Advertisements
Need to stay focused on Green Technology

Need to stay focused on Green Technology

ZAWYA’s #TECHNOLOGY of 16 July, 2019 published this post on The need to stay focused on green technology. It is written by Mazen Al Saleh, Strategic execution manager in Refinitiv.

Actions by individuals and businesses, such as improving energy efficiency in the home or office, make a difference.

The role of technology in keeping climate catastrophe at bay is becoming ever more critical. The resurgence of protests around the world such as the civil havoc wreaked by Extinction Rebellion or the school strikes begun by Swedish schoolgirl Greta Thunberg has renewed pressure on governments to “do something”, no matter how unrealistic or economically ruinous.

The individual and political solutions usually meant by “doing something” are not as straightforward as they sound and may actually create more difficulties than they solve. Actions by individuals and businesses, such as improving energy efficiency in the home or office, make a difference, but this is still a drop in the ocean when put up against the output of the world’s biggest emitters of greenhouse gases. They are also a bit hit-and-miss. Many of us are happy to do our bit of recycling or to stop the tap running while we brush our teeth, but how many of us are prepared never to fly again or to take up a vegan diet?

Similarly, swingeing political solutions such as carbon and fuel taxes can jolly things along, but such taxes inevitably hit the poor hardest and contribute to their own political unrest, as seen with the Yellow Vest movement in France, which could backfire by encouraging the election of more climate-sceptic leaders such as Donald Trump.

Technology presents only opportunities
Yet where individual and political solutions pose their own problems, the technological approach presents only opportunities. The growing recognition of the essential role played by green technology is highlighted by the fact that the World Green Economy Summit held in Dubai last year included a discussion on the role of technology in the green economy, this year it will be the summit’s overarching theme. 

One example of the win-win nature of technological solutions to green issues is renewable energy. In its early days, renewables were seen by many as nothing more than a way for governments to spend taxpayers’ money on switching to more expensive energy. But we hung in there and the fruits are beginning to show. Prices of renewables, particularly solar, are through better technology being brought to a point where not only do they no longer require public subsidy, but turn a profit enough that they become an attractive business proposition. 

Two years ago the World Economic Forum reported that solar and wind power had fallen to the same price or even cheaper than new fossil fuel capacity in more than 30 countries. This was a crucial tipping point for renewable energy, and has led to a big increase in its use by corporates in particular around the world. A report produced last year by FTSE Russell found that the green economy was outperforming much of the rest of the global economy, making green technology an increasingly appealing investment prospect. 

Much still to be done
Still, despite renewable power having accounted for 70 percent of net additions to global power generating capacity in 2017, greenhouse gas emissions edged higher that year nonetheless, showing there is still much work to be done. The main laggards were the heating, cooling and transport sectors, which account for about 80 percent of global energy demand.

This shows that although technological breakthroughs in areas such as renewable energy can have a win-win impact – reduced emissions and cheaper energy – the road ahead isn’t easy. For example, if there is a greater take-up of electric cars this might cause oil prices to fall, which in turn could increase demand from the aviation sector that would push up emissions.

Despite advances in green technology such as the smart grid, electric vehicles, bioplastics, carbon capture and storage, green computers and green packaging, some critics insist that these advances are not nearly enough. They say that although we have been led by some of the modern world’s amazing inventions into believing that technology can achieve anything that simply isn’t true. They contend that future advances in green technology cannot be blindly relied upon to save the planet, and that essential breakthroughs such as improved battery efficiency in electric vehicles may still be a long way off. 

Technology predicted to potentially cut emissions by 64 percent by 2050
But if there are problems with green technology, they are considerably less than those created by a purely political approach, which will inevitably lead to punitive, and polarising, taxes. Governments would do better to ease the path for innovative firms and startups through funding and supportive legislation so they can find the myriad solutions that will be needed to meet or go beyond the carbon targets of the Paris Agreement. ING in a report issued last year predicted that such an approach could result in a 64 percent decrease in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050

To conclude, while the political pressure intensifies to enact all sorts of rash and damaging ecological measures, it is best to keep our heads and do all we can to back and push forward the technological innovations that may not just combat climate change, but do so while strengthening the global economy.

The World Green Economy Summit (WGES) this year will be held at the Dubai International Convention and Exhibition Centre, UAE on October 20th-21st. To learn more about the World Green Economy Summit, please visit the following link http://www.wges.ae/

Related

Advertisements
Food supply chains will get disrupted globally

Food supply chains will get disrupted globally

As Climate change could cause 29% spike in cereal prices: leaked UN report, because Food supply chains will get disrupted globally, the study warns. Report to be officially released in August informs Nitin Sethi, of New Delhi in this article of Business Standard.

As far as the MENA region is concerned, food has always been in short supply, but does this mean it would get worse.

Food supply chains will get disrupted globally

The report will be put before all member countries of the UN Framework Convention and once it gets their stamp of approval by consensus it will be made public on August 8. Photo: Representative Image

“The rate and geographic extent of global land and freshwater resources over recent decades is unprecedented in human history,” a report authored by UN’s panel of scientists from across the world on climate change is set to inform. Business Standard reviewed a leaked copy of the draft report sent to the governments of 197 countries. The report warns that as the global temperatures rise, the stress on land resources and its productivity is set to rise.

The report by the UN Inter-governmental panel on climate change, is called, “IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems.”

The report will be put before all member countries of the UN Framework Convention and once it gets their stamp of approval by consensus it will be made public on August 8.

The authors of the report, gleaning through state-of-art science research have concluded that, “Observed climate change is already affecting the four pillars of food security – availability, access, utilization, and stability – through increased temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and greater frequency of some extreme events.”

Continuing climate change is expected to further “create additional stresses on land systems exacerbating risks related to desertification, land degradation and food security,” the report says.

In a significant finding for countries such as India, the authors say, at global warming of 2° Celsius, the population of drylands exposed and vulnerable to water stress, increased drought intensity and habitat degradation could be as high as 522 million. Scientists conclude that at current levels of greenhouse gas emission reductions committed by the countries under Paris Agreement there is a good likelihood for the planet to breach the 2° Celsius temperature rise barrier.

“In drylands, desertification and climate change are projected to cause further reduction in crop and livestock productivity, modify the composition of plant species and reduce biological diversity,” research endorsed by the scientific panel shows.

Half of the vulnerable population due to the climate-change induced aridity would be in South Asia. The degradation of land due to climate change is already leading to consequent shaving off of the global economy, the scientific panel notes. “There are increasingly negative effects on GDP from impacts on land-based values and ecosystem service as temperature increases,” the report says. But, it notes that, at the regional level, the impacts would vary. “Compound extreme events, such as a heat wave within a drought or drought followed by extreme rainfall, will decrease gross primary productivity of lands, the authors warn

The impact on agriculture in higher latitudes is recorded to be different than in lower ones, such as one covering India. “Increasing temperature are affecting agricultural productivity in higher latitudes, raising yields of some crops such as maize, cotton, wheat, sugar beets, while in lower-latitude regions yields of crops such as maize, wheat and barley are declining.

Modelling results, that the scientific panel reviewed, show that cereal prices could rise by up to 29 per cent in 2050 due to climate change, which would impact consumers globally through higher food prices, though the impact would vary by regions. The stability of food supply is expected to decrease as the magnitude and frequency of extreme events caused by climate change increases, disrupting food chains globally.

The increase in global temperatures and consequent climate change is already affecting the productivity of livestock, which is one a main-stay of Indian rural economy. The authors conclude, “Observed impacts in pastoral systems include pasture declines, lower animal growth rates and productivity, damaged reproductive functions, increased pests and diseases, and loss of biodiversity.”

At the same time coastal economies are already suffering an impact as well. “Coastal erosion is affecting new regions as a result of interacting human drivers and climate change such as sea-level rise and impacts of changing cyclone paths,” though the scientists hold a low level confidence in the scientific research that concludes the impact of climate change on cyclone paths.

Read more :

Could OPEC play second fiddle to US’s oil boom?

Could OPEC play second fiddle to US’s oil boom?

With America’s oil boom, OPEC is stuck in retreat as demonstrated in this June 11, 2019, post of CNN’s. The MENA mainstream media are shouting: Could OPEC play second fiddle to US’s oil boom? In any case, a new world order seems to be taking shape with respect to the world’s energy generation, production and trade.

In the meantime, here is CNN’s view on this seemingly fight between Shale and conventional fossil fuel type of commerce.

Could OPEC play second fiddle to US’s oil boom?

America’s oil boom will break more records this year. OPEC is stuck in retreat

By Matt EganCNN Business

New York (CNN Business) The epic American oil boom is just getting started. OPEC, on the other hand, is stuck on the sidelines. US oil production is on track to spike to a record 13.4 million barrels per day by the end of 2019, according to a recent report by energy research firm Rystad Energy. Texas alone is expected to soon top 5 million barrels per day in oil production — more than any OPEC member other than Saudi Arabia. Oil plunges back into bear market The surge in American barrels — led by the Permian Basin in West Texas — has offset oil blocked by US sanctions on Venezuela and Iran. But all of that US oil is also contributing to a supply glut that last week sent crude into another bear market. OPEC has been forced to scale back its output — a trend that could continue as the cartel tries to prop prices back up. “We continue to see the Permian representing the key driver of global oil supply growth for the next five years,” Goldman Sachs analyst Brian Singer wrote to clients on Monday.

US daily output could soon top 14 million

The shale oil revolution has made the United States the world’s leading producer, surpassing Saudi Arabia and Russia. The ferocity of the US shale oil revolution has caught analysts off guard several times over the past decade. Rystad Energy ramped up its year-end US output forecast by 200,000 to 13.4 million barrels per day. In May, the United States likely produced a record 12.5 million barrels of oil per day, the firm added. All but four million of those barrels were from shale oilfields. That growth is expected to continue. The United States is on track to end 2020 by producing 14.3 million barrels per day, Rystad projects. That’s slightly higher than the firm previously estimated and nearly triple 2008’s output. Of course, analysts could have to rein in those blockbuster forecasts if oil prices crash significantly further. That would force American frackers to preserve cash and pull back on production.

OPEC’s production hits five year low

OPEC remains in retreat as the cartel tries to balance the market by putting a floor beneath prices. OPEC’s oil production tumbled to 29.9 million barrels per day in May, the lowest level in more than five years, Rystad said. OPEC output is down 2.6 million per day since October 2018 — the month before oil prices crashed into the last bear market. Khalid al-Falih, Saudi Arabia’s energy minister, said on Friday that OPEC is close to a deal to extend its production cuts. Those cuts, which Saudi Arabia has borne the brunt of, are due to expire at the end of June. The stock market is ‘spoiled’ by rate cuts” We think that OPEC will at least maintain its output cuts, and maybe even deepen them at their next meeting,” Caroline Bain, chief commodities economist at Capital Economics, wrote in a note to clients on Monday. Rystad dimmed its projection for Saudi Arabia’s oil production from 10.6 million barrels per day to 10.3 million.

Venezuela, Iran under pressure

OPEC’s output could be further hurt by problems in some of its member countries. Iran’s oil exports have plunged because of US sanctions. The years-long collapse of Venezuela’s oil industry has been accelerated in recent months by US sanctions and sprawling blackouts in the South American nation. “There appears little prospect of a recovery in output from Iran or Venezuela any time soon,” Bain wrote. Violence is also threatening oil production in Libya and Nigeria. All told, Rystad Energy estimates 1.3 million barrels per day of oil production is at risk in those four OPEC nations. “Risks to short-term supply are undoubtedly still plentiful,” Rystad analyst Bjørnar Tonhaugen said in the report.

Will crude slide below $50?

Despite all this, analysts aren’t predicting a spike in oil prices. If anything, forecasters are bracing for more pressure on prices, due in part to robust US production. Brent, which has tumbled about 15% since late April to $63 a barrel, should finish the year at around $60 a barrel, according to Capital Economics. The US economy is about to break a record. These 11 charts show why US oil prices, trading at about $54 a barrel, are down nearly 19% since late April. Recent selling has been driven by a spike in oil inventories that suggest demand for crude is deteriorating. Goldman Sachs said that a reversal in the oil demand metrics will be required to prevent US oil prices from sinking below the $50-$60 range.”Our real concern is over demand weakness,” consulting firm Facts Global Energy wrote in a report on Monday. “Have we entered an era where demand will keep falling and we have a lot more oil on our hands than expected?”

How countries can learn from Jordan’s renewable energy pivot

How countries can learn from Jordan’s renewable energy pivot

By 2021 the country is aiming to have well over half of its power generated by wind or solar energy In the meantime, how countries can learn from Jordan’s renewable energy pivot is elaborated on by Robin Mills, CEO of Qamar Energy and published on The National of June 10, 2019.

How countries can learn from Jordan’s renewable energy pivot
Jordan is using the vast expanse of sunny and windy Wadi Rum to harness its renewable ambitions.

On the road from Wadi Rum to Petra in Jordan, where signs point to the Sheikh Zayed solar complex, wind turbines turn languidly in a steady breeze. At Petra, even Bedouin encampments have solar panels and many homes in Amman use solar tubes to heat water. The UAE made headlines with its world-record solar installations, but in all the Middle East, the impact of the renewable revolution is most visible in the Jordanian landscape.

By last year, the Hashemite kingdom had installed 285 megawatts of wind and 771MW of solar power, a significant chunk of its total generation of about 4 gigawatts. By 2021, it wants to have 2.7GW of renewable capacity. Over the next decade, Jordan’s efforts could really take off – providing half of all electricity output, in our analysis at Qamar Energy. It is only a small market, but it is an important trailblazer for the region’s aspirations in renewables.

Jordan’s success has been built on good resources, solid policy and the imperatives of an energy crisis. Like most Middle East countries, the kingdom has abundant sunny desert land and, similar to Egypt and northern Saudi Arabia, it’s also quite windy in places.

The country started early on encouraging renewables with the Tafila wind farm, a joint venture with Masdar, built in 2015. It offers investors a reasonable return and gives smaller users such as hospitals and universities the chance to build solar panels on vacant land and transmit the power through a grid.

The biggest impetus to alternative energy was the cut-off from Egyptian gas supplies following the 2011 revolution, because of repeated militant attacks on the Sinai pipeline. Jordan’s budget deficit widened because the country, which imports more than 90 per cent of its energy needs and has historically financed its deficits through grants and soft loans, had to burn expensive oil for electricity. Jordan, which already hosted thousands of Iraqi refugees, had to accommodate an increasing power demand due to an influx of 1.3 million Syrians escaping the conflict in their country.

In response, the kingdom opened a liquefied natural gas import terminal at Aqaba, and negotiated supplies from the American company Noble, which produces from offshore Israel. Jordan has large resources of oil shale, effectively an immature form of petroleum source rocks, which can be cooked into oil. A Chinese-led consortium is developing a power plant based on burning this dirty material.

Jordan’s success has been built on good resources, solid policy and the imperatives of an energy crisis.

Efforts to construct a nuclear power plant have been hampered by a lack of cooling water, public opposition and the high costs of financing. Instead, Amman may opt for smaller, modular nuclear reactors that could be fabricated off-site.

To cover the higher costs of fuel, energy subsidies had to be cut back, putting a heavy burden on citizens at a time of sharp economic slowdown. But this had the positive effect of making individual rooftop solar installations attractive for small businesses and householders.

Local Jordanian companies, such as Kawar Energy and Shamsuna Power, along with Dubai-based companies including Yellow Door Energy, have created viable businesses and high-skilled employment. By the early 2020s, Jordan will have the Middle East’s lowest carbon output electricity grid, despite the carbon-heavy oil shale facility.

Success will soon bring its own challenges. Renewable output will exceed total demand at times, while the country still needs to provide for high-consumption and night-time periods. Hydropower, which could be used to store excess renewables, is minimal in the desert country.

The Red-Dead Sea project is intended to bring water to the Dead Sea, which is fast drying up due to climate change and the overuse of the Jordan River. On the way, the water would generate power for desalination. But the expensive venture faces environmental concerns and political hurdles in co-operating with Israel.

Philadelphia Solar, a local company, has announced plans for a solar plant with battery storage. Concentrated solar thermal plants (CSP), like the one under construction in Dubai, can save the Sun’s heat to generate power overnight. These do not seem to be part of Jordan’s plans yet, but the country has excellent conditions for CSP.

Electricity interconnections with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the West Bank are also underway, which could boost the resilience and renewable share of the whole area’s power grid. It could also send power to help rebuild war-torn Syria.

Jordan’s consumers will have to consider the benefits from the country’s renewable expansion, particularly industries which have complained of high electricity prices. Prices are high during peak demand hours, but this scheme will have to become more flexible to lower prices when there is an excess of solar.

Jordan’s small market and head start in renewable energy means it will reach these hurdles to solar deployment probably before any other country in the region. Its success in devising policies to continue attracting capital, boosting its renewable generation, local employment and electricity exports, while reducing consumer bills, will be an important signal for its neighbours.

This is particularly true for countries in the Arabian Gulf – whose utility companies are thinking about how to overcome similar barriers to their bold renewable plans. Such complementary resources and opportunities open the space for co-operation between these two regional allies.

Robin Mills is CEO of Qamar Energy and author of The Myth of the Oil Crisis.

Read More

What’s Driving this Biodiversity Crisis

What’s Driving this Biodiversity Crisis

The release of a major report looking at the state of nature presents a grim forecast for the future of humanity and the planet. Gitika Bhardwaj speaks to Sandra Diaz, co-chair of the report, about what’s driving this biodiversity crisis and how we can stop it before it’s too late.

Biodiversity Loss Is as Big a Crisis as Climate Change

By Gitika Bhardwaj, Digital Editor. @GitikaBhardwaj, LinkedIn, and Sandra Diaz, Co-Chair, Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Report

13 May 2019

Elks gallop in Nanchang, Jiangxi, China. Elks have been released into the wild to improve biodiversity and protect the ecosystem of China’s largest freshwater lake. Photo: Getty Images.

Elks gallop in Nanchang, Jiangxi, China. Elks have been released into the wild to improve biodiversity and protect the ecosystem of China’s largest freshwater lake. Photo: Getty Images.

Last week, 150 experts from 50 countries released a major report demonstrating that nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented, with up to 1 million species threatened with extinction, more than at any other time in human history. What is driving this global loss of biodiversity and how is it different from previous waves of extinctions experienced on Earth?

It is believed that the Earth has experienced five mass extinctions in its history but the crucial difference is that this time the threat is being caused by humans.

Our actions over the past 50 years have been the cause of record losses in species – tens to hundreds of times faster than the natural rate of extinction over the past 10 million years. Since 1970 alone, vertebrate populations have fallen by 40 per cent for land-based species, 84 per cent for freshwater species and 35 per cent for marine species.

This is happening due to a number of human activities: accelerating land-use change such as through farming and logging, overusing our seas and oceans such as through fishing, polluting our air, soil and water systems, hunting and also – voluntarily or involuntarily – transporting invasive species across distant regions. And this is happening on an unprecedented, worldwide scale.

Human activities have significantly altered around three-quarters of all land and two-thirds of all oceans on the planet according to the report. From insect pollination that provides us with food to mangrove swamps that shield us from storms, how much do humans depend on nature and how much will it impact us if it continues to degrade at the current rate?

One of the things the report highlights is the deep dependence of all humans on nature. We depend on nature to have a fulfilling life no matter where we live – often without realizing it. We depend on nature for our physical sustenance, cultural continuity and sense of identity.

Of course, nature also regulates a number of processes that we don’t even notice that are the basis of our economies and well-being such as clean water, protection from environmental hazards, the pollination of crops and the regulation of the climate. So we cannot live life as we know it, and as we enjoy it, without nature.

In the report, we take stock of the different kinds of nature’s contributions to people and we conclude that, with the exception of the production of food, energy and raw materials, all of the other contributions nature gives to people – about 14 out 18 kinds – are declining globally.

We have analysed a number of scenarios, and in all of them, there is a sharp decrease in nature and its capacity to regulate all of the Earth’s natural processes.

Furthermore, climate change is increasingly interacting with all of the other human-induced drivers of biodiversity loss in complex ways, so the future looks extremely grim for most people around the world, and much worse for some more than others in just the next 30-40 years.

This loss of biodiversity reportedly poses as serious, and urgent, a threat to humans as climate change but it has been less discussed. Why do you think this has been the case and, given increasing public concern after last year’s report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)and widespread public protests this year, do you believe this could change?

Yes definitely. The IPCC has traditionally gotten much more attention but that is because the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is much younger. This is the first global biodiversity assessment since 2005 to present the state of biodiversity and ecosystem services and what it means for humanity.

In contrast, the IPCC has decades of history, so we are following in their steps, inspired by them in the way we organize ourselves, and as a result, I think people are starting to listen.

We have been pleasantly surprised at the amount of public attention we received when the report was released last week. There are environmental movements that have been focused on climate change that now – only one week after the release of the report – have already announced that they will fight for nature as well as the climate because they have realized you cannot fight for one without fighting for the other.

Zebras in a dust storm in Amboseli National Park in Kenya. Photo: Getty Images.

The report sheds light on how the issues of sustainable development, climate change and biodiversity are interrelated. How much, then, does tackling these issues require an integrated approach, for example, through international agreements including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Aichi Targets on biodiversity? Do these instruments need to be reformed in any way?

It’s totally dependent on an integrated approach. In the report, we go to great lengths to show how trying to fix human well-being for all, climate change and biodiversity in isolation is not going to work – you actually risk making the other two problems worse if you only try to fix one without considering the other two.

The three instruments you mention need to consider all three pillars – a good quality of life for all, the climate and biodiversity – in a far more integrated way than has ever been done before. These instruments need to talk to each other and make sure they consider each other when devising targets and implementing actions.

For example, in our assessment of the SDGs, we found that many of them do not explicitly mention biodiversity which is surprising given that you cannot achieve them without nature – the fabric of life.

What’s more, we need to focus much more on actions rather than on somewhat nebulous targets. There is a lot of synergy to be achieved in the three agreements and I think the people driving them are now much more prepared to listen than ever before.

The report has been approved by 132 governments, with France announcing that it now aims to make protecting biodiversity as important a priority as climate change, while the G7 countries – in addition to Chile, Fiji, Gabon, Mexico, Niger and Norway – have all announced their commitment to protecting biodiversity in response to the report too. What action would you like to see other governments take?   

In a nutshell, I would like to see governments put their money where their words are, so to speak. They all have expressed their concern about biodiversity loss – and most of the governments, if not all, have praised the findings in our report – but we now need action.

There are a number of fixes that can be done easily and quickly such as creating more protected areas, improving waste treatment systems, banning plastics, improving fishing gear and recycling more. This can all help enormously but only if done together because on their own it’s won’t be enough.

In order to have a chance of containing the destruction of our natural world, we need to do all of the above, in addition to tackling the root causes. That means addressing the activities driving land-use change and changes in our seas and oceans, climate change, pollution and the spread of invasive species.

Importantly, these root causes are all related to our lifestyles. That’s why we say, although the biodiversity crisis looks biological, the causes and solutions are deeply social.

So governments need to integrate biodiversity considerations across all sectors – not just better environmental policies but also better policies related to agriculture, infrastructure and trade. Biodiversity is not just a concern for respective ministers of the environment – it’s a concern for all ministers since it’s a concern for all sectors.

It’s all about putting nature and the public good first rather than the narrow, economic interests of a minority. It’s as simple – and as difficult – as that.

Further reading:

Carbon Neutral Concrete can be had by 2050

Carbon Neutral Concrete can be had by 2050

Climate Change News on 13 May 2019, informs that Carbon neutral concrete can be had by 2050.

In a first for the sector, the world’s fourth-largest maker said it would cut emissions in line with Paris climate goals.

Cement giant Heidelberg pledges carbon neutral concrete by 2050

By Natalie Sauer

Cement accounts for around 6% of global carbon dioxide emissions (Pic: Pixabay)

The world’s fourth largest cement company pledged on Monday to bring its emission reduction targets in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement, in a first for the industry.

HeidelbergCement, which employs some 58,000 people in 60 countries, committed to slash direct emissions by 15% per tonne of its products by 2030 from 2016 levels.

The construction behemoth also committed to cut indirect emissions, for example from its electricity supply, by 65% a tonne within the same time-frame.

“The commitment, which is part of the company’s wider vision to realise CO2-neutral concrete by 2050 at the latest, is a powerful signal that the built environment is transitioning towards a zero-carbon future,” said Jennifer Gerholdt, corporate engagement director at We Mean Business, a coalition of companies promoting climate action.

“It’s also vital for the decarbonization of entire economies, given concrete is the most widely used man-made substance on earth, one of the hardest to decarbonize and in growing demand due to rising population and urbanization.”

The cement sector accounts for around 7% of carbon dioxide emissions, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Heidelberg joined the Science-Based Targets initiative, under which corporations submit their strategies for independent assessment against the 2C upper global warming limit agreed in Paris.

At the UN climate action summit in September, 38 businesses, property developers and engineering firms included, cities and states signed up to develop net-zero buildings by 2030.

The move comes as the number of new buildings is tipped to grow in the coming years, in particular in Africa and Asia.  This rapid expansion will test a 30% energy intensity improvement in buildings by 2030, required to put the industry on track to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Change Agreement, according to the IEA and UN Environment.

Related posts:

  1. Nordic states eye 2050 carbon-neutral energy system
  2. Swiss researchers set out how to decarbonise cement
  3. EU cement giants net €5bn carbon market windfall
  4. France introduces 2050 carbon-neutral law

This article originally appeared on Climate Home News