final Carbon Fatcat’ last week on 16 March 2016. Amongst its findings the report accused the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) of pushing up emissions created by the cement industry. Unsurprisingly, Cembureau, the European Cement Association, took exception to some of the content of the report and issued a rebuttal. Notably, it said that ‘allegations that the ETS has incentivised overproduction are based on thin air.’

Here we present a section of the executive summary of Sandbag’s report that describes the current situation with the EU ETS and how Sandbag argue this has distorted the European cement industry.

The depressed carbon price under the EU ETS has done little to effect a reduction in emissions from the European cement sector. A surplus of more than 2bn EU allowances (EUAs) has built up in the European carbon market since 2008 with no expectations for the situation to change significantly over the medium term. Industry sources cite that the costs of upgrades to best available technology are tantamount to greenfield investments. The current low carbon price alone is not enough to render such investments economic, especially in the context of a depressed cement market. This applies even more so in the case of capturing and storing/using direct emissions (CCUS) which at this stage seems to be an expensive technology merely in the development stages across Europe.

Figure 1: Expected development of allowance surpluses for major industrial sectors until the end of Phase 3. Source: EUTL (Sandbag calculations).

The rules governing free allocation of allowances have failed to incentivise abatement in the cement sector. In particular, the sector’s inclusion on the list of sectors exposed to the risk of carbon leakage, as well as insensitivity to production changes, will cause its over-allocation to balloon. As we reveal in Figure 1, if activity levels continue at 2014 levels, by 2020 this surplus will be larger than 2.5 years’ worth of emissions. This is more than would be the case for almost any of the other major industrial sectors, practically all of whom expect to lose all or most of their earlier surpluses by the end of this decade.

The chronic oversupply of EUAs to the cement sector is partly due to the fact that cement firms are able to optimise their production of different products across different facilities to maximise their free allocation. Free allocation to cement installations is based on benchmarks relating only to the manufacture of clinker, an intermediate product. Many firms have been able to retain maximum free allocation, corresponding to peak production, by keeping a range of their facilities operating at just above 50% of their historic activity levels – the level required to retain 100% free allocation.

Figure 2: EU net clinker trade. Source: UN COMTRADE (Sandbag calculations).

This free allocation loophole has resulted in both windfall profits and a de facto production subsidy for highly carbon-intensive clinker. This clinker is then either blended in higher than necessary shares into cement or, as we show in Figure 2, actually exported, as EU cement subsidised by free allowances has a competitive advantage compared to manufacturers outside the ETS. This creates a net import of emissions to the EU – the complete reverse of the carbon leakage threat that many industry groups have emphasised. As we show in Figure 3, this stimulation of clinker exports to countries outside the EU has been the single most damaging factor to the decarbonisation of this sector, pushing 2013 emissions nearly 15Mt higher than they could have been.

Figure 3: Different factors’ contribution to cutting the cement sector’s emissions EU-wide during 2005 - 2013. Source: Cement Sustainability Initiative ‘Getting the Numbers Right’ database (Sandbag calculations).

As well as causing a surge in emissions, the insufficiently responsive free allocation rules leave cement companies strongly over-allocated. Table 2 shows the surpluses we estimate that the five cement majors have accumulated (or monetised) since the beginning of Phase 2.

Table 2: Largest cement companies’ surpluses and emissions (millions of EUAs, euros and tonnes). Source: EUTL (Sandbag calculations).

These five companies from the cement sector have collectively received nearly Euro1bn worth of spare EU allowances (EUAs) for free between 2008 and 2014. As the number of free allowances available to all industry is fixed, over-allocation to cement companies reduces the allowances available to other sectors that might really need protection.

The ETS therefore provides few incentives for these firms to invest in decarbonisation technologies. Given widespread expectations for an over-supplied carbon market well in to the 2020s and, consequently, a low carbon price, the opportunity cost of holding onto allowances is negligible when compared to the high cost of investment in abatement technologies.

Thanks to Alex Luta and Wilf Lytton at Sandbag for letting Global Cement publish this extract of their report. The full version of ‘Cement - The Final Carbon Fatcat: How Europe’s cement sector benefits and the climate suffers from emissions trading flaws’ is available to download from Sanbag’s website.

Belgium: Cembureau has taken exception with a report published by Sandbag on the emissions trading scheme and European cement sector entitled ’ Cement - The Final Carbon Fatcat - How Europe’s cement sector benefits and the climate suffers from emissions trading flaws.’ The European Cement Association alleged that the report contains factual and numerical errors. It also criticised the conclusion that the European Union (EU) emissions trading scheme (ETS) has incentivised overproduction.

“The allegations that the ETS has incentivised overproduction are based on thin air and do not acknowledge the strides the cement sector has made through investments in the reduction of its CO2 emissions. The ever-recurring mantra on over-allocation ignores that the cement industry has always called for an allocation closer to production and will continue to do so,” said Cembureau in a statement. It pointed out efforts by the cement industry to reduce the clinker content of cement and the presence of cement at the start of the building supply chain.

Cembureau also disagreed with the concept of a tiered approach as suggested by Sandbag. It has lobbied for a revision of the auctioning/free allowance of shares so as to allow the best performers to receive full free allocation, in line with the European Council Conclusions of 23 October 2014. It pointed out risks of a tiered approach to include unclear and unverifiable criteria to distinguish between sectors that could be discriminatory and open to legal challenge.

Despite its complaints Cemburea did partly agree with Sandbag’s views on the need for innovation funding to stimulate breakthrough technologies, a closer alignment between allocation and production in the form of a dynamic allocation and a stronger recognition of the role of alternative fuel and raw material use in emission reductions, with the inclusion of a landfill ban on recoverable and recyclable raw materials.

In its report Sandbag suggested that the EU ETS may have caused emissions in the cement sector to have risen beyond ‘business as usual.’ It estimated that emissions may have risen by more than 15Mt due to the scheme. It also flagged up five ‘Carbon Fatcat Companies’ from the cement sector who have collectively received nearly Euro1bn worth of spare EU allowances for free between 2008 and 2014. The cement producers cited by Sandbag were LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement and Italcementi, CRH, Cemex and Buzzi Unicem.