| The $4 Million Report From
the Cement Industry That Says: TOXIC SLUDGE IS GOOD FOR YOU!
11
cement companies have spent big money on something called the “Sustainable
Cement Project” to convince citizens all around the world of its honorable
and benign intentions.
Not surprisingly, the report endorses such “sustainable” practices as
burning toxic waste in cement kilns and “recycling” it back into the air,
land and water of surrounding communities.
Object to this practice? You just “misunderstand the risks,” or are not
informed. According to the final report there’s no environmental problem
from cement plants that can’t be fixed with better public relations.
What’s Its Mission?
According to press information, the two-year initiative was done under
the auspices of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)
and “aims to define how the cement industry can become more sustainable,
highlight key sustainable development issues for the industry, profile the
present industry performance, and develop a future vision of the industry in
2020.”
What Issues Are Identified?
Resource productivity – enhanced through improved practices in quarrying,
energy use, and waste recovery and reuse. Climate Protection –
understanding and management of CO2 Emissions reduction – including dust
from quarrying, NOx , SOx and other airborne pollutants Ecological
Stewardship – both in resource conservation, and in quarry management and
quarry closure. Employee well being – improved through greater
attention to occupational health and safety concerns. Community
well-being – improved by enhanced dialogue and engagement at a local level.
Regional development. Shareholder Value creation.
Once the report and its findings are made public, cement producers will
be able to address the recommendations with their own action plan.
Who Paid For it?
Cemex (Mexico), Cimpor (Portugal), Heidelberg Cement (Germany), Holcim
(Switzerland), Italcementi (Italy), Lafarge (France), RMC (UK) , Siam Cement
(Thailand), Taiheiyo (Japan) , Votorantim (Brazil), Titan (Greece)
Together, these cement companies represent approximately one-third of global
cement production.
Who Participated?
To give a patina of green to the report, the authors carefully selected
some environmental groups to participate in what were called “stakeholder
meetings” in the US, Egypt, Thailand and Europe.
Despite the report listing those who live downwind of cement plants as
one of those “stakeholders” (with more at stake than any other group), NO
CITIZENS GROUPS REPRESENTING THOSE WHO LIVE NEAR CEMENT PLANTS WERE INVITED
TO ATTEND THESE STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS.
Who WAS invited in the U.S.? The Heritage Foundation - A right wing
think tank that according to the report knew nothing about the cement
industry. World Wildlife Fund- also clueless about cement industry
issues up to this point. EPA -The agency that OK’d burning toxics in
kilns. World Resources Institute- a group with no grassroots
membership and no experience in cement issues Environmental Defense - a
group that also has never dealt with specific cement industry issues.
Natural Resources Defense Council - Ditto. Environmental Law Institute
- Ditto. Alliance to Save Energy - an energy conservation group.
The Nature Conservancy - a group which buys undeveloped land to preserve it.
Let’s see, who’s missing from this list? Oh yeah - any national or local
group that’s ever had a run-in with the industry. National groups like the
Sierra Club, which has sued the EPA over inadequate standards for toxic
emissions from kilns. Local citizens’ groups at cement plant sites across
the country like Down-winders At Risk who’ve had experience in battling
cement plant permits.
In other words, anybody who knows about the critical “sustainable”
environmental issues with cement plants was automatically excluded from the
process. That’s one way to get a green light.
What’s The Industry Strategy? In its summary, the report breaks
down the “threats” facing the global cement industry into Environmental,
Social and Economic problems and outlines the suggested industry’s response.
“Communication,” rather than evaluation of any harm being done by the
industry, is the rule. Here are some examples:
Environmental Issue: Organic, chemical, metal and particulate emissions
Threat to Industry: Continued growth and concern on health impacts of
incineration of hazardous waste in kilns
Response: Communicate more effectively on health effects of using
hazardous waste fuels
Economic Issue: Widespread resistance to new sites
Threat: Increasing local opposition to development of new sites poses a
threat to growth of the industry
Response: Improved communications and dialogue with stakeholders
Economic Issue: Climate Levy Costs in Europe (Global Warming)
Threat: Climate Levy implications are significant, e.g. in UK cost to
industry estimated at 14 million a year
Response: Profit from exemption of waste fuel emissions from levy
Social Issue: Risk Perception
Threat: Hazardous waste incineration risks are misunderstood, e.g., the
waste is uncontrolled and dangerous, often resulting in NIMBY
Response: Demonstrate and share the societal benefits of cement. e.g. as
a major building block for improving quality of life
What to Do?
Due to be officially released very soon, citizen activists can expect to
see this “sustainable cement” report trumpeted by the industry as a road map
for the future. Do yourself a favor and trudge through the thing.
You can find the final report itself, along with its many separate
components, including all the “stakeholder” meetings on the web at:
www.wbcsdcement.org
And maybe after looking at the report, you want to sound off to the
authors about its transparency of purpose to “greenwash” a dirty industry
that wants to burn more waste and toxins. Please be our guest.
Howard Klee with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development
in Switzerland is in charge of the overall report. You can reach him at his
e-mail address.
Howard Klee E-mail: jhklee@bluewin.ch |
