Displaying items by tag: Cembureau

The Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) announced this week that it intends to take over the work done by the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI). This marks a change in how the cement industry as a whole approaches sustainability and in the wider context how the sector manages itself on the world stage.

The CSI was set up in 1999 with the aim of advancing a sustainability agenda for the cement industry. It has done this by laying out strategy for the industry to follow in the form of technology roadmaps and publishing its ‘Getting the Numbers Right’ (GNR) data on CO₂ and energy performance information. By 2018 it had 24 cement company members composed of nine core members, 14 participating members and one affiliate member. It represents around 2.4Bnt/yr of global cement production capacity or over half of the world production, according to Global Cement Directory 2018 data.

The idea behind the membership was that the core members are all members of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and that the members would contribute ‘modest’ funds to run the organisation. That last point about WBCSD membership is worth noting because members need to stick to conditions such as publishing an annual sustainability report and agree to have the sustainability report reviewed and benchmarked by the WBCSD.

Figure 1: Outline of selected current global cement organisations with a sustainability remit. Source: Association websites, Global Cement Directory 2018.

The GCCA, which formed in early 2018, says it had formed a ‘strategic’ partnership with the WBCSD and that it will take over the work previously done by the CSI from the start of 2019. Although there’s no mention so far whether GCCA members have to actually become WBCSD members with all that this entails. At present the GCCA consists of nine major international cement producers, including over half of the world’s top 10 producers by production capacity, with a production base in every inhabited continent except Antarctica. Roughly speaking it represents just under 2Bnt/yr of global cement production capacity or about half of the world’s total.

Now where this starts to get confusing is that other cement associations exist with their own established advocacy roles and sustainability agendas. The established players include the various regional associations such as the Portland Cement Association in the US, Cembureau in Europe and so forth. The multinational ones also often represent national bodies.

Then there is the World Cement Association (WCA), which formed in 2016. This independent body is a private company run out of an office in London, UK with non-profit aims. It has 45 members but only three quarters are actual cement producers. Of these most are single-country cement manufacturers. The glaring standout is China National Building Material (CNBM) and its subsidiaries, representing over half of the association’s member’s cement production capacity. The production capacity of the WCA’s members is around 1Bnt/yr or a quarter of the global total. More than half of this comes from CNBM and its subsidiaries. Unsurprisingly then that Song Zhi Ping, the head of CNBM, is the president of the WCA. It too supports a sustainability agenda, saying that it, “seeks to co-operate with the WBCSD, CSI and regional and national Cement Associations.” What is noteworthy is how few of the current members of the WCA joined the CSI previously.

There is definitely a need for a global organisation advocating sustainability issues for the cement industry and by taking over the work of the CSI and the GCCA has cornered this part of what a global cement association might do. However, the GCCA represents less cement production capacity than the CSI did. The main omissions are the Indian producers, led by UltraTech Cement, as well as others. It seems likely that they will join the GCCA following the end of the CSI but there is no guarantee.

The other point arises when looking at these various cement associations is: who does what exactly? The CSI’s focus on sustainability gave it a purpose that it did well with a genuine appearance of independence. Its narrow focus also gave it a complimentary role to the existing national and regional associations. Global bodies like the GCCA and the WCA are clearly more into advocacy territory for their members. Also, a more general association approach like the GCCA and the WCA may clash with regional bodies like the PCA and Cembureau. Regional bodies seem better suited to the way governance works globally with regional groups such as the European Union (EU) or government departments in continental sized countries such as the US, China and India. However, a truly global cement body could respond better to coordinated environmental lobbying and fill in the gaps around the world in places with looser regional representation.

Sustainability is the immediate link between the CSI, the GCCA and the WCA. Indeed the WCA recently held a ‘Global Climate Change’ forum in Paris to discuss its own climate action plan. Yet, with the GCCA taking over the work the CSI does and the WCA saying it wants to cooperate with the CSI, the obvious outcome is that the GCCA will become the world’s apex cement association. It will represent the companies with the most cement production capacity, have a presence in every inhabited continent and take the lead on WBCSD issues. Beyond this though it will be interesting to see what, if anything else, the GCCA chooses to do.

This week’s Plastics Strategy from the European Commission (EC) presents the cement industry with a narrowing target. If the Plastics Strategy is successful it will prevent plastics waste altogether. This will then eliminate the key calorific content of refuse-derived fuels (RDF) and disrupt co-processing supply chains at cement plants across the continent. If it is too lax then dumping plastics in landfill could become more economically viable, also changing the market dynamic. Neither extreme looks likely at this stage but the European cement industry needs to make its views known.

Cembureau, the European cement association, has done just that today with the publication of a position paper on the subject. It conveniently ignores the top two tiers of the waste hierarchy – prevention and re-use – but it does recognise that ‘high quality recycling’ is the preferred option. This is followed by the target of its lobbying: protecting co-processing. Make no mistake, this is supporting industrial behaviour change with solid environmental benefits. Its areas for policymakers to focus on include protecting co-processing: a ban on landfill; linking energy recovery to recycling; concentrating on the legislation; thinking about material lifespan sustainability benefits; and helping minimise the investment costs for processing facilities.

Providing cool heads prevail, the importance of co-processing plastics as part of any realistic plastics strategy seems unlikely to change any time soon. What’s more likely to be the real target for Cembureau is standardising measures on collection, sorting and material recovery across the European Union (EU). For example, as this column has reported twice in 2017 (GCW288 and GCW324), the issues with waste disposal legislation in Italy have led to various problems in the sector. Waste collectors found it easier to export RDF to Morocco from Italy rather than use it locally in 2016. The slag industry has also reported similar issues with reuse in Italy. The consolidation of the local cement industry following the takeover of Italcementi and Cementir by HeidelbergCement and of Cementizillo by Buzzi Unicem should present a more unified industry approach towards alternative fuels. Backup from the EC could solve the other half of the alternative fuels puzzle in Italy and help to deliver serious change. Ecofys data from 2014 showed the EU co-processing average rate as being 41%, with six countries – Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Bulgaria, Italy and Greece – having rates below 30%.

Vagner Maringolo of Cembureau outlined the market opportunities for waste uptake at cement plants at the 11th Global CemFuels Conference that took place in Barcelona in February 2017. He started by revealing that plastics represented over 40% of the total share of alternative fuels used in the EU in 2014. A ban on landfilling municipal waste was expected to boost the supply of RDF and a Cembureau/Ecofys study on the market potential of alternative fuels concluded that around 10Mt of waste was co-processed in cement kilns in the EU28 in 2015. This represented around 2% of total combustible waste each year but it represented 10% of all of the energy recovery from waste in the EU. In other words co-processing plastics waste offers a very attractive means for the EU to meet its sustainability targets.

However, before Cembureau and the cement industry starts popping the (reusable) champagne corks, consider the wider picture. China has banned imports of foreign waste in 2018 including RDF from the UK, a major exporter. Unless new markets are found this may impact the price of RDF in Europe. Brexit is another example how of European waste markets might be disrupted in the medium-term. Cement producers want a steady supply of cheap fuels but if the providers can’t make enough money from their products then the market will fail. The tightrope for Cembureau to walk with plastics is to promote RDF use and secure its supply. Persuading the EC to support this may involve some wobbling along the way.

The 12th Global CemFuels Conference on alternative fuels for cement and lime takes place in Berlin on 20 – 21 February 2018

Recent data from Cemsuisse, the Swiss Cement Industry Association, shows that cement shipments fell by 2.8% year-on-year to 4.3Mt in 2017. The local industry has fluctuated from a high of just below 4.7Mt in 2011 with various peaks and troughs since then as can be seen in Graph 1. The current drop has been blamed on a poor start and end to 2017 despite some rallying activity in the third quarter.

Graph 1: Cement deliveries in Switzerland, 2010 – 2017. Source: Cemsuisse.

The local industry tends to get overlooked somewhat due to its modest size, its geographically landlocked position and its exclusion from the European Union (EU) despite being surrounded by member states. This is a mistake though because the territory offers lessons on how a developed cement industry can function and co-exist with a large neighbour. In Switzerland’s case it has access to the EU market through a series of bilateral agreements that provide parity with EU legislation. After a potential crisis over immigration following a local referendum in 2014, Switzerland and the EU came to an agreement in 2016 that softened the labour rules for foreigners. Pertinent to the cement industry, the EU and Switzerland signed a deal to link emissions trading systems in 2017. It is currently anticipated to come into force in 2019. Trading in the EU may come at the price of free movement of labour but emissions trading parity will also help to protect Switzerland’s cement plants.

The country has a cement production capacity of 4.3Mt/yr according to Global Cement Directory 2017 data. This divides into three plants operated by LafargeHolcim, two by Ireland’s CRH’s local subsidiary Jura Cement and one by Vigier Cement, a subsidiary of France’s Vicat. Most of these plants are around the 0.8Mt/yr mark, with the exception of Jura’s smaller Cornaux plant.

After a strong performance in 2016 with growing cement sales volumes, LafargeHolcim started 2017 with continued positive cement sales but this failed to compensate for low aggregate sales and falling ready-mix (RMX) concrete sales. CRH reported a similar experience that it blamed on poor weather at the start of the year and a competitive environment. This then led to an 8% fall in cement sales in the first nine months of 2017 with RMX sales and operating profit down too. Vicat’s experience in the country followed that of its competitors, with cement sales rising slightly over the first three quarters but concrete and aggregate sales dropping. Among other reasons it blamed the situation on the completion of road and civil engineering projects.

Cembureau, the European Cement Association of which Cemsuisse is a member, forecast a stable year in 2017 following the wind-down of infrastructure projects with support from the housing sector. However, it then expected the market to soften as demographic trends saw slower growth in population reduce housing demand. This state appears to have arrived early. On the plus side though the industry’s sustainability credentials have grown as the split between truck and train transport of cement hit its highest ratio in favour of rail in 2017 at 53%. The trend switched from truck to train in 2013 and it hasn’t looked back since then.

As a mature economy in the heart of Europe, Switzerland generally pops up in the industry news as the home of the world’s largest non-Chinese cement multinational, LafargeHolcim. That company’s headquarters are in Jona and Holcim had its headquarters in Holderbank. LafargeHolcim’s single largest shareholder, with an 11% share, is the Swiss billionaire Thomas Schmidheiny, who inherited his portion of the family business. He notably called for a better deal for Holcim during the merger negotiations between Lafarge and Holcim in 2015 and boardroom struggles have dogged the combined company ever since. Consideration should also be granted to the country’s other engineering and construction industry related multinationals such as ABB, Sika and the like. By the numbers Switzerland has a case for being one of the world’s most important nations for the cement industry.

Plenty to mull over this week in Cembureau’s newly published Activity Report for 2016. The association pulls together data from a variety of places including its own sources, Eurostat and Euroconstruct. For competition reasons much of it stops in 2015 but it paints a compelling picture of a continental cement industry starting to find its feet again.

Graph 1: Cement intensity of the construction sector in Europe, 2000 – 2015. Source: Cembureau calculation based on Eurostat and Euroconstruct in Activity Report for 2016.

The really interesting data concerns so-called cement intensity. This is the quantity of cement consumed per billion Euro invested in construction. Figures calculated by Cembureau from data from Eurostat and Eurocontruct show that cement intensity has remained stable in Germany, France and the UK but that it fell sharply in Spain and Italy from 2000 to 2015. In other words the pattern of construction changed in these countries. One suggestion for this that Cembureau offers is that construction moved from new projects to renovation and maintenance. These types of construction projects require less cement than new builds. Seen in this context the huge production over capacities seen in Italy and Spain in recent years makes sense as the local cement industries have coped with both the economic crash and a step change in their national construction markets.

Further data in the report falls in line with the impression given by the multinational cement producers in their quarterly and annual financial reports. Cement production picked up in the Cembureau member states from 2012 and in the European Union members (EU28) from 2013. Meanwhile, import and export figures disentangled from a close relationship at the time of the financial crash in 2008 with imports of cement declining and exports increasing markedly. Much of it will have originated from Italy and Spain as their industries coped with the changes. Cembureau then forecasts that cement consumption will rise in 2017 by 2.4% and 3.5% in 2018 in the 19 countries than form the Euroconstruct network. A key point to note here is that most of the larger European economies will see consumption consistently grow in 2017 and 2018 with the exception of France where it growth will remain positive but it will slow somewhat in 2018. This fits with last week’s column about France with the early reports from LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement and Vicat reporting slight declines in sales volumes so far in 2017.

Cembureau’s country-by-country analysis also provides a good overview of its member industries. Looking at the larger economies, residential construction was the main driver for cement consumption in France and Germany in 2016. In Germany further growth is hoped for from an increased infrastructure budget set by the Federal Government. Italian cement consumption fell in 2016 and further decreases are anticipated for 2017, particularly from the public sector. By contrast though the story in Spain is still one of declining cement consumption but one heavily mitigated by exports. Spain is the described by Cembureau as the leading EU export country. Finally, there’s little recent on the UK other than uncertainty concerns about the Brexit process and an anticipated rise in infrastructure spending by 2019. The sparse detail here is probably for the best given the current political deadlock in the UK following the continued fallout from the general election in early June 2017.

In summary, Cembureau’s data shows that modest growth is happening in the cement industries of its member countries. It’s not uniform and some nations such as Spain and Italy are coping with changes in the composition of their industries. Cembureau also highlights the unpredictable consequences of the UK’s departure from the EU as one of the biggest risks in 2017. Check out the report for more information.

Belgium: Gonçalo Salazar Leite has been appointed as the president of Cembureau, the European cement association, for a two-year term at the association’s general assembly held on 9 June 2017 in Paris. The vice-chairman of Secil has served as the association’s vice-president since 2015. He succeeds Daniel Gauthier, the former chief executive officer (CEO) Western Europe-Africa and member of the managing board of HeidelbergCement, in the role. In addition, Raoul de Parisot, advisor to Vicat’s chairman and CEO, has been elected as the vice-president of Cembureau for a two-year term.

Leite said that he intends to focus on supporting the industry on the path towards its low-carbon targets, framing the association’s European Union (EU) policy discussions in a wider international context and contributing to the ‘true image’ of the industry.

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.

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: Daniel Gauthier, CEO of Western Europe-Africa and member of the managing board of HeidelbergCement, has been elected as president of CEMBUREAU for a two-year term after having completed his mandate of vice president over the last two years. He takes over from Peter Hoddinott, executive vice president of performance and member of the executive committee at Lafarge. In addition, Gonçalo Salazar Leite, CEO of Secil, has been elected as vice president of CEMBUREAU for a two-year term.

"The industry must now build upon the accomplishments of 'The Concrete Initiative," said Gauthier. The initiative was launched one year ago. "Concrete is essential to Europe's future, providing the buildings and infrastructure that society needs, as well as growth and jobs. The circular economy, competitiveness and climate change will also remain at the forefront of CEMBUREAU's activities."

"With the election of Gauthier, CEMBUREAU and the priorities of the european cement sector are in excellent hands," said Hoddinott. "He will advance and reinforce the agendas of putting the cement industry forward as a solution provider, where concrete can fulfill both the aspirations of the end users of construction and act as a partner in fulfilling the needs of policymakers."

"I take this opportunity to thank Peter Hoddinott for his commitment to the Association over the last two years," said Koen Coppenholle, CEMBUREAU chief executive. "We are now at a turning point. After a protracted period of negative growth, Europe is getting back on its feet. Indeed, our 2014 activity report shows some glimmers of hope for our sector."

Compared to 2013, 2014 cement production in the CEMBUREAU member countries saw a very moderate recovery, rising by 0.3% year-on-year to 235.5Mt after the drops recorded in 2013 and 2012 (1.4% and 8.2% respectively) and having fallen by 27% since 2007. Developments in cement demand were in line with the upturn in the general economic and construction environment, particularly over the second half of the year, reflecting somewhat improved sentiment and activity, despite tight budgetary conditions in many member states. Global cement production has been estimated at 4.3Bnt in 2014, translating into a 6.7% increase compared to the 4Bt recorded in 2013. The CEMBUREAU member countries accounted for 5.5% of global production, with China representing 56.5%, compared to 58.3% in 2013. Without taking into account China, global cement production increased year-on-year by 11.3%.

Cement production took an unnecessarily harsh rap from the latest assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The cause? Misleading wording.

In its summary for policymakers from Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (WGI AR5), every time CO₂ emissions were mentioned, cement was also mentioned. Typically this was along the lines of: "annual CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production". Energy supply or transport industries were not mentioned. Only cement was. Subsequently in some general press reports covering the IPCC report, cement was duly parroted as the major industrial source of CO₂ emissions.

Digging into the data revealed that this particular wording derived from one of the data sources that the IPCC used that examined global CO₂ emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement manufacture and gas flaring from 1751 - 2008 from the US Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Here cement production was grouped along with different type of fossil fuels, such as gas, liquids and solids, and gas flaring. Deeper into the IPCC draft report it was revealed (using this research) that total cumulative emissions between 1750 and 2011 amounted to 365 ± 30 PgC (1 PgC = 10¹⁵ grams of carbon), of which only 8 PgC (2%) came from the production of cement.

Undoubtedly the cement industry's carbon emissions are huge but ambiguous wording in a release targeted for policymakers is not helpful.

Thankfully at about the same time as the IPCC made headlines last week European Cement Association, Cembureau, followed the UK's Mineral Products Association (MPA) in releasing its own lobbying document for the industry. This consisted of five parallel routes to lowering emissions related to cement production. Unfortunately Cembureau's press release didn't receive the global media coverage that the IPCC did.

The bottom line is this: cement is essential for modern industrial societies.

With or without climate change caused by human behaviour, we will all need somewhere to live and work. For the moment such structures will be built from cement and concrete. Organisations like Cembureau offer a way forward. Global policymakers should pay attention.

Europe: Peter Hoddinott has been elected as President of CEMBUREAU for a two-year term at the Association's General Assembly, which was held in Vienna, Austria on 11 June 2013. He has completed his mandate as Vice-President over the past year. He takes over from Ignacio Madridejos. In addition, Daniel Gauthier, a member of the HeidelbergCement managing board, has been elected as Vice-President of CEMBUREAU, also for a two-year term.

Peter Hoddinott has been Executive Vice-President for Energy and Strategic Sourcing at Lafarge since 2012, responsible for worldwide energy strategy and sourcing of Lafarge's externally-sourced inputs. Previously, he held operational roles in Western Europe Cement, Latin America and South East Asia for Lafarge.

On his election as President of CEMBUREAU, Hoddinott stated, "Being elected to serve the cement industry of Europe is a privilege and honour. I am keenly looking forward to working with the whole sector to build on the foundations laid by Ignacio Madridejos over the past two years. Specifically, this involves actions to reinforce and strengthen the sector in the face of its current challenges."

"I take this opportunity of thanking Ignacio Madridejos for his commitment to the Association over the last two years" said Koen Coppenholle, CEMBUREAU Chief Executive. "I also wish to thank the Association of the Austrian Cement Industry, VÖZ, for organising this latest CEMBUREAU General Assembly. As highlighted by the European Cement Research Academy (ECRA), there are several innovation initiatives in the pipeline, and I look forward to progress in this field over the next decade."