Assessing the Cement-CO2 Link in Türkiye: A RALS Cointegration Framework

Öz

This study explores the long-term connection between cement production and CO₂ emissions in Türkiye, one of the world’s largest cement producers. The purpose is to evaluate the sector’s contribution to national emissions while highlighting decarbonization strategies consistent with global net-zero targets. Using annual data for the period 1970–2023, the analysis employs the Fourier ADF unit root test, which accounts for multiple structural breaks and nonlinearities, as well as the RALS-ADL and RALS-EG2 cointegration tests, which address deviations from the normality assumption. The findings confirm a stable long-run cointegration relationship between cement output and CO₂ emissions, with an estimated elasticity of 0.45—indicating that a 1% increase in production results in a 0.45% rise in emissions. This suggests partial efficiency gains but underscores the need for structural reforms. The results highlight the importance of expanding alternative fuels, lowering clinker intensity, and improving energy efficiency, supported by stronger regulatory and policy frameworks, if Türkiye’s cement sector is to align with international decarbonization pathways.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cement Production
• CO₂ Emissions
• Fourier ADF
• RALS Cointegration
• Decarbonization

Etik Beyan

During the preparation of the study titled “Assessing the Cement-CO2 Link in Türkiye: A RALS Cointegration Framework”, scientific principles, ethical standards, and citation rules were strictly followed; no falsification was made on the collected data, and this study has not been submitted to any other academic publication venue for evaluation. Ethics committee approval is not required for this research. Statement of Authors’ Contribution Rate: The authors contributed equally to the study. Conflict of Interest Statement: There is no potential conflict of interest in this study. Funding: No financial support was received from any institution or organization for this study. Statement on the Use of Artificial Intelligence and Related Tools: No artificial intelligence or related tools were used in the preparation of this article. Data Sharing Statement: We declare that the data of this study may be shared upon reasonable request for the purpose of verifying the findings, in accordance with the conditions specified in the relevant section of the “ethical principles and publication policy.”

Türkiye'de Çimento Üretimi-CO₂ İlişkisinin Değerlendirilmesi: RALS Eşbütünleşme Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışma, dünyanın en büyük çimento üreticilerinden biri olan Türkiye'de çimento üretimi ile CO₂ emisyonları arasındaki uzun vadeli ilişkiyi araştırmaktadır. Amaç, küresel net sıfır hedefleri ile uyumlu karbonsuzlaştırma stratejilerini vurgulayarak sektörün ulusal emisyonlara katkısını değerlendirmektir. 1970-2023 dönemine ait yıllık veriler kullanılarak yapılan analizde, çoklu yapısal kırılmaları ve doğrusal olmama durumunu dikkate alan Fourier ADF birim kök testi ile normallik varsayımından sapmaları dikkate alan RALS-ADL ve RALS-EG2 eşbütünleşme testleri uygulanmıştır. Bulgular, çimento üretimi ile CO₂ emisyonları arasında istikrarlı bir uzun dönemli ilişkiyi doğrulamaktadır ve uzun dönem esneklik katsayısı 0,45 olarak tahmin edilmiştir. Bu da çimento üretiminde %1'lik bir artışın emisyonlarda %0,45'lik bir artışa yol açtığını göstermektedir. Bu durum kısmi verimlilik kazanımlarına işaret etmekle birlikte yapısal reformlara olan ihtiyacın altını çizmektedir. Sonuçlar, Türkiye çimento sektörünün uluslararası karbonsuzlaştırma hedeflerine uyum sağlaması için daha güçlü düzenleyici ve politika çerçeveleriyle desteklenen alternatif yakıtların yaygınlaştırılmasının, klinker yoğunluğunun düşürülmesinin ve enerji verimliliğinin artırılmasının önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çimento Üretimi
• CO₂ Emisyonları
• Fourier ADF
• RALS Eşbütünleşme
• Karbonsuzlaştırma

Etik Beyan

“Türkiye'de Çimento Üretimi-CO₂ İlişkisinin Değerlendirilmesi: RALS Eşbütünleşme Analizi” başlıklı çalışmanın yazım sürecinde bilimsel kurallara, etik ve alıntı kurallarına uyulmuş; toplanan veriler üzerinde herhangi bir tahrifat yapılmamış ve bu çalışma herhangi başka bir akademik yayın ortamına değerlendirme için gönderilmemiştir. Bu araştırmada etik kurul kararı zorunluluğu bulunmamaktadır. Araştırmacıların Katkı Oranı Beyanı: Yazarların çalışmadaki katkı oranları eşittir. Çatışma Beyanı: Çalışmada herhangi bir potansiyel çıkar çatışması söz konusu değildir. Finansman: Bu çalışma için herhangi bir kurum veya kuruluştan destek alınmamıştır. Yapay Zeka ve Türleri Kullanım Beyanı: Bu makalenin yazımında yapay zeka ve türleri kullanılmamıştır. Veri Paylaşım Beyanı: Bu çalışmanın verileri, bulguların doğrulanması amacıyla makul bir talep üzerine “etik ilkeler ve yayın politikası”nın ilgili kısımında belirtilen şartlara göre paylaşabileceğimizi beyan ederiz.

Kaynakça

1. Aized, T., Shahid, M., Bhatti, A. A., Saleem, M., & Anandarajah, G. (2018). Energy security and renewable energy policy analysis of Pakistan. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 84, 155–169.
2. Aranda-Usón, A., Ferreira, G., López-Sabirón, A. M., Sastresa, E. L., & de Guinoa, A. S. (2012). Characterisation and environmental analysis of sewage sludge as secondary fuel for cement manufacturing. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 29, 457–462.
3. Ates, S. A. (2015). Energy efficiency and CO₂ mitigation potential of the Turkish iron and steel industry using the LEAP (long-range energy alternatives planning) system. Energy, 90(1), 417–428.
4. Banerjee, A., Dolado, J., & Mestre, R. (1998). Error-correction mechanism tests for cointegration in a single- equation framework. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 19(3), 267–283.
5. Bautista, S. (2012). A sustainable scenario for the Venezuelan power generation sector in 2050 and its costs. Energy Policy, 44, 331–340.
6. Bayar, S., & Talinli, İ. (2013). Solidification/stabilization of hazardous waste sludge obtained from a chemical industry. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 15(1), 157–166.
7. Becker, R., Enders, W., & Lee, J. (2006). A stationarity test in the presence of an unknown number of smooth breaks. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 27(3), 381–409.
8. Bildirici, M. E. (2020). The relationship between cement production, mortality rate, air quality, and economic growth for China, India, Brazil, Turkey, and the USA: MScBVAR and MScBGC analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 2248–2263.

9. Bose, R. K. (1996). Energy demand and environmental implications in urban transport: Case of Delhi. Atmospheric Environment, 30(3), 403–412.
10. Christopoulos, D., & León-Ledesma, M. (2010). Smooth breaks and non-linear mean reversion: Post-Bretton Woods real exchange rates. Journal of International Money and Finance, 29(6), 1076–1093.
11. Civancık, D., & Yetiş, U. (2018). Substance flow analysis of mercury in Turkey for policy decision support. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 2996–3008.
12. Cuestas, J., & Garratt, D. (2011). Is real GDP per capita a stationary process? Smooth transitions, nonlinear trends and unit root testing. Empirical Economics, 41, 555–563.
13. Dagher, L., & Ruble, I. (2011). Modeling Lebanon’s electricity sector: Alternative scenarios and their implications. Energy, 36(7), 4315–4326.
14. Davidovits, J. (1994). Global warming impact on the cement and aggregates industries. World Resource Review, 6(2), 263–278.
15. Doğan, Ö., & Karpuzcu, M. (2010). Recovery of phosphate sludge as concrete supplementary material. Clean – Soil, Air, Water, 38(10), 977–980.
16. Ekincioglu, O., Gurgun, A. P., Engin, Y. Tarhan, M., & Kumbaracibasi, S. (2013). Approaches for sustainable cement production: A case study from Turkey. Energy and Buildings, 66, 136–142.
17. Enders, W., & Granger, C. (1998). Unit-root tests and asymmetric adjustment with an example using the term structure of interest rates. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 16, 304–311.
18. Engle, R., & Granger, C. (1987). Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica, 55(2), 251–276.
19. Galvez-Martos, J. L., & Schoenberger, H. (2014). An analysis of the use of life cycle assessment for waste co- incineration in cement kilns. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 86, 118–131.
20. Gartner, E. (2004). Industrially interesting approaches to low-CO₂ cements. Cement and Concrete Research, 34(9), 1489–1498.
21. Georgiopoulou, M., & Lyberatos, G. (2018). Life cycle assessment of the use of alternative fuels in cement kilns: A case study. Journal of Environmental Management, 216, 224–234.
22. Gibbs, M. J., Soyka, L., & Conneely, D. (2011). CO₂ emissions from cement production: Good practice guidance and uncertainty management in national greenhouse gas inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), USA.
23. Green, F., & Stern, N. (2017). China’s changing economy: Implications for its carbon dioxide emissions. Climate Policy, 17(4), 423–442.
24. Gürsel, A. P., & Meral, Ç. (2012, September 13–16). Türkiye'de çimento üretiminin karşılaştırmalı yaşam döngüsü analizi. In 2. Proje ve Yapım Yönetimi Kongresi. İzmir Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü, Urla, İzmir, Türkiye.
25. Hansen, B. (1995). Rethinking the univariate approach to unit root testing: Using covariates to increase power. Econometric Theory, 11(5), 1148–1171.
26. Haque, N., Jangam, S. V., & Mujumdar, A. S. (2015). Life cycle assessment of drying systems. In A. S. Mujumdar (Ed.), Handbook of industrial drying (4th ed., pp. 1229–1238). CRC Press.
27. Hasanbeigi, A., Lu, H., Williams, C., & Price, L. (2012). International best practices for pre-processing and co- processing municipal solid waste and sewage sludge in the cement industry (LBNL-5581E, pp. 1–115). Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
28. Huntzinger, D. N., & Eatmon, T. D. (2009). A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement manufacturing: Comparing the traditional process with alternative technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(7), 668–675.
29. Im, K., & Schmidt, P. (2008). More efficient estimation under non-normality when higher moments do not depend on the regressors, using residual-augmented least squares. Journal of Econometrics, 144(1), 219-233.
30. Jungbluth, N., Emmenegger, M. E., Dinkel, F., Stettler, C., Doka, G., Chudacoff, M., Dauriat, A., Gnansounou, E., Spielmann, M., Sutter, J., Kljun, N, Keller, M. & Schleiss, K. (2007). Life cycle inventories of bioenergy (Final report ecoinvent data v2.0). Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories.
31. Kumar, S., & Madlener, R. (2016). CO₂ emission reduction potential assessment using renewable energy in India. Energy, 97, 273–282.
32. Lamas, W. Q., Palau, J. C. F., & Camargo, J. R. (2013). Waste materials co-processing in cement industry: Ecological efficiency of waste reuse. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 19, 200–207.
33. Lee, H., Lee, J., & Im, K. (2015). More powerful cointegration tests with non-normal errors. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, 19(4), 397–413.
34. Liu, X., Yuan, Z., Xu, Y. & Jiang, S. (2017). Greening cement in China: A cost-effective roadmap. Applied Energy, 189, 233–244.
35. Mirjat, N. H., Uqaili, M. A., Harijan, K., Valasai, G. D., Shaikh, F. & Waris, M. (2017). A review of energy and power planning and policies of Pakistan. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 79, 110–127.
36. Oh, D., Lee, H., & Boulware, K. D. (2020). A comment on interest rate pass-through: A non-normal approach. Empirical Economics, 59, 2017–2035.
37. Okandan, E., Karakece, Y., Çetin, H., Topkaya, İ., Parlaktuna, M., Akın, S., …, Akalan, E. (2011). Assessment of CO₂ storage potential in Turkey, modeling and a prefeasibility study for injection into an oil field. Energy Procedia, 4, 4849–4856.
38. Oral, H. V., & Saygin, H. (2019). Simulating the future energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of Turkish cement industry up to 2030 in a global context. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 24(8), 1461–1482.
39. Ozer, B., Görgün, E., & İncecik, S. (2013). The scenario analysis on CO₂ emission mitigation potential in the Turkish electricity sector: 2006–2030. Energy, 49, 395–403.
40. Özkan, N. F., & Ulutaş, B. H. (2017). Efficiency analysis of cement manufacturing facilities in Turkey considering undesirable outputs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 156, 932–938.
41. Perron, P. (1989). The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica, 57(6), 1361–1401.
42. Rahman, A., Rasul, M. G., Khan, M. M. K., & Sharma, S. (2015). Recent development on the uses of alternative fuels in cement manufacturing process. Fuel, 145, 84–99.
43. Rahmadi, A., Aye, L., & Moore, G. (2013). The feasibility and implications for conventional liquid fossil fuel of the Indonesian biofuel target in 2025. Energy Policy, 61, 12–21.
44. Saka, T. (2020). Turkish cement industry converts wastes into value as a source of raw material and energy. https://www.turkcimento.org.tr/en/news_detail/turkish-cement-industry-converts-wastes-into-value-as-a- source-of-raw-material-and- energy#:~:text=Tamer%20Saka%20said%2C%20%E2%80%9CTurkish%20cement,44%25%20in%20the%20European %20Union (last visited on 25.08.2025).
45. Salas, D. A., Ramirez, A. D., Rodríguez, C. R., Petroche, D. M., Boero, A. J., & Duque-Rivera, J. (2016). Environmental impacts, life cycle assessment and potential improvement measures for cement production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 114–122.
46. Schorcht, F., Kourti, I., Scalet, B. M., Roudier, S., & Sancho, L. D. (2013). Best available techniques (BAT) reference document for the production of cement, lime and magnesium oxide (EUR 26129 EN). European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Publications Office of the European Union.
47. Shin, H. C., Park, J. W., Kim, H. S., & Shin, E. S. (2005). Environmental and economic assessment of landfill gas electricity generation in Korea using the LEAP model. Energy Policy, 33(10), 1261–1270.
48. Song, H. J., Lee, S., Maken, S., Ahn, S. W., Park, J. W., Min, B., & Koh, W. (2007). Environmental and economic assessment of the chemical absorption process in Korea using the LEAP model. Energy Policy, 35(10), 5109–5116.
49. Söğüt, Z. M. (2012). A research on exergy consumption and potential of total CO₂ emission in the Turkish cement sector. Environmental Conservation and Management, 56, 37–45.
50. Stafford, F. N., Dias, A. C., Arroja, L., Labrincha, J. A., & Hotza, D. (2016). Life cycle assessment of the production of Portland cement: A Southern Europe case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 126, 159–165.
51. TTGV (Technology Development Foundation of Türkiye). (2023). Sustainable cement production in the process of decarbonisation of the building and construction sector: Deep dive study – summary report. TTGV.
52. TÜRKÇİMENTO. (2023). Turkish cement sector 2023. Ankara: TÜRKÇİMENTO.
53. Udomsri, S., Martin, A. R., & Fransson, T. H. (2010). Economic assessment and energy model scenarios of municipal solid waste incineration and gas turbine hybrid dual-fueled cycles in Thailand. Waste Management, 30(7), 1414–1422.
54. Ulusu, H., Aruntas, H. Y., & Gencel, O. (2016). Investigation on characteristics of blended cement containing pumice. Construction and Building Materials, 118, 11–19.
55. USGS. (2025). Mineral commodity summaries 2025: Cement. U.S. Department of the Interior.
56. Valderrama, C., Granados, R., Cortina, J. L., Gasol, C. M., Guillem, M., & Josa, A. (2012). Implementation of best available techniques in cement manufacturing: A life-cycle assessment study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 25, 60–67.
57. Valderrama, C., Granados, R., Cortina, J. L., Gasol, C. M., Guillem, M., & Josa, A. (2013). Comparative LCA of sewage sludge valorisation as both fuel and raw material substitute in clinker production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 51, 205–213.
58. Wang, Y., Gu, A., & Zhang, A. (2011). Recent development of energy supply and demand in China, and energy sector prospects through 2030. Energy Policy, 39(11), 6745–6759.
59. Worrell, E., Price, L., Martin, N., Hendriks, C., & Meida, L. O. (2001). Carbon dioxide emissions from the global cement industry. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 26, 303–329.
60. Yildirim, H., Sümer, M., Akyüncü, V., & Gürbüz, E. (2011). Comparison on efficiency factors of F and C types of fly ashes. Construction and Building Materials, 25(6), 2939–2947.