Showing posts with label cement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cement. Show all posts

Friday, 20 September 2024

Aggregate Industries’ parent: the cement company that paid millions to ISIS

As far back as 2016, we have been writing about how Aggregate Industries' parent company Holcim – previously known as LafargeHolcim, a conglomerate formed by the merger of Swiss-based Holcim and French-based Lafarge – was accused of financing terrorism in Syria. 

The case is now tied up in the French courts, as we posted earlier this year. 

This week, The Guardian published this story:
 

‘We’re still in the 1970s with cement’

Monday, 29 April 2024

Holcim’s climate legacy laid bare in Carbon Majors database

Climate scientists are alarmed, reported the Guardian earlier this month:
This is the 10th consecutive monthly record in a warming phase that has shattered all previous records. Over the past 12 months, average global temperatures have been 1.58C above pre-industrial levels. 
For those looking to apportion blame, the Carbon Majors database was helpfully relaunched a few days before: 
The Carbon Majors database traces 1,421 GtCO2e of cumulative historical emissions from 1854 through 2022 to 122 industrial producers, the CO2 portion of which is equivalent to 72% of global fossil fuel and cement CO2 emissions since 1751. Over 70% of these global CO2 emissions historically can be attributed to just 78 corporate and state producing entities. 
Cement producer Holcim – parent company of Aggregate Industries – is one of them, 63rd on the list:
What might the legal consequences of this be? 
The Carbon Majors dataset has played a pivotal role in holding fossil fuel producers to account for their climate-related impacts in academic, regulatory, and legal contexts. Examples include quantifying the contribution these entities have made to global surface temperature, sea level, and atmospheric CO2 rise; and establishing corporate accountability for climate-related human rights violations.

Indeed, Holcim has already found itself at the sharp end of climate litigation, as previously posted.


‘Circular solutions vital to curb environmental harm from cement and concrete’

* Cement and concrete production is responsible for significant pollution, human health impacts and vast amounts of climate-fueling emissions. 

* Manufacturing cement is particularly problematic as the chemical process used to make it produces nearly 8% of global carbon emissions. Experts also underline that demand for the mined and quarried aggregate materials used to make concrete, such as sand, is responsible for biodiversity and ecosystem harm. 

It’s estimated that around 30 billion tons of concrete now gets used each year, already posing huge extraction, pollution and greenhouse gas emission risks, even as production surges in the Global South as the construction industry ramps up. “That starts looking like quite an enormous pressure on our planetary boundaries,” says Sophus zu Ermgassen, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Oxford. 

Circular solutions are urgently needed to address environmental threats at multiple points along the cement and concrete supply chain, say experts such as Jonathan Duwyn, a buildings and construction specialist with the UN Environment Programme’s Climate Change Division. Research indicates that quarrying for construction minerals — including sand, stone and gravel — poses a threat to at least 1,000 species planetwide, according to Aurora Torres, an ecology and sustainability researcher at the University of Alicante. 

It’s estimated that around 50 billion tons of sand is used annually for construction, generating an array of environmental problems and social challenges. Research indicates these activities take a toll at the ecosystem level, and with human health by degrading air and water quality, and even influencing infectious disease spread in sand mining areas.

Thursday, 21 September 2023

Could Holcim ever be a ‘CO2 hero’?

Holcim – cement conglomerate and parent company of Aggregate Industries – has been entertaining members of the press at its new Innovation Hub in Lyon, which the company has apparently set up to "showcase its sustainable building solutions and serve as a co-creation lab to accelerate low-carbon, circular and energy-efficient building worldwide."

Remarkably, somebody has come away thinking Holcim is a CO2 hero. How – given that the company has annual CO2 emissions more than many countries – could that possibly be?

Has Holcim dramatically cut its CO2 emissions to net zero – rather than just talk about it? Not according to its 2022 Sustainability Report, where we find Holcim pumped some 78 million tons of CO2 (scope 1 emissions) into the atmosphere in 2022 alone. Holcim claims: 
We reduced Scope 1 emissions to 562 kg CO2 net per ton of cementitious materials, which represented a decrease of 2% on a like-for-like basis versus the prior year. 
Of course, continued progress at that rate and the game’s over. 

Dig a little deeper though and we find that the press at Lyon were briefed by Nollaig Forrest, Holcim’s new chief sustainability officer. Her background is not in science, climate or sustainability, but – according to this article – in "communications and corporate affairs at multiple industrial companies". It’s clearly important to Holcim, with such glacial progress in emission cuts, to at least tell a good story. 

So how did Holcim persuade this journalist of its hero status?


Towards the end of his article, the author in question writes this paragraph: 
What strikes me most about Holcim is how a company can go from villain to hero by embracing the future. When I spoke to Jenisch, [Holcim CEO] he was adamant that the concrete industry wasn’t anything like the tobacco or car industry, fleeing from its responsibilities. And Holcim itself is a future-oriented company, he said, that wants to do its part. "Now that we know the harmful effect [of CO2], we are fully on it," he said. "We are part of the solution." Though the past is "interesting," he said, "it’s more important what action we take now. This is where we want to be part of. It’s more important that we accelerate climate action, with speed and transparency. We don’t want to be greenwashing." 
So, embrace the future, forget about all the damage caused by your past emissions and providing climate reparations for affected communities, keep selling cement at more than 0.5 tons net of CO2 for every ton produced, and become a CO2 hero. Easy. 

But let’s unpack that paragraph above.  

Holcim's CEO claims the concrete industry isn’t fleeing from its responsibilities, however that is exactly what Holcim is doing in the case of Indonesian islanders seeking proportionate compensation from the company for damage to their livelihoods due to repeated flooding as global warming has driven up sea levels, arguing that the company is responsible for 0.477% of global industrial emissions from 1950 to 2021. A spokesman for Holcim said: 
We do not believe that court cases focused on single companies are an effective mechanism to tackle the global complexity of climate action. 

And as far as accelerating climate action, we only have to look at this tiny corner of East Devon, and subsidiary Aggregate Industries' plans for an unsustainable multi-million mile haulage scheme for Straitgate Farm, to tell us all we need to know. But NGOs backing the islanders’ action also claim the company is not doing enough to cut its emissions
There is some support for this position from a new report by Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor, which ranked Holcim high relative to most of the other 23 companies studied for its net-zero ambition and transparency, but said its strategy only had moderate integrity because it hinges on energy intensity targets, low-quality renewable energy certificates and extensive use of carbon capture storage and usage. 
Finally, when it comes to "we don’t want to be greenwashing", Holcim appears to have put a brake on its Twitter account, but this was one of its last tweets. Greenwashing? You decide.

Holcim ‘received EU emission allowances for idle cement plant’

Holcim, the parent company of Aggregate Industries, is one of five cement companies to have received €88 million in free EU emission allowances – according to research by the Oil Price Information Service – despite plants sitting idle or only emitting relatively small amounts of CO2.

As Global Cement reports, the companies would have been able to sell the permits or use them to subsidise emissions costs at other plants. 

Nice work if you can get it.

Monday, 13 February 2023

Industrial trials start on zero-carbon cement production

The Cement 2 Zero project aims to demonstrate that concrete can be recycled to create a slag forming addition that could, when cooled rapidly, replace Portland cement.  

The two-year industrial trial will test each stage of the production process, bringing together the Materials Processing Institute, the University of Cambridge and industry partners – Atkins, Balfour Beatty, Celsa, Day Aggregates and Tarmac. Eventually the zero carbon cement – known as Cambridge Electric Cement – will be used in a real UK construction project.  

Philippa Horton of the University of Cambridge, who created the project consortium, said: "If Cambridge Electric Cement lives up to the promise it has shown in early laboratory trials, when combined with other innovative technologies, it could be a pivotal point in the journey to a zero-emissions society."

Friday, 22 July 2022

Holcim’s cost to society in 2021? 156 million tons of CO2 emissions

As the UK hit 40°C this week, a milestone in UK climate history, spare a thought for residents of an Indonesian island threatened by rising sea levels who have begun legal action against the cement producer Holcim – parent company of Aggregate Industries. 


You can see why. We have posted about Aggregate Industries’ parent, and its record on CO2 emissions. Last year we posted LafargeHolcim’s cost to society in 2020? 146 million tons of CO2 emissions – more than many countries

Since then the name has changed but the pollution goes on. In 2021, Holcim's cost to society has INCREASED to 156 million tons. 


So much for all the claims, for all the greenwash:


Holcim maintained its focus on CO2 emission reduction in 2021... we acknowledge we must accelerate our CO2 reductions in the coming years.
And what about Aggregate Industries, Holcim's UK subsidiary? 


Kirstin McCarthy, sustainability director at Aggregate Industries, says: 
We need to transform our business and we have already made progress.
This is the same sustainability director who spoke in support of the company’s wholly unsustainable 2.5 million mile haulage plan for Devon

She says: 
Our priorities are to reduce our impact on the climate, protect and enhance nature and the environment, drive the transition to a circular economy and protect and support our people and communities.
More greenwash. 

But for how much longer can companies make meaningless, hollow claims? Lawyers and environmentalists have greenwashing companies in their sights.


As one article in the financial press remarked: 
The popular ploy of marketing everything from burgers to investment funds as 'green' doesn’t look sustainable any more.
Suggest they include concrete in that list.

Concrete lobby takes swipe at sustainable timber

We all know that timber is a sustainable building material. It’s renewable and locks in carbon.

Not only does wood remove more CO2 from the atmosphere than it adds through manufacture, but by replacing carbon-intensive materials such as concrete or steel it doubles its contribution to lowering CO2. 
Could we return to wood as our primary building material? One architect says: 
It’s not only realistic, it’s imperative. It has to happen. In architecture you always go back to the sketch: the sketch is climate change.
The concrete industry plainly feels threatened.
 

Steve Elliott, chairman of BAR, the trade association for UK manufacturers and fabricators of concrete reinforcement products, claims: 
When you consider the destructive harvesting, industrial manufacturing process, additional chemicals and monoculture plantations it may be that too much credit has been given to timber being a green material. Indeed, it may better to keep the ‘wood’ alive rather than cut it down and build with it.
David Hopkins, chief executive of Timber Development UK refuted such "strawman arguments": 
This report from BAR really brings nothing new to the table other than a desperate attempt to smear a sustainable construction material by those sectors which have a less than positive tale to tell about their environmental impact 

There are already fully verified environmental product declarations behind all timber construction products which consider the whole supply chain. This means the impacts of timber products are measured, assessed, and verified by independent experts from forest to factory to operational building – right through to the product’s end of life. 

The truth is that timber is a renewable material which comes from sustainably managed resources – growing throughout Europe – which absorbs and stores carbon and requires very low energy inputs to process into high-performance low-carbon construction products. 

Concrete, on the other hand, requires materials such as sand – produced from dredging rivers and seabeds, destroying ecosystems and habitats in the process – and huge inputs of energy and water to manufacture. It’s a very high carbon material – and an issue which must be tackled to decarbonise construction. 

Rather than a constructive attempt to find solutions to the climate crisis, they would rather waste time dreaming up strawman arguments like this report because they know they cannot compete in a market with a greater focus on sustainability.
In other news:
 

Saturday, 9 October 2021

‘You can't trust this company, and you don't want them in your area’

We were alerted this week to a battle that took place between 1998 and 2005 on the other side of the Atlantic, a battle between St Lawrence Cement (SLC) – who wanted to build a cement plant and limestone quarry on the banks of the Hudson – and concerned residents, who ultimately won. SLC was part of Holcim, the parent company of Aggregate Industries. 

The website stoptheplant.com recalls: 
St. Lawrence Cement spent $58 million dollars over more than six years in a failed effort to build a massive, coal-fired plant that would have overwhelmed the small but historic City of Hudson (NY) — population 7,500. 
The story is told in more detail in Hudson 101: The Cement Plant Battle
From that 406-foot stack would have belched a pollution-laden plume extending as long as six miles, roughly the distance from Greenport to Philmont in a direct line. 

This gun to our collective heads would have been loaded with 500 million pounds of coal annually, to pulverize limestone blasted from a 1,200-acre quarry nearly as large as the entire City of Hudson. “Alternative” fuels such as garbage, tires and hazardous waste could have been added to the cauldron— a side of incinerator to go with your cement plant. 

By SLC’s own admission, the plant sought permits to emit up to 20 million pounds of pollutants per year, including greenhouse gases such as nitrogen and sulfur dioxides, heavy metals and volatile organic compounds: arsenic, benzene, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury and more.

... citizens discovered that SLC and its Swiss-owned parent company Holderbank—now called Holcim—had an appalling track record of fines for pollution and price-fixing violations. Whatever promises the company was making, it had broken similar promises to other communities worldwide. (The company had also used slave labor in Europe during World War II, and actively profited in South Africa during Apartheid.) 
Protestors had experience of the company’s activities from elsewhere. One said
“You can’t trust these cement company bosses farther than you can throw ’em. Their promises don’t mean nothing unless it’s written down.” 
“You can't trust this company, and you don't want them in your area.” 
Opponents argued the proposed project violated state environmental regulations and would adversely affect the river, shoreline, and related habitats. 

The controversy gained national attention from news outlets such as CNN and The New York Times, as well as media outlets in Canada and Switzerland. The project was withdrawn after New York Secretary of State Randy Daniels determined that the company's plans were inconsistent with New York State's 24 coastal policies. 

Monday, 27 September 2021

CMA issues deadline on ending ‘greenwashing’

The UK competition watchdog has given companies that make misleading claims about their environmental credentials until the end of the year to stop the practice, which is known as "greenwashing". 

Too many businesses were "falsely taking credit for being green" in order to woo environmentally minded consumers, the Competition and Markets Authority said.
Could Aggregate Industries – UK subsidiary of Swiss cement giant Holcim – be accused of "falsely taking credit for being green"? After all, the two tweets below can’t both be correct.
 

Wednesday, 25 August 2021

More greenwash from Holcim

The world’s largest cement producer is greenwashing again:
 

What Aggregate Industries' parent Holcim fails to mention is the industry’s monstrous CO2 emissions:
 

So, is concrete the ideal sustainable material for our future? Clearly this prize-winning writer doesn’t think so, in fact quite the reverse:
 

Some wonder if the cement companies are deliberately keeping us addicted to concrete:
 

As for all the sand needed to make concrete:
 

Tuesday, 10 August 2021

UN climate change report sounds ‘code red for humanity’

"The alarm bells are deafening," warns UN Secretary-General Antรณnio Guterres.

 
How is this urgency reflected in UK planning? On 20 July 2021, a new version of the National Planning Policy Framework was released. We posted about it here. The NPPF sets out the government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. 

According to this article, the term "climate change" appears three more times than the predecessor document published two years before. The NPPF has not been updated to reflect the UK’s 2050 net zero obligation approved by Parliament in 2019. The section on "planning for climate change" still reads: 
152. The planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. It should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience; encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. 
However, reference to the UN’s 17 Global Goals for Sustainable Development has been added to the NPPF, and the paragraph which defines sustainable development in more detail has been toughened up with "much more binding" language about protecting and enhancing the environment: 


Nevertheless, it seems a meagre response to the crisis we now find ourselves in. This editorial argues: 
Without an accelerated reduction in greenhouse gases during the next decade, the ambition of the 2015 Paris climate agreement to limit global heating to 1.5C will not be met. The price of failure will be a world vulnerable to irreversible and exponential effects of global heating: there will be worse floods more often, more terrible and frequent heatwaves and devastating and repeated droughts. 

The science is irrefutable. Less certain is the strength of political will to act upon it. An awesome burden of responsibility now rests upon this generation of leaders as humanity finds itself at a fork in the road. The actions taken or foregone during the next 10 years will define the parameters of the possible for future generations. A step-change is required, but across the world green rhetoric continues to translate into policymaking at a pace which is fatally slow.

How has Holcim, the world's largest cement producer responded to this dire warning, given that cement is responsible for about 8% of CO2 emissions? Just as if it has played no part at all:
 

This of course is the same company that in 2020 alone pumped out 146 million tonnes of those greenhouse gas emissions choking our planet, the same company that would ultimately profit from the multi-million-mile-CO2-belching-haulage-scheme planned for Straitgate Farm. The hypocrisy.

Thursday, 8 July 2021

Holcim unveils new identity

The parent company of Aggregate Industries has announced a new identity:


Jan Jenisch, Chief Executive Officer at Holcim proclaimed: 
Today marks a milestone for our company in our transformation to become the global leader in innovative and sustainable solutions. Our world is changing in many ways, with population growth, urbanization and the climate challenge. We are determined to play our part to accelerate low-carbon and circular construction so that we build a net zero future and raise living standards for everyone. Our new Group identity sends a signal to the world that we are fully committed to building progress for people and the planet. 
But whatever signal Holcim sends to the world, whatever clever graphics the branding consultants conjure up, a leopard can't change its spots, the world’s largest cement company can’t make cement without gargantuan CO2 emissions.

Monday, 5 July 2021

‘Cement industry's enormous sand needs putting harmful pressure on ecosystems’

The first link in this chain? Sand. 

…a camp of meetings and actions was held from June 19 to 21 in Saint-Colomban, in Loire-Atlantique... In this town, two sand quarries have been operated by two giants in the sector for nearly twenty years: Lafarge, with 49 hectares and GSM (from the German group HeidelbergCement), with 65 hectares. Together, these companies extract no less than 750,000 tonnes of sand per year. But here it is: they are reaching the end of their operating possibilities, and wish to expand, from 2022.

"GSM and Lafarge? They are sand predators," says Jean-Claude Mercier, founder of the citizen collective Graine de Celle-Saint-Avant 37, owner of agricultural land in the town and a former engineer. The areas on which the new quarry would be established combine forest and wetlands. "It's a place that I call "the green lung"", sighs the founder of the collective. 
And what of "the risk of pollution of the water tables in which the residents' drinking water circulates"? 
GSM will be required to leave a layer of one meter of sand, at least. "This is not enough", fears the head of the collective. "And who's going to check that they don't go below one meter?" This minimal layer acts "like a coffee filter: you see what happens if you forget to put the filter in your machine ..." he sums up. 
At Straitgate Farm, Aggregate Industries is not even proposing to leave "one meter of sand, at least", but is instead proposing to quarry all the way down to the maximum water table, removing all of the unsaturated zone – in effect forgetting to put the filter in the machine

‘How Holcim pollutes the air in Serbia with impunity’

The ultimate beneficiary of any quarrying at Straitgate Farm would be LafargeHolcim – the parent company of Aggregate Industries, now rebadged Holcim – the company that is the subject of this article:
 
In the small town of Beoฤin, in northern Serbia, the Swiss group Holcim operates a cement plant. In 2019, a state inspection found that the plant's harmful emissions massively exceeded legal limits. But the report has been kept in the shadows and, to date, no proceedings have been initiated. For those affected on the spot, this impunity comes as no surprise. Milorad Ivanoviฤ‡, Serbia, June 30, 2021 

“We can't breathe here anymore,” complains Jovan Ignjatoviฤ‡, wiping a large layer of dust off the table. “This is what has accumulated since yesterday,” he explains. His house is right in front of the cement factory. The place is shrouded in a thick cloud of smoke. People here say it is a dangerous poison; factory management responds that it is just harmless water vapor. 

Some 7000 people now live in Beoฤin. This small industrial town is located at the foot of the Fruลกka gora mountain range, an hour and a half by car from the capital Belgrade. The cement plant was acquired in 2002 by the French group Lafarge, which merged with Holcim in 2015 to form Lafarge Holcim. As announced last May, the world's largest producer of building materials has now chosen Holcim Ltd. as its sole name, and moved its headquarters to the tax haven of Zug. 

Before its takeover by Lafarge, the Beoฤin cement plant was already one of the biggest polluters in the former Yugoslavia, which was dissolved in 2008. But the situation worsened shortly after this takeover, when the management decided to no longer operate its ovens run on natural gas, but with petroleum coke, a by-product of the transformation of crude oil that burns at very high temperatures. Cheaper than natural gas but much dirtier, this refinery waste produces large amounts of microparticles, sulfur dioxide and soot. 
Click here to read more. 

Wednesday, 30 June 2021

Extinction Rebellion targets LafargeHolcim again

Extinction Rebellion has once again targeted LafargeHolcim in Paris, following protests last year. One protester was quoted by Reuters as saying: 
We need to act now! We know what needs doing and it’s to stop this constant pursuit of growth and reduce carbon emissions. And for that to happen we need to stop using cement

Dawlish sea wall reconstructed with low carbon concrete

According to Hanson
Regen Ground Granulated Blast furnace Slag (GGBS) is a cement substitute, manufactured from a by-product of the iron-making industry. Using one tonne of Regen in concrete reduces the embodied CO2 by around 900kg, compared to using one tonne of Portland Cement, and also increases its durability. Regen is more sustainable than other cement substitutes such as Fly Ash. In the UK, GGBS is usually supplied as a separate component for concrete and is added at the concrete mixer. It can replace 70 per cent or more of the Portland cement.

GGBS has been used in the reconstruction of the Dawlish sea wall. The contractor estimates 1,130 tonnes of CO2 have been saved as a result:
The rail line across the Dawlish sea front was washed away by a storm in February 2014. As part of the reconstruction, BAM Nuttall is building a new sea wall using Regen GGBS concrete supplied by Hanson UK. The concrete uses ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) – a waste by-product of steel manufacturing – to replace a large proportion of energy-intensive cement. To date, construction of the second section of new sea wall has used 4,600 cubic metres of low carbon concrete, with around 4,500 cubic metres remaining to pour. By using Regen GGBS concrete, the Dawlish project will have reduced the amount of carbon generated by this process by two-thirds and saved over 1,130 tonnes of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere in comparison to traditional concrete, it has been calculated.

Thursday, 15 April 2021

Judging by this, LafargeHolcim couldn’t give a toss about climate change

When LafargeHolcim – the parent of Aggregate Industries – shouts "The time for climate action is now!" it's obviously aimed at others, not itself:
US: The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has approved a request by Holcim US to use more petcoke at its integrated Midlothian plant. Local health and environmental campaigners had hoped to challenge the decision at a meeting in late March 2021, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram newspaper. The changes will enable the company, part of Switzerland-based LafargeHolcim, to more than double the plant’s carbon monoxide (CO) emissions to 7000t/yr. 35 local residents submitted requests for a hearing to query the application. Holcim US was identified from state data as the leading emitter of industrial pollutants in North Texas in 2019.
Jane Williams, a long-time environmental activist who chairs the Sierra Club’s National Clean Air Team, said Midlothian Breathe’s predicament is not unique to Texas. 

“No matter what state you’re in, no matter what local jurisdiction you’re in, these cement plants are very savvy at getting local authorities to be friendly toward whatever they want to do. You’re really in a David v. Goliath battle from the beginning. You’re fighting not only the industry, but also usually the process of the state government.”

Wednesday, 17 March 2021

MPA bemoans ‘£100 million tax raid on mineral industry’

The Mineral Products Association – the trade group representing Aggregate Industries and friends – has criticised the government's decision on red diesel.
 

…red diesel will be available only to agriculture and the rail sector. Users of off-highway construction machinery will have to pay an extra 46.81 pence per litre for their diesel, paying the standard tax rate of 57.95 pence per litre rather than the subsidised red diesel rate of 11.14 pence per litre. 
On red diesel it is a disappointing decision that is really just a soft target tax raid. Our sector pays its fair share of environmental taxes already and has a great track record on reducing carbon and contributing to biodiversity net gain.
Of course, when Mr Jackson talks about the mineral sector having "a great track record on reducing carbon" he obviously can’t have Aggregate Industries in mind. Carbon emissions from Aggregate Industries – the UK subsidiary of cement giant LafargeHolcim – are 5x what they were 20 years ago, and were still rising the last time the company bothered to report them

In which case, you might think, that can only mean spectacular carbon reduction from Messrs. Breedon, Cemex, Hanson, Tarmac et al. But given that the sector’s CO2 emissions from, for example, cement production were 695.6 kg/tonne in 2016 and by 2019 no better at 702.4 kg/tonne, according to the MPA’s own figures, you’re left wondering what a great track record looks like.

Perhaps the £100m tax raid will help focus industry minds, to use fossil fuels more carefully.