Conversation

Direct energy use is about half the carbon pie chart. The other half is materially embodied. Accounting methods are a bit messy, but currently the biggest pattern that needs shifting in the energy half of the pie is probably HVAC.
3
2
Energy in general is much more legible and within it, electricity generation and transportation are the most legible parts. But I don’t think there’s a way to decarbonize based on energy alone. You have to do a “renewables” equivalent to materials production and use as well.
2
1
We already have the harmonized code / UNSPEC systems though to start with though, so we'd have a good idea of embodied carbon by code, and there'd be a whole business of trying to green certify that you were doing better than average to reduce your taxes.
1
Exactly. Concrete is a good stress-test example. Very basic material that China uses at the fastest rate in history, and it’s hard to imagine either a substitute product or sufficiently negative-carbonized production to offset emissions in use. It’s basic to a whole way of life.
1
Source capture --> sequestration near the source wouldn't be that crazy for this though. It'd make cement plants near CO2 injection sites uniquely profitable. Also, there are carbon negative concretes available today, we just need to offset their cost increase.
1