There were no climate change protesters waiting to jeer as the chief executives and other senior figures of one of the world’s biggest industries gathered on Wednesday. Yet they represented a business that produces more than 5% of mankind’s carbon dioxide emissions. And they were in Brussels to discuss climate change.
Dimitri Papalexopoulos said: “Unlike the airlines, cement is not directly visible to the consumer, so cement companies don’t have the same profile. I call it enlightened self-interest. We know there is an issue. If we draw attention to ourselves then we could attract criticism, but we could also have a voice in the regulatory solutions. Otherwise we could have something thrust upon us.”
“Thrust upon us”? We get their pollution without it being “requested”.
“Most people are not even aware that making cement produces carbon dioxide. It is an incredibly low-profile business and power companies, transportation and airlines get much more attention. But if producing carbon dioxide starts to cost businesses money, it looks like it will have a huge impact on [cement companies’] financial performance.”
Michio Kimura said companies in developing countries needed to develop cleaner technology so it could be used by cement manufacturers in China, none of which have accepted invitations to join the CSI. But many of the newer cement plants in China are cleaner than more established facilities elsewhere, such as in the US – also not represented by the initiative.
I guess the CSI deserves faint praise for publicizing their effect on the world environment.
The article mentions support for research on reducing cement emissions. Like any industry-sponsored effort, science acquires an extra responsibility to monitor for misdirection in the name of profit – in the progress of that research.
They must be scared Greenpeace will put up human barricades and shut them down.
Best way to diffuse such a situation – recognize it, get help.
Of course China is full of [expletive] and Mr. Friedman correct in saying that for every little bit Tree Huggers do around the world, China annuls 10x over.
“not directly visible to the consumer”==So then what are those smokestacks there belching vapor?- – – and the sterile downwind lakes??
You won’t see the airplanes either if you don’t “look.”
Seems to me that with industrial scale single point pollution producers, something on the kin of smoke scrubbers and co2 sequestering/production on premises could be fairly “efficient.”
Pollution arises because we think using air and water as our toilets is “free.” So, eventually, the prevention of co2 fouling will be prevented, the cost of production will go up, and the market will adjust==but only with mandatory government regulation and enforcement.
Capitalism is all too often a theif in progress. Put them all on probation.
I don’t know what’s coming out of the smokestacks, but carbon dioxide isn’t pollution.
How do you figure that Mike?
Do any of you greenies have any idea how much cement is used in your beloved cities?
John,
Please, I can’t possibly keep up with three simultaneous global warming threads.
#5 – Phillep,
Yes. Did you also know that on average, NYC residents emit 1/3 of the GHGs of the rest of the U.S.?
#6 – DU is piling on to try and get a new record for most daily posts.
Bobbo, carbon dioxide is naturally occurring and is needed for trees to grow. Now it is true that trees cause air pollution, at least according to recent EPA methods of calculating smog. Nevertheless, CO2 doesn’t qualify as a pollutant.
8–Hey IGW–your post on cascading information was interesting to be reminded of. Course, scientific inquirey based on independent studies is supposed to avoid that type of thing.
I guess any growing consensus can be independently arrived at ==or can be a cascade? Have to look at the underlying methodology?
9–Mike, wrong you are. All pollution is “natural” in the sense you state. Rose petals are natural yet would pollute beer. Shit is natural but you don’t want to drink it do you?
In fact, co2 is much like shit. It is a waste product of living things.
The problem here is we need a LOT more concrete. To have a good future it’s very important that we double the number of bridges and lane-miles of freeways as soon as possible.
IGW – you’re not consistent with your creed. Why not just shoot 2 of every 3 SUV owners – then, you’ll be guaranteed enough driving space and available gasoline.
Of course, you probably don’t have the balls to do it yourself. See if someone in government can find an excuse to…
Scott, does that include the CO2 used to make the cities and provide the cities with electricity?
#13 – god,
You of all beings should know. SUVs themselves are a source of natural selection.
#14 – Phillep,
It is my understanding that it takes into account current run rate including repairs and new construction. It probably does not take into account the early 1900s building of the subway, etc.
#13 – What? I want everyone on the roads.
#15 – Actually, you’re right. The problem that’s not the type of vehicle I like. Vehicles like an Explorer are top heavy with too narrow a wheel base. Not to mention, too small. Better to drive something like a Tahoe with the wider wheelbase. Or a full-size truck.
#14 – Phillep,
Here are the details from Bloomberg. Here’s a much more detailed report that is probably the source of the shorter version, though I don’t have time to read that tome.
17 – Scott, I’m just stealing a few minutes between “emergencies” here, so all I could do is a quick scan of the PDF. It looks like the figures are what is produced inside the city and after waste leaves the city. Nothing about the CO2 produced for support of the city before the goods or the trucks enter city limits.
I seriously doubt cement production (or any other support activity) is included in any of the figures.
Consider the Alaska fishing fleet. Lots of pollution, including CO2. Yet, almost all the fish caught go to people living in cities. Who do you think get’s the “credit” for the CO2 and other pollution?
There was a time, a few years ago, when cement companies routinely mixed toxic leavings excavated from defunct chemical, asphalt and creosote plants with pure sand. There was lots of it, and they called it “dirty dirt”, and hauled it in by the hundred truck loads. Then the government reclassified it and they had to haul it to special incinerators on the coasts, where it was burned then hauled offshore in barges and dumped.
Did it pollute? Hell, I don’t know, you’d probably get a rash from folicking naked on the interstate, but I never got that drunk so I don’t know.