8
such large-scale commercialization could hold dual strate-
gic advantages of advancing domestic environmental objec-
tives while potentially reducing import dependency for
cement (current import to meet domestic demand stands at
22% as noted earlier). The success of this large-scale com-
mercialization depends on technical, economic and policy
considerations. The first step toward commercialization of
low-carbon cement technologies is evidence of economic
viability. This is demonstrated through several key indica-
tors such strategic investments from established or com-
mercial cement companies, growing market acceptance and
federal funding support to advance commercialization.
A critical policy available to the federal government is
the potential extension of the 45Q tax credit to the cement
industry. While this credit currently applies to carbon
capture, sequestration, and utilization projects (consider-
ing emission in the industry), we argue for its expansion
to cover the production of low-carbon and zero-emission
cement products. This policy expansion could provide
essential financial incentives to accelerate the industry’s
transition toward climate-friendly manufacturing prac-
tices and products. Specifically, the credit structure could
incentivize manufacturers for each ton of verified low-car-
bon cement produced, with eligibility determined through
regulated Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs).
Such a strategy would create direct financial incentives
for current and emerging manufacturers. Furthermore,
enhancing low-carbon and zero-emission cement procure-
ment policies across federal, state, and local governments
represents a crucial market driver for sustainable cement
adoption. Government procurement initiatives can create
substantial market demand while demonstrating the via-
bility of these innovative cement products in public infra-
structure projects. Commitment and continuous adoption
of the Buy Clean Act, climate actions, and programs across
the country are essential. The implementation of a federal
carbon tax specifically targeting the cement sector could
significantly drive manufacturers to decarbonize their pro-
duction processes. Such a policy would impose a cost on
emissions, requiring manufacturers to pay an amount per
ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) released to the atmosphere.
This financial burden is supposed to encourage product
and process innovation, and the adoption of cleaner tech-
nologies, such as carbon capture and utilization or storage,
alternative clean fuels, among others, ultimately driving the
sector toward reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Despite
its potential effectiveness (at least in theory) for industrial
decarbonization, the adoption of industrial carbon tax
faces considerable political barriers in the country (e.g.,
Congress.gov, 2024). However, research evidence presented
by Fikru (2022) indicates that a hybrid policy approach,
combining carbon tax with subsidies, can successfully drive
industrial decarbonization efforts. This balanced policy
framework (carbon tax and subsidy) could provide both
a tool for emissions reduction and financial incentive for
technology adoption (e.g., the use of CCU/CCS).
The future of cement industry decarbonization could
hinge on industrial partnerships. These partnerships can
play a crucial role in accelerating the adoption of innova-
tive cement technologies while sustaining the economic
viability of emerging startups. Established manufacturers’
strategic investments in and collaborations with emerging
startups, as evidenced by recent deals such as those under-
taken by Holcim and CRH, demonstrate the potential for
mutually beneficial relationships. These partnerships could
leverage the innovation of startups to drive technological
progress, while providing the resources and market access
required for successful commercialization. Such industry
collaborations can create a supportive ecosystem (for start-
ups) that fosters innovative solutions and facilitates their
integration into traditional cement production, thereby
overcoming technical deployment challenges. Considering
the potential economic ramifications of non-compliance
with some key regulations such as the European Union’s
Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and the State of
California’ cap-and-trade programs, established or com-
mercial cement producers would acknowledge that reduc-
ing carbon emissions is not merely a moral imperative to
save the environment. Rather, it is a crucial business strat-
egy for maintaining their competitiveness and ensuring
their survival in a world where carbon emissions is becom-
ing increasingly regulated.
Finally, the cement industry’s decarbonization efforts
in the United States face significant risks posed by political
and policy uncertainties, as noted earlier. Successive admin-
istrations’ willingness to commit to and maintain long-term
climate goals could prove to be the greatest impediment
to the industry’s transition to low-carbon or zero-emission
cement production. The discontinuity or reversal of sup-
portive policies, incentives, and regulatory structures intro-
duced by one administration but potentially abandoned by
the next can create unpredictable incentives for decarbon-
ization efforts. Addressing this challenge will require bipar-
tisan support at all levels of government. In the absence of
bipartisan decarbonization initiatives (at the federal level),
states and local governments must be prepared to imple-
ment and advance their own emissions mitigation strate-
gies within the cement sector, if they intend to advance
climate goals. These localized efforts could potentially serve
such large-scale commercialization could hold dual strate-
gic advantages of advancing domestic environmental objec-
tives while potentially reducing import dependency for
cement (current import to meet domestic demand stands at
22% as noted earlier). The success of this large-scale com-
mercialization depends on technical, economic and policy
considerations. The first step toward commercialization of
low-carbon cement technologies is evidence of economic
viability. This is demonstrated through several key indica-
tors such strategic investments from established or com-
mercial cement companies, growing market acceptance and
federal funding support to advance commercialization.
A critical policy available to the federal government is
the potential extension of the 45Q tax credit to the cement
industry. While this credit currently applies to carbon
capture, sequestration, and utilization projects (consider-
ing emission in the industry), we argue for its expansion
to cover the production of low-carbon and zero-emission
cement products. This policy expansion could provide
essential financial incentives to accelerate the industry’s
transition toward climate-friendly manufacturing prac-
tices and products. Specifically, the credit structure could
incentivize manufacturers for each ton of verified low-car-
bon cement produced, with eligibility determined through
regulated Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs).
Such a strategy would create direct financial incentives
for current and emerging manufacturers. Furthermore,
enhancing low-carbon and zero-emission cement procure-
ment policies across federal, state, and local governments
represents a crucial market driver for sustainable cement
adoption. Government procurement initiatives can create
substantial market demand while demonstrating the via-
bility of these innovative cement products in public infra-
structure projects. Commitment and continuous adoption
of the Buy Clean Act, climate actions, and programs across
the country are essential. The implementation of a federal
carbon tax specifically targeting the cement sector could
significantly drive manufacturers to decarbonize their pro-
duction processes. Such a policy would impose a cost on
emissions, requiring manufacturers to pay an amount per
ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) released to the atmosphere.
This financial burden is supposed to encourage product
and process innovation, and the adoption of cleaner tech-
nologies, such as carbon capture and utilization or storage,
alternative clean fuels, among others, ultimately driving the
sector toward reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Despite
its potential effectiveness (at least in theory) for industrial
decarbonization, the adoption of industrial carbon tax
faces considerable political barriers in the country (e.g.,
Congress.gov, 2024). However, research evidence presented
by Fikru (2022) indicates that a hybrid policy approach,
combining carbon tax with subsidies, can successfully drive
industrial decarbonization efforts. This balanced policy
framework (carbon tax and subsidy) could provide both
a tool for emissions reduction and financial incentive for
technology adoption (e.g., the use of CCU/CCS).
The future of cement industry decarbonization could
hinge on industrial partnerships. These partnerships can
play a crucial role in accelerating the adoption of innova-
tive cement technologies while sustaining the economic
viability of emerging startups. Established manufacturers’
strategic investments in and collaborations with emerging
startups, as evidenced by recent deals such as those under-
taken by Holcim and CRH, demonstrate the potential for
mutually beneficial relationships. These partnerships could
leverage the innovation of startups to drive technological
progress, while providing the resources and market access
required for successful commercialization. Such industry
collaborations can create a supportive ecosystem (for start-
ups) that fosters innovative solutions and facilitates their
integration into traditional cement production, thereby
overcoming technical deployment challenges. Considering
the potential economic ramifications of non-compliance
with some key regulations such as the European Union’s
Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and the State of
California’ cap-and-trade programs, established or com-
mercial cement producers would acknowledge that reduc-
ing carbon emissions is not merely a moral imperative to
save the environment. Rather, it is a crucial business strat-
egy for maintaining their competitiveness and ensuring
their survival in a world where carbon emissions is becom-
ing increasingly regulated.
Finally, the cement industry’s decarbonization efforts
in the United States face significant risks posed by political
and policy uncertainties, as noted earlier. Successive admin-
istrations’ willingness to commit to and maintain long-term
climate goals could prove to be the greatest impediment
to the industry’s transition to low-carbon or zero-emission
cement production. The discontinuity or reversal of sup-
portive policies, incentives, and regulatory structures intro-
duced by one administration but potentially abandoned by
the next can create unpredictable incentives for decarbon-
ization efforts. Addressing this challenge will require bipar-
tisan support at all levels of government. In the absence of
bipartisan decarbonization initiatives (at the federal level),
states and local governments must be prepared to imple-
ment and advance their own emissions mitigation strate-
gies within the cement sector, if they intend to advance
climate goals. These localized efforts could potentially serve