CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE CEMENT INDUSTRY

The document analyzes the cement industry's CO2 emissions, which stem from limestone calcination, fuel combustion, and electricity use. It identifies abatement options including energy efficiency, alternative fuels, clinker substitutes, and carbon capture and storage (CCS). The paper examines the economic impact of carbon pricing, noting that high carbon costs can lead to carbon leakage—where production shifts to regions with laxer regulations—due to the industry's capital-intensive nature and the high cost of transportation. It suggests that border carbon adjustments may be more effective than fixed free allocation of allowances in mitigating leakage.

• Cement production generates CO2 from three primary sources: process emissions from limestone de-carbonation (525 kg CO2 per tonne of clinker), fuel combustion in the kiln (typically 300-350 kg CO2 per tonne of cement), and indirect emissions from electricity use (typically 50 kg CO2 per tonne of cement).
• The global cement sector is a significant emitter; in 2005, direct emissions totaled 1,660 MtCO2, representing approximately 6% of global CO2 emissions. Non-OECD regions accounted for about 80% of these emissions, with China alone contributing nearly half (775 MtCO2).
• Established abatement measures include energy efficiency improvements, the use of biomass and waste fuels, and increased blending of clinker substitutes. The IEA estimates that these measures, combined with clinker substitutes, could reduce global emissions by approximately 450 Mt CO2, with China holding more than half of this potential.
• Carbon capture and storage (CCS) could capture up to 95% of process emissions (roughly 60% of total emissions) but would likely increase production costs by 40% to 90%.
• Carbon pricing significantly impacts production costs; for EU producers, a carbon price of €20/tCO2 would increase production costs by approximately 45%, rising to 50% at a price of €30/tCO2.
• Carbon leakage—the shift of production to regions without carbon constraints—is a risk. Estimates of leakage-to-reduction ratios range from 40% to 73% depending on assumptions. High transportation costs and 'Armington elasticity' (domestic preference) act as barriers that mitigate some of this leakage.
• Fixed free allocation of allowances under the EU ETS may be ineffective at preventing leakage when carbon prices are high, as it may incentivize producers to reduce output ('part-loading') and sell surplus allowances instead of producing cement.
• Border carbon adjustments are suggested as a more suitable unilateral response for the cement sector than free allocation, given that modern best available technology (BAT) is globally homogenous and the product is a relatively homogenous commodity.

APA

Cook, G. (2009). CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE CEMENT INDUSTRY. Climate Strategies. https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/climatechange-cement-industry-sept09.pdf

Chicago

Cook, Gregory. CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE CEMENT INDUSTRY. Climate Strategies, 2009. https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/climatechange-cement-industry-sept09.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Cook |first1=Gregory |title=CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE CEMENT INDUSTRY |publisher=Climate Strategies |date=2009 |url=https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/climatechange-cement-industry-sept09.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{cook2009climate, author = {Cook, Gregory}, title = {{CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE CEMENT INDUSTRY}}, institution = {Climate Strategies}, year = {2009}, url = {https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/climatechange-cement-industry-sept09.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }