According to a recent study by engineers and economists at the University of California, Davis, the production of materials like steel, plastics, and cement in the United States results in an annual environmental cost of $79 billion worldwide. By incorporating these environmental costs into market prices, there could be a stronger push towards more eco-friendly alternatives.
A new study reveals that manufacturing materials such as steel, plastics, and cement in the United States causes around $79 billion in climate-related damages globally each year. Researchers from the University of California, Davis suggest that factoring these costs into market prices could foster the development of climate-friendly options.
“We aimed to assess the societal cost of producing these materials,” explained Elisabeth Van Roijen, a recent Ph.D. graduate from UC Davis’ Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and lead author of the study, published on October 24 in Environmental Research Letters.
Van Roijen, undergraduate researcher Paikea Colligan, and postdoctoral researcher Seth Kane investigated the overlooked climate costs associated with producing nine common materials: aluminum, iron and steel, brick, cement, lime, gypsum, asphalt, glass, and plastics.
They compiled data on the production levels of these materials in the U.S., the energy consumed in their manufacturing, and the greenhouse gas emissions that resulted. The team evaluated the climate costs of these emissions using the Environmental Protection Agency’s Social Cost of Carbon standard, which estimates the costs associated with carbon dioxide emissions, including the expenses of preventing and recovering from climate-related disasters.
The analysis revealed that in 2018, 370 million tons of these nine materials were produced in the U.S., leading to 427 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions, which amounts to $79 billion in climate costs not captured in the market prices of these materials.
The climate costs vary with the demand for different materials. For instance, while aluminum production generates a considerable amount of carbon dioxide per unit of product, the overall production of bricks is much higher, causing a greater total climate cost despite their lower emissions per ton. Steel and plastics contribute the most to these costs due to high demand.
Nearly half of costs from production methods
About 42% of the climate costs stem from manufacturing processes, rather than energy consumption. For example, cement production emits carbon dioxide not only from energy use but also through necessary chemical reactions.
This distinction is crucial since switching to renewable energy can reduce climate costs associated with energy but would not reduce process costs unless new methods or materials are developed.
“Researching alternative materials is very vital,” noted Van Roijen. This could involve materials that partially replace cement in concrete and plastics derived from biomass.
Recognizing climate costs reveals that the actual expense of producing these materials far exceeds their current market prices. Implementing policies to reflect these costs may drive innovation towards new, environmentally friendly production processes and materials.
“For new technologies such as biomass-based plastics, when we account for the carbon storage benefits within the material, we can enhance their market competitiveness,” Van Roijen explained.
The dataset created through this manufacturing study will contribute to both practical and policy initiatives, according to Kane. The methodologies applied here could also be extended to other sectors of the economy.
Additional contributors to the paper include Sabbie Miller, an associate professor at UC Davis’ Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and Frances Moore, an associate professor in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy. The research received partial support from the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy.
