Thursday, 3 October 2019

‘It’s critical we stop extractive industries greenwashing their crimes’

That's the message in the article Towards a just, post-extractive transition by the author of a new report from the London Mining Network and War on Want, supported by Yes to Life, No to Mining.


Let's firstly remind ourselves, as the report itself does, of this CorpWatch definition:
GREENWASH: "The phenomenon of socially and environmentally destructive corporations attempting to preserve and expand their markets by posing as friends of the environment and leaders in the struggle to eradicate poverty."
According to the article, "the report reveals how the mining industry is greenwashing its operations, positioning itself as a deliverer of the minerals and metals critical to the renewable energy transition", when in reality "the majority of projected future demand for 'critical' minerals and metals does not come from the renewable energy sector at all, but rather from heavy industry, consumer electronics and military and other sources." The author of the report claims:
Mining corporations are aggressively and cynically marketing their destructive activity as a solution to the climate emergency.
Aggregate Industries and parent LafargeHolcim wouldn’t stoop to such levels, would they?



The report also talks about another term:
CARBON INTENSITY refers to carbon emissions per unit of production. Given that production is expected to increase, the relative decoupling of carbon emissions from production are cancelled out by the total increase in projected production.
In other words, reductions in CO2 per tonne can be undone by increases in total production.

This wouldn't apply to Aggregate Industries and LafargeHolcim as well, would it?

Clearly not at Aggregate Industries, because there is still no discernible progress on carbon emissions per unit of production – with CO2 emissions per tonne still increasing. So much for all that determination:


What about another measure of carbon intensity – what about carbon emissions per employee? In the year 2000, when Aggregate Industries’ CO2 emissions amounted 212,532 tonnes, the company reported this to be 59 tonnes per employee.

It’s not a ratio that Aggregate Industries mentions anymore. Perhaps that’s because, with annual emissions in the region of 1.3 million tonnes, it now equates to about 325 tonnes per employee per year. That’s quite a jump – a 450% jump – and certainly something to tell the grandchildren when they ask 'what did you do to help the climate crisis'?

But all this doesn’t stop Aggregate Industries pumping out more and more greenwash. Yesterday, in response to the government’s recent 2050 'net-zero' carbon target, the company issued a press release entitled A holistic approach to innovation will be key to realising net zero pledge states Aggregate Industries. The aggregate press regurgitated it as AI committed to 'net zero' carbon emissions:




The press release clearly calls on us to suspend disbelief, when the company that has overseen a five-fold increase in CO2 emissions claims:
as a forerunner in its commitment to the sustainability plight, Aggregate Industries continues to apply an increasingly eco-friendly approach to all business areas
The company’s CEO goes on to claim:
With the government committing to producing 'net zero' greenhouse gases by 2050, the construction industry’s role in safeguarding the future of our planet has never been more prevalent… Yes, it is a huge task but the sector has been working hard in recent years to address these issues - we believe that having more stringent local targets in place will only work to drive the industry to cut emissions further and faster.
Plainly when Guy Edwards talks about "working hard" and "further and faster" he’s forgetting Aggregate Industries’ 2.5 million mile haulage scheme for Straitgate.

You’d laugh about all this bilge, if the matter weren’t so serious.

Meanwhile, parent LafargeHolcim makes claims about carbon intensity too, about reducing carbon emissions per tonne, as we posted in LafargeHolcim has a way with numbers – CO2 emission numbers:
LafargeHolcim focuses on a kg of CO2 per tonne number – in fact, 576 kg CO2/t appears eight times in the [company's 2018 Sustainability Report], written in varying sizes of text, plainly because of that virtuous 1% reduction from the 2017 figure. But the "total cost to society" is not on a per/tonne basis, it is on a total CO2 emissions basis... You’ll find that number [121,000,000 tonnes CO2] only once in the report. It’s easy to miss, being buried on page 65 in very small text.
LafargeHolcim’s net CO2 emissions have in fact increased in 2018 – by 2.5%... All that enthusing about a 1% reduction in kgCO2/t has been swamped by LafargeHolcim selling 3.5% more cement.
And we've been generous: 121 million tonnes relates to the net CO2 emissions released by LafargeHolcim’s cement production in 2018. LafargeHolcim’s overall carbon footprint in 2018 is even higher, with total gross direct CO2 emissions of 135 million tonnes and total indirect CO2 emissions of 30 million tonnes.

Staggering numbers. But despite our climate emergency, LafargeHolcim is not planning to reduce its CO2 emissions per tonne by any more than 1% per year – to reach its target of 520kgCO2/tonne by 2030. So much for being the most ambitious etc etc:


What's even worse though – assuming the 520kgCO2/tonne target were actually achieved – is that if LafargeHolcim continues to sell 3.5% more material each year, total annual cement emissions would actually rise from 121 million tonnes in 2018 to some 160 million tonnes in 2030.

This is plainly not "consistent with the 2-degree scenario". It is however consistent, as this Financial Times analysis makes clear, with acting in a way that would "wipe out most life on the planet".

Posted by
Labels: , , , , ,