What if the everyday materials people use come with a hidden price tag? A price not measured in dollars and cents, but unseen environmental impacts?
From steel in buildings to plastic in water bottles, the construction materials that shape our world carry an unaccounted climate cost.
A recent study by a team of engineers and economists at the University of California, Davis offers a fresh perspective.
The study revealed an eye-opening figure. The manufacturing of materials like steel, plastic, and cement is associated with $79 billion of climate damage annually in the United States.
Many argue that including these hidden costs in the market prices of goods would push the exploration and implementation of greener alternatives.
Elisabeth Van Roijen, who earned a Ph.D. from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of California, Davis, led the team on this project.
Focus of the research
The team also included undergraduate researcher Paikea Colligan and postdoctoral researcher Seth Kane. They scrutinized the unseen climate costs of producing nine ubiquitous materials: aluminum, iron, steel, brick, cement, lime, gypsum, asphalt, glass, and plastics.
“Materials production is a primary driver of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions; yet the externalized costs of these emissions on society are not reflected in market prices,” noted the researchers.
The team analyzed the quantity of the materials manufactured within the United States, the energy consumed in the process, and greenhouse gases emitted during manufacturing.
The researchers used the Environmental Protection Agency’s Social Cost of Carbon standard to assess the climate costs of the emissions.
Climate costs of everyday materials
The research revealed that in 2018, the U.S. produced 370 million tons of these materials, which resulted in 427 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
This led to $79 billion worth of climate costs – a figure not reflected in the materials’ market price. The factors influencing climate costs fluctuate with material demand.
Manufacturing aluminum produces large volumes of carbon dioxide per product weight, while manufacturing an equivalent amount of brick contributes much less carbon dioxide.
The substantially higher production rate of bricks compared to aluminum means the impact on climate costs is substantial. Due to their high demand, steel and plastics contribute the most to climate costs.
Hidden impact of manufacturing processes
The researchers found that 42% of the climate cost derived from the manufacturing processes rather than energy consumption.
Manufacturing cement releases carbon dioxide due to specific chemical reactions outside of energy consumption.
While people tackle climate costs from energy use by switching to renewable sources, process-related costs are harder to reduce unless they create new processes or find alternative materials.
Van Roijen emphasized the importance of researching alternative materials, such as partially substituting cement in concrete and developing biomass-based plastics.
Moving towards a greener economy
Including these hidden climate costs in the retail price would reveal that manufacturing prices are higher than previously known.
Such realization paves the way for implementing policies that encourage the development and use of climate-friendly processes and materials.
Van Roijen believes that such shifts would make innovative materials like biomass-based plastics more cost-effective since the price accounts for carbon storage benefits.
The study’s dataset provided valuable insights for practical and policy work. The method could be duplicated for other sectors and broaden the understanding of climate costs across the economy.
True cost of everyday materials
“This work unveils the significant, yet often unaccounted for, climate costs of materials production in the US, estimated at approximately 79 billion USD,” wrote the study authors.
The researchers noted that these findings highlight the true cost of materials production and address the disparities in market pricing which fail to reflect these externalities.
“Further, by examining the breakdown of emissions sources, this work serves as a foundation for the identification of relevant policy drivers to help mitigate emissions from materials production.”
The research was supported by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency.
The study is published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
—–
Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates.
Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.
—–