0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Growing role of concrete in sand and climate crises

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Concrete production poses multiple sustainability challenges, including resource over-exploitation and climate change. Here we show that growing global demand for buildings and infrastructure over the past three decades has quadrupled concrete production, reaching ∼26 Gt/year in 2020. As a result, annual requirements for virgin concrete aggregates (∼20 Gt/year) exceeded the extraction of all fossil fuels (∼15 Gt/year), exacerbating sand scarcity, ecosystem destruction, and social conflict. We also show that despite industry efforts to reduce CO 2 emissions by ∼20% per unit of production, mainly through clinker substitution and improved thermal efficiency, increased production has outweighed these gains. Consequently, concrete-related CO 2 emissions have tripled between 1990 and 2020, and its contribution to global emissions has risen from 5% to 9%. We propose that the policy agenda should focus more on limiting production growth by changing how concrete structures are designed, constructed, used, and disposed of to address the sand and climate crises.

          Graphical abstract

          Highlights

          • Global concrete production quadrupled from 1990 to 2020

          • Demand for virgin concrete aggregates exceeded the extraction of all fossil fuels

          • The concrete industry’s share of global CO 2 emissions rose to 9% in 2020

          Abstract

          Environmental science; Global change; Civil engineering

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The LMDI approach to decomposition analysis: a practical guide

          B.W Ang (2005)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            Global Carbon Budget 2021

            Abstract. Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate is critical to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize datasets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly, and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based data products. The terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the first time, an approach is shown to reconcile the difference in our ELUC estimate with the one from national greenhouse gas inventories, supporting the assessment of collective countries' climate progress. For the year 2020, EFOS declined by 5.4 % relative to 2019, with fossil emissions at 9.5 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 (9.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 0.9 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for a total anthropogenic CO2 emission of 10.2 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1 (37.4 ± 2.9 GtCO2). Also, for 2020, GATM was 5.0 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.4 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 3.0 ± 0.4 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 2.9 ± 1 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of −0.8 GtC yr−1. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration averaged over 2020 reached 412.45 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2021 suggest a rebound in EFOS relative to 2020 of +4.8 % (4.2 % to 5.4 %) globally. Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2020, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of annual to semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from multiple approaches and observations shows (1) a persistent large uncertainty in the estimate of land-use changes emissions, (2) a low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) a discrepancy between the different methods on the strength of the ocean sink over the last decade. This living data update documents changes in the methods and datasets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this dataset (Friedlingstein et al., 2020, 2019; Le Quéré et al., 2018b, a, 2016, 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2021 (Friedlingstein et al., 2021).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Towards sustainable concrete

              Paulo J. M. Monteiro, Sabbie A. Miller and Arpad Horvath provide an overview of the challenges and accomplishments in reducing the environmental burden of concrete production.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                iScience
                iScience
                iScience
                Elsevier
                2589-0042
                29 April 2023
                19 May 2023
                29 April 2023
                : 26
                : 5
                : 106782
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Material Cycles Division, National Institute for Environmental Studies, 16-2, Onogawa, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8506, Japan
                [2 ]Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK
                [3 ]Energy and Materials in Infrastructure and Buildings (EMIB), University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author watari.takuma@ 123456nies.go.jp
                [4]

                Lead contact

                Article
                S2589-0042(23)00859-3 106782
                10.1016/j.isci.2023.106782
                10214720
                37250298
                683e307b-4886-4794-8c42-6988ff6c1c0e
                © 2023 The Author(s)

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 26 July 2022
                : 23 October 2022
                : 25 April 2023
                Categories
                Article

                environmental science,global change,civil engineering

                Comments

                Comment on this article