Search Climate Insights Directory

This report by the Climate Bonds Initiative analyzes the decarbonisation pathways for the cement and steel industries in Brazil. It identifies key emission sources, evaluates emerging technologies like low-carbon hydrogen (LCH) and carbon capture and storage (CCS), and examines the financial and regulatory frameworks—including the Brazilian Emissions Trading System (SBCE)—necessary to transition these hard-to-abate sectors toward a low-carbon economy to maintain international competitiveness.

This report by RMI outlines the economic and environmental advantages of adopting limestone calcined clay cement (LC3) as a strategy for decarbonizing the cement industry.

This briefing by Zero Carbon Analytics examines the current state and prospects of carbon capture and storage (CCS), describing it as an "integrated infrastructure" rather than a single technology. While the history of CCS is marked by high failure rates and limited impact on global emissions, the document notes a recent surge in investment and project announcements, particularly in North America and Europe. The author argues that CCS is most critical for the cement industry, where few alternatives exist, but is largely uncompetitive in the power sector compared to renewables.

This report by Sandbag analyzes how flaws in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) have created perverse incentives for the European cement sector, leading to over-allocation of free allowances and a failure to incentivize deep decarbonization. The authors argue that the ETS has effectively subsidized the production of high-carbon clinker, resulting in a net import of emissions into the EU.

This document is a DEA GHG Indicator Summary submitted by PPC South Africa on April 1, 2019, detailing activity data and greenhouse gas emissions for the period ending December 31, 2018.

This research paper by the Climate Policy Initiative examines how California's Cap and Trade Program, established under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32), influences investment decisions in the cement industry. Through financial modeling and stakeholder interviews, the authors analyze the impact of carbon pricing on three primary abatement strategies: energy efficiency, fuel switching, and the blending of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). The study finds that while carbon prices make emissions reductions more financially attractive, significant non-price barriers—including short corporate payback period requirements, fuel supply uncertainty, and prescriptive customer procurement standards—often prevent firms from pursuing cost-effective abatement options.