New research finds that U.S. material production carries $79 billion in hidden annual climate costs due to emissions.
A new study recently published in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research Letters reveals that the production of common materials in the United States incurs an astonishing $79 billion in climate-related costs each year. These expenses, driven by greenhouse gas emissions, remain hidden from current market prices, effectively functioning as an enormous subsidy for carbon-intensive industries.
“High price point is a common reason why low emission alternative materials are not adopted voluntarily by industries. Accounting for the externalized cost of emissions could provide an economic basis for driving innovation and implementation of alternative material production methods,” says lead author Elisabeth Van Roijen, PhD, University of California Davis.
Scope and Methodology of the Study
The research, conducted by researchers at the University of California, Davis, examines nine widely used materials: asphalt, plastics, brick, glass, cement, lime, gypsum, steel, and aluminum. By analyzing production data, energy consumption, and emissions factors, the researchers calculated both the energy-related (e.g. as required for high-temperature processes) and process-related (e.g. resulting from chemical reactions) carbon dioxide emissions for each material.
Key findings include:
- These nine materials resulted in 427 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2018.
- If the climate costs from these emissions were factored into prices, some materials would see significant cost increases:
- Cement: 62% increase
- Lime: 61% increase
- Gypsum: 47% increase
- Steel: 22%
- Plastics: 19%
- Steel and plastics, despite climate-related costs constituting a lower fraction of their market value, are each responsible for over $20 billion in annual climate costs due to their high production volumes.
Climate Costs and Policy Implications
The study used the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) estimate of $184 per ton of CO2 to calculate the climate-related costs. This figure captures the quantifiable economic damage associated with increased carbon emissions, including impacts on human health, agriculture, and coastal infrastructure.
Incorporating these climate costs into material prices could drive innovation in low-carbon production methods and increase the competitiveness of recycling and alternative materials. For example, if aluminum and steel production transitioned entirely to renewable energy sources, their climate-related costs would decrease by 95% and 79%, respectively.
The report emphasizes the policy implications of the findings and the need for coordinated international action. Such materials pricing occurring only in the US could result in increased imports of lower-cost, higher carbon-emitting materials from other countries.
Targeted policies are needed to address the process-related emissions (such as chemical reactions in cement and lime) that cannot be eliminated by switching to clean energy sources. Improved recycling rates, extended producer responsibility laws, and alternative materials could all play a role in reducing emissions.
As global material demand continues to grow, particularly in developing economies, the researchers call for further research into policy solutions to address the climate impacts of material production and use in a global and coordinated manner.
Reference: “The unaccounted-for climate costs of materials” by Paikea Colligan, Elisabeth Van Roijen, Seth Kane, Frances Moore and Sabbie A Miller, 24 October 2024, Environmental Research Letters.
DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ad796e
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
14 Comments
29:10:24. CLIMATE CHANGE. I don’t want to Alarm you but you have to know how to Protects yourselves and Protects this Planet. That’s the only Planet we all have for the Immediate Future. So Protecting Her should be your or our First Priorities. The closest Moon or the closest Planet we have is going to take NASA’s / ESA Space Rockets Ship about 5 years plus to get to the Moon. That’s one way and to come back to Earth will take another 5 years plus = 11 years plus. The problems I have about that is. If is an incase of Emergencies what we are we going to do? If we Cry for help the nearest People that can help us is going to take them about 1 million years to get to this Planet. That is if by then they have the Means and Willing to help Us. Also if they can Hear Us intime. NASA has sent Space Aircraft Voyager to Space since 1977 or so and up till today the Aircraft hasn’t find anything in Space or anyone for that Matter. So be wise my People. Earth is the only one for now. No Earth. no place for Humans and Animals to live or stay. About keeping the World safe is going to involve all of Humanity to keep the Ginning in the Bottle, and is going to take Humanity a lot of Resources. Mainly Money. And we are about 8.2 billions in this Planet as of today. So we have people to do the job. And as of today we also have the Technologies. All our Climate problems can be Tackled, Solf or reduce gradually. Although is going to take time to Fixed what we have broken. That is If we have the Sealed or Will to survives for the Future. We have exposed ourselves and the World to Calamities since Second World War or so and since Industrial Revolution. The Planet will be safe and so is our Future. Thanks. To be continued. M. Luke.
Are there potential substitutes identified to replace these 9 products? If so, has it been demonstrated that they will produce less CO2? If there are no ready substitutes, what assurance is there that a desire to find some will be sufficient to be successful? There are a finite number of elements in the Periodic Table, and they are not all equally abundant or amenable to fabrication. That is, we might be stuck with what we are currently using. Maybe we could make new plastics, but they are basically long-chain hydrocarbons derived from fossil fuel stocks; therefore, what is the likelihood that they won’t be the same problems in a different package? Cement and lime are incredibly abundant, or rather, the precursor to them is, limestone. Basically, as building materials, one just adds energy to create new buildings, bridges, and roads. What could possibly be more abundant than limestone? Sand is even in short supply. I’m not sure where they are going with this.
Unfortunately, it is risky to try to produce aluminum and steel with unreliable energy sources, because if the power goes out while the metals are liquid, it will be expensive (read energy intensive) to reclaim the metal, and it may be necessary to re-build the furnace. That is why most aluminum production is sited close to hydroelectricity sources. For that reason, I’m suspicious of the claim of a 95% reduction in “climate-related costs” for aluminum by transitioning to renewable energy other than hydroelectric — maybe fission or fusion reactors, but NOT wind or solar!
Plastics; we used to use washable recyclable glass jars and bottles. We used to use string bags to carry stuff home in from the nearby greengrocer maybe 10 minutes walk away. We used to use public transport to go to work or travel to see friends. We used to use our bicycles to to ride to work. We used to be more efficient and fitter as a result. That was in my lifetime.
Not in the US your didn’t.
Yes; the USA IS unique, more is the pity for those who live there.
Something that those ‘across the pond’ don’t seem to realize: our states are as big or bigger than most European countries, and Texas is probably bigger than the European Union. California is roughly the size of New Zealand. Our formerly abundant resources are what allowed us to supply our WWII allies, win the war, and rebuild the bombed out European cities. More is the pity for those who don’t appreciate what others have done for them.
More is the pity that those of you across the pond forget that the entire UK’s gold reserves paid for arms from the USA in the first two years of WW2, that a number of UK patents including those making radar work properly went freely to the USA, that the UK’s WW2 war debt with interest to the USA was paid off in 2006 and the USA’s loan to the UK in 1947 was paid off with interest in 2011. Now, back to WW1; the USA was umpteen million dollars in debt in 1914. The UK’s arms purchases from the USA by 1918 had put the USA’s economy well and truly in the black, making the USA a very wealthy country. Had not the UK amortised the WW1 debt in 1932, the interest on that WW1 loan would have meant the loan would have been paid out in 1982. Apart from the obsolete 50 rust-bucket WW1 destroyers sold to the UK in exchange for several strategic islands in the Caribbean in 1940.
Source; the 6 volume account of WW1 written in the 1930, and common knowledge among my and my parent’s generations who spent 2 years trying to deal with the Nazis , Vichy French and Italians in North Africa, the Middle East, Europe and Scandinavia before the USA could be bothered, as well as subsequently fighting Japan to the finish in Burma and PNG . My father and his fellows squaddies in their UK army mess cheered gladly when the news of Pear Harbour came through; how odd!
I suppose we should have left the USA to the French in 1753 +\- a couple of years……….at least the cooking would be good…..
Interesting comments, which I must confess I had not previously been exposed to. However, as to the source, I doubt that the 1930 citation could have known when the debts and loans would have been paid off. You obviously left out some things. How much more did you leave out?
As to your claim about UK gold reserves, Copilot says, “Not exactly. While it’s true that the UK used a significant portion of its gold reserves to pay for arms from the USA during the early years of World War II, it wasn’t the entire reserve. The UK shipped gold to the USA to finance the purchase of war materials. This was part of a broader strategy that included borrowing from the US and other sources. The gold shipments were a crucial part of this strategy, but they were not the sole source of funding.”
I might point out that when England lost most of its small arms during the debacle at Dunkirk, American sportsmen stepped up and gave their personal firearms to at least re-arm the home guard. Very few of those were ever returned.
As to the “obsolete 50 rust-bucket WW1 destroyers sold to the UK,” there is an old English saying, “Beggars can’t be choosers.” Did you expect that we would give GB our best and leave ourselves vulnerable? After the “war to end all wars,” the Great Recession took a toll on the US. We weren’t spending the kind of money on the military that we are today. Britain was lucky that we were willing to part with any. I think some saw that aircraft carriers would become more important and thought it a reasonable thing to trade obsolete destroyers for strategic islands to help protect the US. England didn’t have to accept the trade! They could have declined the offer. However, at the time, GB couldn’t defend their homeland, let alone some far flung islands adjacent to the US.
During the ’30s, the US sentiment was one of pacifism. The public didn’t want to get pulled into what seemed to be yet another of the endless European wars. There are some who think that it wasn’t a coincidence that our aircraft carriers weren’t in Pearl Harbor, as the Japanese expected, when the attack came. Inasmuch as we had cracked the Japanese code and were intercepting their messages routinely, there are those who think that FDR allowed the attack to happen to get rid of the “obsolete” destroyers and battleships, not reveal that we could read their ‘secure’ messages, and get the public riled up enough to approve going to war. You should be thanking FDR rather than complaining that he traded “rust buckets.”
Just as there are some US southerners who are still bitter about losing the Civil War, it appears that there are some Brits who are still sore about the US breaking away from England.
As usual, classic UK mucking around with peace in our time and pacifism and believing in the League of Nations and such stuff as decency between nations. That’s the problem with running an Empire for a few hundred years; one gets too complacent.
Yes; I am well aware that John Wayne and Robert Mitchum weren’t at Dunkirk to save the UK. Good on FDR; the last decent President of the USA, but I doubt that the average UK Naval Rating was overly enthusiastic about sailing the stormy seas in those “rust buckets”. However, I am sure they might have scared the U-boat captains as much as they scared those who sailed in them. And they weren’t given, they were traded; but that’s how to dump obsolete mothballed coal-fired destroyers with inadequate weaponry on an ally 21 years after their use-by date.
As for the USA breaking away from the UK (you are welcome to it), that’s no problem, but after the 1750s the French would have improved your cooking, and maybe the Spanish might have managed to hang on to Texas, California, Arizona and even Nevada (I have heard that Nevada is somewhere near Texas). Again, a civilised improvement in regards to cooking, alcohol and the siesta; how odd to think that the southern and western USA might be being run from Mexico City, if only………………Keep laughing.
Yes, you and your fellow nationalistic chest thumpers spent nearly half a millenia building a colonial empire, and in the process engaged in countless wars to preserve it. The tribalistic squabbles between you and your rivals (the French, Spanish, Dutch,etc.), the constant shifting of alliances designed to keep Britain on top and everyone else under your thumb. And you were quite good at it. But that was then, this is now. The world is smaller, and colonialism is not in vogue anymore. And the fact that a bunch of irritating upstarts “across the pond” decided to show King George the door still sticks in your craw, so much the better. And as far as cuisine is concerned, we Americans eat dishes that originate from all over the world – even from Britain.
“And they weren’t given, they were traded; …”
No where did I say that they were given. It looks like your anger is clouding your thinking. But the point was, if it was such a bad deal, England simply could have said, “Thank you, but not thank you.” Complaining after the fact, about decisions made by your parent’s generation, is poor form.
Mexico can’t even run itself, let alone run the USA.
You have some interesting views on history. However, I’m not convinced they are objective.
Wonder what the authors would say about China, where things are actually manufactured in staggering quantities?
“I doubt that the 1930 citation could have known when the debts and loans would have been paid off. ”
Those 6 volumes (The Great War) were written in around the mid-1930s (+/- 5 years of my original misprint). There is a simple equation that deals with compound interest on a loan and it enables one to calculate when the loan gets repaid. Of course, as with the weather, variables come into it as interest rates get renegotiated and one-off lump sums get paid, but that equation can be re-applied.
Alas that the USA lacks a sense of ironic humour about history; crocodile humour seems to be the purview of the UK, Russia and New Zealand, and indeed Australia, which may be bigger than Texas: but Sydney to Perth as the bird flies when it is sober is less than the distance from Paris to Moscow, which proves the utter insanity of both Napoleon and Hitler. After July 1941, Adolf completely lost the plot about knocking off the UK. 20 million (approx.) dead Russians later, he lost WW2.
“eating dishes………… – even from Britain.”
My apologies for our inflicting that on you, although our cheeses are excellent. British cooking is what kicked off the British East India Company in 1599; the spices. Doesn’t say much for the Dutch cooking of the day, either. They kicked us out of Batavia, and thus was founded an Empire On Which the Sun Would Never Set. All because of the horror of boiled beef and boiled cabbage.