Cement manufacturing is an energy-intensive process due to the high temperatures required in the kilns for clinkerization. In 2005, the global cement industry consumed about 9 exajoules (EJ) of fuels and electricity for cement production (IEA 2007). Worldwide, coal is the predominant fuel burned in cement kilns. Global energy- and process-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from cement manufacturing are estimated to be about 5% of global CO2 emissions (Metz 2007). Cement is made by combining clinker, a mixture of limestone and other raw materials that have been pyroprocessed in the cement kiln, with gypsum and other cementitious additives. Clinker production typically occurs in kilns heated to about 1450°C.
Cement is an important construction ingredient produced in virtually all countries. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a by-product of a chemical conversion process used in the production of clinker, a component of cement, in which limestone (CaCO3) is converted to lime (CaO). CO2 is also emitted during cement production by fossil fuel combustion and is accounted for elsewhere. However, the CO2 from fossil fuels is accounted for elsewhere in emission estimates for fossil fuels. The Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories(IPCC Guidelines) provide a general approach to estimate CO2 emissions from clinker production, in which the amount of clinker produced is multiplied by the clinker emission factor.
Globally, over 150 countries produce cement and/or clinker, the primary input to cement. In 2001, the United States was the world’s third largest producer of cement (90 million metric tons (MMt)), behind China (661 MMt) and India (100 MMt).6 in 2001, primarily from Canada (20%), Thailand (16%) and China (13%). Less than 1% of domestic production was exported. The primary destinations for export were Canada (82%) and Mexico (6%). Cement is often considered a key industry for a number of reasons. To begin with, cement is an essential input into the production of concrete, a primary building material for the construction industry. Due to the importance of cement for various construction-related activities such as highways, residential and commercial buildings, tunnels and dams, production trends tend to reflect general economic activity. Furthermore, because of the large demand for cement, the relatively high costs associated with transport of the high-density product, and the wide geographic distribution of limestone, the principal raw material used to produce cement, cement is produced across the United States.
2005 is a landmark year for climate change and for development. Hyogo,1 Kyoto2 and Gleneagles3 have given their names to major frameworks of action aimed at reducing climate-related vulnerabilities and poverty over the coming decade. International efforts to re-orientate policy and institutional structures towards achievement of the Millennium Development Goals4 (MDGs) and to secure fairer trade as part of the Doha Development Agenda will also be strengthened in 2005. After the media headlines have faded, what impact will these frameworks have on the lives of the poor and others vulnerable to climate impacts? Will climate vulnerabilities be integrated in all these frameworks with lasting benefits? Will the interests and voices of those vulnerable to impacts be heard? Why are MDGs, climate change and trade processes running in parallel tracks? And what can be done to link these processes synergistically in favour of those vulnerable to climate change?
Voluntary greenhouse gas (GHG) management programs and policies directed at individuals, households, and communities serve as compliments to national and state-level policies directed at heavy industrial emitters.1,2 Recently there has been a marked increase in information campaigns promoting lower-carbon life styles choices, community-based social marketing programs,3 voluntary carbon offsets programs,4 and the proliferation of online household carbon footprint calculators5 aimed at reducing emissions related to individual lifestyles. Several recent studies suggest that voluntary consumer-oriented programs can reduce household carbon footprints by 5-20%.6-8 However, indivi duals and program developers need information on the relative contribution of different household activities to household carbon footprints as well as and the financial and GHG benefits of different household mitigation
A carbon project helps to mitigate climate change and thus to safeguard the planet; and you even get paid for it –how great is that?Unfortunately, it’s not such a straightforward process and there will be a lot of blood, sweat and tears on the way, but carbon finance can contribute to grow your business. The Ashden Awards and GVEP International have prepared this basic guide designed to help energy entrepreneurs to understand better whether they should consider carbon finance more closely in their business plans, and to provide recommendations on the first steps to assess their potential.
Almost every country has signed up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Its ultimate objective is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent irreversible damage to the climate system. The UNFCCC has now been in place for more than 20 years, but the world has yet to agree to a treaty curbing global emissions that is fair, equitable and legally binding.
The UN climate change negotiations have two overarching themes: mitigation, which involves human interventions to reduce the sources of greenhouse gas emissions, and adaptation, which is about coping with climate change. The developing countries in the negotiations feel that long-term adaptation is impossible without mitigation by the industrialized nations. They point out that the developed world has a 'historic responsibility' for having caused climate change over the course of 200 years of industrialization.
The economic consequences of climate change may be severe. But the cost of mitigation may also be high. Lomborg (2000: 310-311, 322) warns that the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol would be $150 billion annually, depending on the extent of emissions trading permitted. The cost of of stabilizing CO2 concentrations at 450ppm has been estimated at $4-14 trillion (Azar and Schneider, 2002: 75). Several commentators have asked whether mitigation measures are worth the damage they might inflict on the world economy (op. cit.: 75-76). It has also been argued that these costs would easily be absorbed by global economic growth (op. cit.: 76-77), but either way climate change is going to be expensive.
How valid are UK and EU claims to be leading the world in decarbonising their economies? Much of this
answer depends upon how you allocate responsibility for carbon emissions between countries. Under
the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, countries are responsible for carbon emissions
produced within their borders. But in an increasingly globalised world, citizens of wealthier countries are
consuming a growing percentage of goods and services produced in developing countries. Are we simply off‐shoring our carbon emissions? This research note examines the record of, among others, the EU, China and the US from 1990 until 2006 (the most recent year for which data is available). We calculate estimates for the emissions consumed within each country, and compare these to the UNFCCC (Kyoto) carbon production emissions. Carbon consumption includes emissions embedded within traded goods and services. Our analysis makes a number of assumptions and generalisations, but the findings are broadly in line with existing academic findings, where these exist.
Forests currently absorb billions of tons of CO2 globally every year, an economic subsidy worth hundreds of billions of dollars if an equivalent sink had to be created in other ways. Concerns about the permanency of forest carbon stocks, difficulties in quantifying stock changes, and the threat of environmental and socioeconomic impacts of large-scale reforestation programs have limited the uptake of forestry activities in climate policies. With political will and the involvement of tropical regions, forests can contribute to climate change protection through carbon sequestration as well as offering economic, environmental, and sociocultural benefits. A key opportunity in tropical regions is the reduction of carbon emissions from deforestation