As far as adopting greener building practices is concerned, most designers and building contractors would say that cement continues to be a paradox for them. Concrete, the most common, downstream product created from using cement, is the most widely used material. Yet, when it comes to cement's compatibility with the environment, the usual notion is that making it eco-friendly
is not economically feasible. Researchers believe that the cement industry alone is accountable for nearly 5% of the total volume of greenhouse gases released annually.

Understanding the Predicament -Actually, the cement industry cannot be entirely blamed for such a gloomy perception. Most government and green agencies have failed to put forth a profitable way of recycling cement and reducing its carbon footprints as a building material. Some nations like Netherlands have taken extreme measures to contain the problem wherein concrete waste has been banned from being dumped into landfills. As a result, local contractors and builders have been forced to recycle cement refuse, pushing-up the price of construction to the displeasure of the local realty sector. However, this cannot be termed as a role model for other nations. Many countries that don't have the infrastructural that European nations like the Netherlands can boast of and hence, discarding the use of cement or using only recyclable cement doesn't seem like a very realistic option. This is why construction debris continues to be a subject of constant debate among environmentalists and the cement industry has always engaged criticism for its ecologically-destructive approach.

The Green Enterprise - Now, it seems that major cement companies from across the world have united to ensure that they are able to challenge a conventionally negative perception about the use of cement. As a part of the Cement Sustainability Initiative, a coalition has come about among these global cement producing firms to address the problem of concrete landfills. They plan to present a series of practical and adoptable technologies that can be used to recycle concrete in a recently-published report called Recycling Concrete. Apart from the recycling technologies, the Report also explores other options to make concrete a lesser strain on the environment. There is an emphasis on methodologies for reducing the rate at which greenhouse gases rises from wasted concrete. There are many suggestions exploring the possible uses of crushed concrete that can be easily incorporated as a part of structural concrete without compromising the strength of a building.

The Cement Sustainability Initiative insists upon better cooperation among local providers of cement to enable precise statistical analysis that will help to establish realistic goals for recycling concrete. This enterprise doesn't disappoint in terms of the seriousness with which it has been launched. It is registered with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. It is presently comprised of 18, globally-acknowledged cement companies that account for almost one-third of the worldwide, annual cement production.

Quick Reality Check - a major requirement for the success of initiatives like these is the cooperation among cement-producers from around the world. However, it seems that this is perhaps the biggest, unacknowledged challenge and it couldn't be better exemplified by the controversy that has just hit cement producers in the US. The EPA has come out with a new ruling regarding the kiln emissions that significantly add to the CO2 emissions contributed by the US cement industry. An immediate impact of this regulatory policy would be felt by nearly a hundred of Portland cement-producing sites. The federal government is supporting the EPA, insisting that the kilns need to address the issue of mercury-laden emissions. However, the Portland Cement Association finds itself alone in the argument that the proposed changes are too sudden and the manufacturers have not been given enough time to test the financial feasibility of the suggested alternatives. The Association has put forth a startling figure of $340 million which it believes would be the extra cost incurred for its members if the EPA's environmental norms were to be followed.