There can be no green transformation without concrete

There can be no green transformation without concrete

Mr. Glasmaier, the building material concrete is often criticized by the public, while wood is celebrated in the media and politically as a sustainable alternative. You probably don't like this. What particularly bothers you?
Anton Glasmaier:What bothers me most is the unbalanced view. If you look at the actual proportions, in new buildings we are talking about 90 percent mineral building materials - concrete and brick - and only about ten percent other materials such as wood or steel. In some regions such as Vorarlberg or Tyrol the proportion of wood may be slightly higher, but on average in Austria it is around four percent. Nevertheless, wood is subsidized disproportionately, and I see that as distorting the market.

No lever with wood

Can you specify that?
There are projects where the funding for wooden construction is up to 75 euros per square meter of usable space. In some cases this even exceeds the selling price of concrete. This is not a small incentive, but a massive intervention in the market. If I promote a product that only has a four percent market share, that's not much leverage from a climate policy perspective. Why don't I focus on the 90 percent where the greatest CO₂ savings are possible?

Is the CO₂ saving potential of concrete being used sufficiently?
The cement industry has made progress in recent years and has reduced CO₂ emissions per ton of cement by around nine percent compared to four years ago. These were the famous “low hanging fruits”. However, the next steps require significant investments – in the capture, transport and storage of CO₂. These are billion dollar projects. Unfortunately, I don't see sufficient political support here yet.

So are you calling for funding to be prioritized for the mineral building materials industry?
If we really want to become CO₂ neutral, there is no way around it. Of course you can also promote wood, but not with the aim of transforming the construction industry. Because the amount of wood we need doesn't exist - we already take 90 percent of the annual wood growth in Austria. More would only be possible with reforestation, the effects of which take decades.

And even if more wood were available?
Even then, leverage is limited. If I achieve a ten percent increase for a material with a four percent market share, I'm at 4.4 percent. That doesn't get us much further on the path to climate neutrality. We have to start where the large volumes are - with concrete, with bricks, with mineral building materials. And it's not just about production: recycling also plays a central role.

To what extent?
In the industry we are no longer just talking about fresh concrete. Concrete can be reused at the end of a building's life - as a recycling material, for example in road construction or even in building construction. In this way we close the material cycle, which is extremely ecologically relevant. There is a lot of potential here that is often overlooked from the outside.

Let's talk about another aspect: The term “wood hybrid building” has become established in the industry. What do you think of this term?
This is good marketing, but rarely accurate. Most so-called wood hybrid buildings also consist largely of concrete. Still, no one talks about concrete-wood hybrids. It seems as if the word “wood” in the name automatically enhances the image – even though the concrete content often dominates. A clear definition would be helpful here: the building material that is mostly used should also appear in the name. Everything else is misleading.

In your opinion, does concrete have an image problem?
Not among builders, planners and in the professional world. The problem lies more with the end user. Wood has a positive appeal due to its naturalness, while concrete is often associated with negative terms such as “floor sealing” or “concreting over”. Concrete has enormous advantages: longevity, statics, fire protection, resistance - and through component activation also energetic potential. Unfortunately, this is often underrepresented in the public debate.

Where do you think this negative emotionalization comes from?
It has increased in recent years. A construction crane used to be a symbol of progress - today it is often perceived as a threat. There is also the Floriani principle: Nobody wants a quarry or a gravel pit on their doorstep, but the fact that building materials have to come from somewhere is often ignored.

Do you see a fundamental misunderstanding among the population about how your industry works?
In parts, yes. Our industry is highly regionally organized. Ready-mixed concrete, for example, is delivered within a radius of 10 to 30 kilometers. Many plants already use electric conveyor belts or self-weight systems to transport raw materials efficiently. These efforts are hardly received by the public. Sustainability does not just mean renewable raw materials, but also short distances, recyclability and longevity. And that’s exactly what concrete offers.

What do you hope for the future debate about construction?
A fact-based, holistic approach. I'm not against wood - on the contrary. Every material has its justification. But we have to move away from ideologically influenced discussions and towards an approach that takes impact, volume and efficiency into account. Funding should start where the CO₂ leverage is greatest. And that's the case with concrete. We as an industry are ready to take responsibility - but this also requires the political will to support us.