By some measurements, cement production alone is responsible for about 8% of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions every year. And so there is an imperative to find suitable low-carbon alternatives. Here is what is currently happening in the US (via Grist):

On Tuesday, Terra CO2 Technology was picked to receive a $52.6 million federal grant to build a new manufacturing plant just west of Salt Lake City. The company has devised a method that turns common minerals into additives that can help replace Portland cement — a key component in concrete, and one of the most carbon-intensive materials in the world.

In addition to this new facility, the company is set to start construction on its first plant in the Dallas-Fort Worth area:

The project is expected to break ground in January 2025 and begin shipping out materials by late summer 2026, Yearsley said. The facility will be capable of producing up to 240,000 metric tons of SCM [supplementary cementitious materials] per year when completed, or enough to serve roughly half of the local metropolitan market.

And all of this is part of a broader initiative by the US Department of Energy:

The Utah facility is one of 14 projects provisionally selected this week to receive $428 million in total awards from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains. The initiative, which is funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, aims to accelerate clean energy manufacturing in U.S. communities with decommissioned coal facilities. Officials said the projects are expected to create over 1,900 high-quality jobs across a dozen states.

For the rest of the article, click here.

Yeah, I can't say I'm excited to try this. Japan Airlines has just launched a new year-long pilot allowing its passengers to reserve and rent clothes. The way it works is that you tell them what you're traveling for and then you get something like a "spring/fall x smart casual" variety pack delivered to your hotel or Airbnb.

The clothes, which look something like this, are a mix of excess stock and second-hand stuff, and so it is being positioned as a more sustainable choice. You're both using clothes that might otherwise go to waste and you're reducing the amount of weight that you're traveling with. (You still need to bring your own underwear.)

And this could add up:

The site handling the clothing rental system claims that a 10kg reduction in a flight passenger’s luggage results in an estimated 7.5kg reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. A 7.5kg reduction in CO₂ emissions, it adds for reference, is the equivalent of forgoing using a hairdryer for 78 days (based on an average use of 10 mins per drying session).

I suppose this could also be positioned as a convenience: why lug a suitcase full of clothes around when you can just reserve what you want and have it waiting for you at your hotel? But I also suppose that you need to be okay wearing well-used clothes. Maybe this matters less, though, if the clothes are really nice and fashionable?

I don't know. It'll be interesting to see if there's a market for this.

I would also say that even though I may not be excited about rental clothes, I take great pride in packing efficiently for travel. Unless I'm going snowboarding, I basically do not check a bag. I can do 2 weeks just fine with a carry-on and, to be honest, there's something liberating about reducing your belongings to only what is necessary.

So who knows, maybe bringing only underwear and toiletries would be even more liberating.

Kelly Alvarez Doran shared this article with me on Twitter earlier today. It talks about some of the work that his design studios are doing at the University of Toronto around embodied carbon. More specifically though, his studios are being tasked with figuring out how to halve the carbon emissions generated by new buildings during this decade.

And one of the big findings from his studio is exactly the title of this post: our buildings have become carbon icebergs. Here in Toronto, we tend to build a lot of below-grade parking. We recently got rid of parking minimums (which obviously needed to happen), but the market still demands it in certain areas and for certain projects. So we continue to build it.

What the above section drawings are showing is the percentage of carbon emissions resulting from the below-grade construction component in each project. And as you can see, the numbers are significant, particularly in the case of smaller mid-rise buildings where you don't have a lot of above-grade area to grow the denominator.

Looking at 2803 Dundas Street West, which is just down the street from our Junction House project, the number is 50%! And sadly, I would guess that our project is probably only marginally better; we're a bit taller up top, but we also have a raft slab foundation and a watertight below-grade.

This is one of the reasons why I recently tried to make the case for above-grade parking. A big part of my argument was that if we want parking that can be adapted to other uses in the future, and if we want to reduce the embodied carbon in our buildings, then we should be building "unwrapped" above-grade parking. That is, parking which isn't hidden behind other uses.

But this is often frowned upon in planning circles and it's not going to be feasible in smaller mid-rise buildings like the ones shown here. We're also just talking about what is less bad. What we really ought to be doing is trying to build our cities so that people don't need to rely so heavily on cars to get around.

Image: Ha/f Studio