Do you want to fight climate change? Use appropriate chemicals!

1. www.pointcarbon.comOctober 2009
36 CHEMICALS
The first
steps
T
he shores of the UN climate change conference
in Copenhagen are getting closer and closer, yet
it is still not certain that December’s meeting
will deliver an acceptable replacement for the
Kyoto protocol. To help decision-makers try to reach an
effective and efficient agreement on future reductions of
greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), the International Council
of Chemical Associations (ICCA) recently commissioned
a report on carbon abatement solutions enabled by the
chemicals industry.
‘Decarbonised’ has become a very fashionable word in
the climate change negotiations without always defining
what it really implies. A simplistic view would put carbon
as the new villain, but it can actually be a benefactor under
specific conditions.
With this in mind, the report – produced for the
ICCA with the help of McKinsey & Co and the Oeko
Institute – included a carbon life-cycle analysis of 102
chemicals products with data coming from Europe, Japan
and the US. The life-cycle analysis did not cover every
chemicals product or emission in the industry, but it did
cover areas where GHG emissions are considered sensitive,
such as in insulation, mobility, agriculture, lighting,
packaging and clothing.
It provides tools to analyse where the
major emitters are and what solutions
we should apply there. In addition to the
technical comprehension of the carbon
balance of the products, it also sets out
political recommendations for the
Copenhagen negotiations. In doing so, it
builds a bridge between sound data on the
emissions coming from the global chemicals
Innovation in the
chemicals industry can
help the transition to a
low-carbon economy, says
Philippe de Casabianca
P36-37 Chemicals.indd 36 21/09/2009 12:16

2. CHEMICALS
October 2009
37
house is already a reality in Europe and most modern
insulation foams are no longer restricted to use in new
buildings. At a time of increasing fossil fuel costs,
such figures do matter. Agrochemicals are the
second largest contributors to emissions
savings. The main driver of the CO2
savings enabled by agrochemicals is
avoided land-use change due to increases in crop
yield. If fertilisers and crop protection were not
available, the yield from agriculture would drop
by between 30 and 85 per cent depending on
the crop type, soil, technology and climate zone.
To produce the same amount of crops with this
lower yield would require double the amount of land.
In the cases highlighted, as with the other
products, consumers’
preferences must also play
a part and take account of
both the climate change mitigation effects
and everyday budgetary constraints.
Decision-makers can provide or
ease frameworks to facilitate the
dissemination of efficient technologies
and the maturation of new innovative
technologies. In the case of insulation
or implementing a renewable energy
device at home, consumers may feel hesitant
because of the slow return on investments. Better
conditions are necessary for industry to continue
innovating and for consumers to further limit
their GHG emissions beyond a BAU scenario.
To continue innovating, this industry must
have a level playing field and avoid carbon
leakage – the relocation of industries to
regions deprived of binding CO2 regulations,
such as the EU emissions trading scheme. Then
industry; consumers’ behaviour; and the political
decisions related to climate change issues and its
consequences.
The report’s key finding is that for every tonne
of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) emitted
by the chemicals industry, a saving is enabled
of up to three tonnes of CO2e via the products
and technologies provided to other industries and
consumers. In other words, chemicals industry products
create GHG savings around three times greater
than their emissions.
This analysis looked at the products from
the cradle to the grave: from the extraction of
feedstocks and fuels, to production (direct and indirect
energy emissions, process emissions) and to the final
disposal (incineration, heat recovery, recycling,
landfill etc). The emissions savings have been
calculated by comparing their usage with non-
chemical alternatives, such as synthetic versus
natural textiles.
For example, in 2005, in a theoretical world deprived of
chemicals, GHG emissions would have been 11 per cent or
5.2 giga tonnes (Gt) of CO2e higher. The analysis shows how
strong the enabling power of the chemicals industry is, as
without its products, many other items could not exist.
Currently, the chemicals products that drive the greatest
GHG savings are building insulation, fertilisers and crop
protection, lighting, plastic packaging, marine anti-fouling
coatings, synthetic textiles, automotive plastics, low-
temperature detergents, and plastics used in piping. Some
popular low-carbon applications deliver GHG savings,
but they are still limited compared with the listed
chemicals products. For example, in 2005, solar
power saved 40 million tonnes (Mt) of CO2e, wind
power accounted for 60 Mt, whereas insulation saved
2.4 Gt, fertilizer and crop protection 1.6 Gt, lighting
700 Mt, and packaging 220 Mt.
In 2030, under a business-as-usual (BAU)
scenario, insulation, fertiliser and crop
protection, and lighting would still lead the
GHG savings list, despite some other technologies,
which have become more mature, making a
larger contribution than in 2005. Therefore,
under the 2030 BAU scenario, GHG abatement
as a result of using chemicals industry products
would rise to 13.8 Gt and the ratio of emissions saved
rises to one to four.
These figures are encouraging, but they do not match all
the reductions needed to curb the general growth of GHG
emissions. If we rely on existing techniques and existing
trends for the dissemination of these products, then we
shall achieve reductions, but not sufficient
to what is actually required to combat
climate change. Therefore, we need more
aggressive policies to improve product
dissemination, such as fiscal incentives.
In the case of insulation for buildings,
for example, a lot of improvements are
still technically possible with proven
technologies. The zero-cost heating
Chemicals industry products
enable GHG savings around
three times greater than their
emissions
decision-makers should focus on the lowest cost abatement
opportunities, push for energy efficiency, support research
and development efforts, promote the sustainable use of
energy and feedstocks, provide incentives for faster action by
rewarding early movers that proactively reduce their carbon
footprint, and push for the most efficient and sustainable
disposal, recovery and recycling options.
The ICCA report is only the beginning of the journey. It
is the first time an industry has embarked on such a global
study. More steps will follow and the shores of Copenhagen
are among them. l
Philippe de Casabianca is the senior counsellor
communication at Cefic, the European member
of ICCA
Email: PCA@cefic.be
P36-37 Chemicals.indd 37 21/09/2009 12:16