Cement Energy & Environment

12 Even with these options, no single method suffices. The incremental approaches (efficiency, fuel shift, SCMs) together could cut perhaps 30–40% of emissions[4][5]. For example, replacing ~50% of clinker with LC³ cement yields ~45–55% savings[5], and widespread SCM use (as recommended by US DOE) could cut 20–25%[4]. However, the remaining ~50% of emissions (mostly from limestone calcination) requires novel solutions. This is where advanced cements, electrified processes, and CCS become critical. Figure 2 and Table 1 indicate that to reach <2 °C climate targets, investment must focus on these high-impact options[26]. Encouragingly, several technology startups and pilot projects are emerging (e.g. electric calciners, plasma kilns, biocements), but most are at early stage. Finally, concrete production also interacts with infrastructure sustainability. Using low-carbon concrete (with recycled aggregates, optimized mixture designs) in roads and buildings reduces embodied carbon. Agencies can design resilient infrastructure that uses cement judiciously (e.g. replacing some concrete with engineered wood) and recovers concrete debris for new projects. Accelerating concrete carbonation, for example through CO 2 curing of precast elements, can sequester additional carbon. Overall, life-cycle strategies — from material sourcing to demolition —play a significant role in the industry’s net impact. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Technical solutions must be supported by policy. The cement sector will only decarbonize at scale if there are strong market signals and regulations. Experts argue for a coordinated policy portfolio combining public funding, market instruments, and regulation[27]. For instance, government grants and R&D subsidies can de-risk early- stage technologies (biocements, electrified kilns, etc.)[27]. Carbon pricing or emissions trading would internalize CO 2 costs, making low-carbon cement more competitive. Market measures like public procurement mandates or carbon tariffs could create demand: for example, advance purchase commitments (guaranteed buyers of low-carbon cement) have been proposed to jumpstart markets[28][29]. Standard-setting is also crucial. Many U.S. states still impose content- based rules that limit SCM usage in concrete[30], effectively slowing adoption of blended cements. Shifting to performance-based standards (specifying concrete strength and durability rather than cement content) would enable higher clinker substitution. Similarly, building codes and infrastructure standards can require or reward low-CO 2 concrete. On the supply side, streamlined permitting for CCS pipelines and tax incentives (e.g. expanded 45Q credits) would accelerate carbon capture deployment[31]. Internationally, aligning cement decarbonization with climate policy is key. The Paris Agreement’s goal (roughly 50% global GHG cuts by 2050) implies cement emissions must also fall by half or more[32]. National climate plans should explicitly include cement strategies. For example, the EU’s “Fit-for-55” package envisions tighter ETS caps and possible product standards for concrete. In China (the largest cement producer), the government’s peak-emissions mandate implies an end to expanding cement CO 2 . Policies such as mandatory use of LC³ in some regions, or incorporation of cement in carbon markets, could be effective. Finally, cross-sector measures (life- cycle assessments, green building certifications, and financing mechanisms that value low-carbon materials)will reinforce thesepolicies. Inshort, amix of carbon pricing, procurement rules, R&D support, and updated construction codes is needed to translate technical potential into reality[27][30]. CONCLUSION Cement production is a major climate challenge, but a suite of solutions exists to mitigate its impact. Conventional measures (improving efficiency and fuel source, using SCMs) can reduce emissions by a few tens of percent[3][4]. However, meeting deep decarbonization goals requires innovative pathways. Novel cements (e.g. LC³, low-carbon clinkers) and material recycling can cut 40–60%, while electrification and carbon capture aim at near-total abatement[5][7]. The evidence shows no single silver bullet; rather, an integrated strategy is needed. Policymakers and industry must cooperate: rules and incentives should favor low-carbon cements, and investment should de- risk breakthrough technologies. With supportive policy and continued R&D, the cement and concrete sector can align with a net-zero future. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The author has written this paper based on his understanding of the subject matter. The intention is to raise awareness, not to create bias, prejudice, or conflict. The author and their organization are not responsible for any misinterpretations or consequences derived from this article.