Why concrete?

In January this year, when Minister of Public Works Deodat Indar announced the award of $792 million and $865 million in contracts to build roads in Wakenaam and Leguan respectively, he revealed the specifications, which were that they would be constructed of rigid pavement concrete. Scarce an eyebrow was lifted since it was not the first such declaration. In July 2021, $120 million were allocated for the reconstruction of two sections of the main road at Wakenaam, and a moderate hullabaloo ensued after engineer Charles Sohan dubbed the move impractical in a letter to this newspaper days later.

Mr Sohan had argued that using concrete in road construction was not only expensive to begin with, but would prove costly to maintain. In his call, which clearly fell on deaf ears, he had observed that those in authority ought to explore indigenous road-building material that would be more cost effective.

Whether Mr Sohan was right or not, the true ramifications of Guyana’s new concrete construction era, which includes homes, and soon-to-be built hospitals, hotels and other commercial buildings as well as a stadium, have little to do with monetary cost, and will unfortunately be the burden of the next generation. As per normal, having arrived late to the table, Guyana chooses to simply be a copycat.

A mix of Portland cement, stone aggregates, sand and water, concrete was once considered among the wonders of the world; it still is in some places. Post-world war II, many bombed out countries turned to concrete to rebuild quickly and sturdily. Most, if not all of the infrastructure development in the world to date has been/is being done in concrete.

However, this thunderous, manmade, universal jungle is also contributing to choking the environment. Concrete, mainly owing to its cement component, is today responsible for some eight percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. More than that, according to the International Energy Agency, “the cement sector is the thirdlargest consumer of energy and the second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide when looking at industrial players alone”. The more it continues to be used, the worse it gets; the saying ‘moderation in everything’ is particularly apt here.

As a result, some governments have begun exploring alternatives being developed by environmentally conscious scientists. One such is a microalgae-based bio-cement, the patent of which is owned by the University of Colorado, that emits little to no CO2 and recycles 95 percent of the water used during its production. This product has to be mixed with aggregate to form concrete and in its usage to date, including by the US Department of Defense, has been found to be comparable with Portland cement-based concrete.

Another alternative is hempcrete, which is made from the dried core of stalks from the hemp plant and a lime-based binder. While it is currently being used to build homes, hempcrete cannot be used in casting foundations. However, a massive plus is that it is carbon negative; it actually sequesters carbon dioxide – some 307 kilogrammes per cubic metre, according to a study done in 2017 – which makes it ideal for the environment. Sure it can’t build high rises or skyscrapers, but who really needs them here?

A third replacement, and this one is not new at all, is clay bricks. These cannot be said to be 100 percent eco-friendly by dint of the fact that the clay has to be mined and the bricks fired in a kiln to dry, although there are eco-friendly kilns. However, with water as the only additive, clay bricks are deemed durable and sustainable since they can last for over 100 years when used in construction and when broken can be recycled. In addition, adobe, which includes clay, straw and sand, and is air dried, with use dating back several millennia, has been making a comeback in home construction. More good news is the fact that clay comes in many different forms, is an abundant natural resource and can be found all over the world.

Guyana once had a clay brick factory, but can support several, which would offer further sources of long-term employment. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to occur as the PPP/C government has proven that it cannot be persuaded to dismount its tired hobby horse of anti-Burnham rhetoric long enough to admit that there were some things he got right.

It is worth noting here that apart from its harmful emissions, cement and concrete are hazardous to health. Short-term or mild exposure during the handling of cement and the making of concrete results in eye, nose, throat and skin irritation. Prolonged exposure can lead to occupational asthma, reduced lung function and in some cases, death. Yet local contractors constantly have their workers handling the materials without the requisite safety gear. Gloveless, maskless, and worst of all barefooted labourers can often be found on sites mixing, pouring or applying cement.

As the building boom moves into high gear, it is also worth remembering that Transparency International (TI) has found construction to be so extremely prone to corruption that no country is immune from it. In its 2022 Corruption Perceptions Index, published in January this year, TI noted that most countries were failing to put an end to corruption. In the case of Guyana, TI noted that having risen to a score of 40 (the perceived level of public sector corruption is measured on a scale of 0-100, where 0 means highly corrupt and 100 means very clean), “the country has stagnated”. Citizens have to adopt the roles of watchdogs and not be so caught up in the ‘development’ euphoria that they end up losing in the long run.