Moving forward to net-zero
More than 22 months ago the Transition Pathway for the Chemical Industry was born, the response from co-creators, including industry stakeholders, policymakers, and environmental groups, has been overwhelmingly positive, with many taking decisive actions to support the initiative. Let's explore the key highlights from the first annual progress report, published back in May 2024.
Firstly, let me recap the key elements of the foundational Three-Part Roadmap for achieving net-zero emissions and a circular economy while achieving a green and digital transition and improve resilience in the chemical industry. The list of more than 190 actions, grouped under 26 topics, includes strategies to reduce carbon, embrace renewable energy, and capture carbon emissions. It also covers principles of minimizing waste, optimizing resource use, and extending the lifecycle of products. Additionally, it highlights the importance of smart policies, international cooperation, and corporate responsibility. Together, these components provide a clear and straightforward path to a sustainable future.
The Three-Part Roadmap is constituted of three components:
An action-oriented component grouping the topics under three cross-cutting themes: collaboration for innovation; clean energy supply; and feedstock diversification.
A technology component identifying electrification, hydrogen, biomass, waste, Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) & Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), as well as process efficiency.
A regulatory component that collects the existing legislation, including major research and innovation (R&I) initiatives, influencing digital and sustainable development of the chemical industry.
While having a look at the progress report it becomes clear that industry has taken the lead, as they presented 95% of the call for transition initiatives. Moreover, it is not surprising that Germany, whose chemical industry continues to navigate through various challenges and uncertainties, has taken the lead in the number of projects. Whereas, one quarter of the initiatives focus on replacing fossil fuels with alternative feedstocks and improving energy efficiency, under the building block Access to Energy and Feedstock.
Despite notable progress on all eight building blocks of the transition, the current status reveals a daunting reality. With only 10% of actions finalized and 70% merely launched, the sense of accomplishment is bittersweet. Despite a full year of dedicated support and focus from all parties involved, the pace of concrete steps taken towards achieving the green and digital transition remains underwhelming. What's more concerning is that, so far, only three countries—France, Belgium, and Greece—have managed to publish their national plans. There is still an immense amount of work to be done to meet the ambitious targets set.
On a more positive note, the topic with most progress on completed short-term actions, with a 60%, has to do with the viability of purchasing clean energy, particularly cost competitive climate neutral electricity and hydrogen with a low carbon footprint. This makes a lot of sense, as it is a clear reflection of one of the main pain points to the industry´s competitiveness.
To stay on track, more coordination is needed. Three task forces have been set up under the Working Group on the Chemical Industry to speed up work on important topics and actions. The teams focused on Energy and Feedstock, and International Competitiveness, will continue working on high-priority tasks. They will go beyond their initial tasks, like estimating future energy and feedstock needs using CEFIC’s iC2050 model, and developing indicators to track progress.
“To stay within planetary limits and lessen its impact on climate and resources, the chemical industry must shift from a linear model to a circular one. There are three main circular carbon sources to consider: biomass, recycled waste, and carbon dioxide (CO2 ) captured from emissions or directly from the air. Each source comes with its own set of challenges, such as limited supply, higher costs, or extensive infrastructure requirements.”
