"Europe is an exception, where cement companies have to buy allowances to cover their CO2 emissions and can save money if they produce less. But in many other countries, such as the US, policies are not in place yet to encourage cement makers to pay for greener alternatives."
That seems like a no-brainer, to build the externalities into the cost of goods.
So don't pay your carbon tax into the general fund. Pay the revenue out as a dividend, equal amount per capita. If you emit less CO2 than average you come out ahead.
Poor people tend to emit quite a bit less than rich people; they buy less, ride the bus more, live in apartments or smaller houses, etc.
If you want to go down this road you should be looking at % of income spent on carbon taxes.
Maybe some “carbon allowance” would then be afforded so the lower income people that qualify could claim a deduction on their personal income tax return.
Lower income people would already be turning a profit. Anyone with lower-than-average emissions would get more in their monthly dividend check than they pay in total carbon fees.
73% "claim" to support taxing corporations. How many will actually vote for it knowing it means higher prices? This is the fundamental issue with climate change. Everyone agrees someone else should do something...
> That seems like a no-brainer, to build the externalities into the cost of goods.
The real estate business is so profitable in the West that I doubt that even adding an extra zero to the price of concrete will make them to even scratch in the end.
It gives cement companies an incentive to invest in greener tech because what would previously have been a pure cost now allow them to pay less taxes which means they can sell cheaper. That makes R&D into lowering emissions a competitive advantage.
It only works if everyone does it, and if they do it for the majority of emissions sources. As long as all the non-europe bits of the world don't do it, it's pointless. It just makes their flood defenses more expensive to build.
Why would this not work? Its by definition a business that requires local delivery, so every potential competitor is equally affected and there is no laughing third party that benefits.
It won't work as in it won't stop climate change. If one area stops emissions (especially an already low emissions area like European concrete) it doesn't make much difference overall.
Timber buildings sequester carbon naturally. Transitioning from cement and steel to timber could take hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere.
> CarbonCure, a start-up based in Canada, has developed an add-on machine that injects CO2 at the point of mixing the cement with water and sand to create concrete. This permanently stores the CO2 and makes the concrete stronger.
I'm very sceptical of this. If you add CO2 to concrete, the extra strength comes from calcium carbonate, which accelerates concrete aging, and generally reduces its useful life. It's never a good thing.
I readup on what they do, and there is nowhere this is addressed.
Their official stance (https://www.carboncure.com/concrete-corner/key-differences-b...) simply restates the facts without addressing the ultimate fact that this concrete will have much lesser pH reserve for the corrosion to eat through, more porosity, and that this will reduce its useful life in the end no matter what.
Generating more concrete sales that are “green” (from a marketing perspective) but in reality having a net increase and increasing the demand for “green” solutions. Brilliant business model.
cement scientist here, two postdocs in the field for 4 years.
while this co2 curing seems interesting some points should be noted:
1) polluting industries greenwash with no shame, further inspection of claims most of the time reveals that either the technology is impossible to scale up, or is simple PR with of scientific value.
2) i had the opportunity to work with some of the best cement scientists on earth. cement is so complex that it's basically not understood at all. we typically know more of a neutron star a billion light years away than a piece of concrete. this is arguably the most complex material known to man. we don't even know how various phases cristallise individually.
3) any effort to understand the fundamentals of the material in a scientific context will result in little to no funding. writing a proposal for "nano-smart-bs-concrete" you'll get millions of funding and make the front page of Nature/Science with your fancy article.
4) co2 isn't the only issue, by far. resources extraction is a massive problem, search "Holcim Eclepens" to see the scares it leaves. sand is even worst since desert sand doesn't work, and many places are running out of it.
5) yet another issue is comminution, namely the process of grinding clinker to dust, it is a process (ball mills) that has less than 1% efficiency. it's estimated that humanity spends 10% of electricity to make powders. there are other techniques but usually it's very hard to get a particle size distribution (PSD) with good properties.
6) it's in the end a cultural thing mostly. you can build most of the building with crude soil + straw + wood. slightly more expensive but materials readily available on site most of the time and have much better thermal properties.
7) why not using material that Life developed during 4 billion years. mushrooms are promising for instance.
28 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 68.4 ms ] threadThat seems like a no-brainer, to build the externalities into the cost of goods.
Carbon taxes need to drive a shift in planning - on the planning time horizon - for everything that emits carbon
Poor people tend to emit quite a bit less than rich people; they buy less, ride the bus more, live in apartments or smaller houses, etc.
Maybe some “carbon allowance” would then be afforded so the lower income people that qualify could claim a deduction on their personal income tax return.
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of...
The real issue is that the remaining 27% have a death grip on the levers of power by exploiting undemocratic aspects of the US electoral system.
The real estate business is so profitable in the West that I doubt that even adding an extra zero to the price of concrete will make them to even scratch in the end.
It gives cement companies an incentive to invest in greener tech because what would previously have been a pure cost now allow them to pay less taxes which means they can sell cheaper. That makes R&D into lowering emissions a competitive advantage.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200127134828.h...
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-e...
I'm very sceptical of this. If you add CO2 to concrete, the extra strength comes from calcium carbonate, which accelerates concrete aging, and generally reduces its useful life. It's never a good thing.
I readup on what they do, and there is nowhere this is addressed.
Their official stance (https://www.carboncure.com/concrete-corner/key-differences-b...) simply restates the facts without addressing the ultimate fact that this concrete will have much lesser pH reserve for the corrosion to eat through, more porosity, and that this will reduce its useful life in the end no matter what.
while this co2 curing seems interesting some points should be noted:
1) polluting industries greenwash with no shame, further inspection of claims most of the time reveals that either the technology is impossible to scale up, or is simple PR with of scientific value.
2) i had the opportunity to work with some of the best cement scientists on earth. cement is so complex that it's basically not understood at all. we typically know more of a neutron star a billion light years away than a piece of concrete. this is arguably the most complex material known to man. we don't even know how various phases cristallise individually.
3) any effort to understand the fundamentals of the material in a scientific context will result in little to no funding. writing a proposal for "nano-smart-bs-concrete" you'll get millions of funding and make the front page of Nature/Science with your fancy article.
4) co2 isn't the only issue, by far. resources extraction is a massive problem, search "Holcim Eclepens" to see the scares it leaves. sand is even worst since desert sand doesn't work, and many places are running out of it.
5) yet another issue is comminution, namely the process of grinding clinker to dust, it is a process (ball mills) that has less than 1% efficiency. it's estimated that humanity spends 10% of electricity to make powders. there are other techniques but usually it's very hard to get a particle size distribution (PSD) with good properties.
6) it's in the end a cultural thing mostly. you can build most of the building with crude soil + straw + wood. slightly more expensive but materials readily available on site most of the time and have much better thermal properties.
7) why not using material that Life developed during 4 billion years. mushrooms are promising for instance.
You can't just leave that there!
Mushrooms as a building material? I really hope you were not joking, because that sounds unbelievably cool.
Can you recommend any blogs, feeds, influencers to follow?
As a curious noob, I'd totally subscribe to The Limiting Factor for cement and adjacent.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIFn7ONIJHyC-lMnb7Fm_jw