Fact check: Carbon footprint of steel is 1.4 tons per produced ton of steel according to IEA, and

Executive summary — Short answer with context

The claim that the carbon footprint of steel is 1.4 tonnes CO2 per tonne of steel “according to IEA” is not supported by the provided document extracts: none of the cited IEA items in the dataset state a 1.4 tCO2/t value, and the supplied literature shows higher and route-dependent figures including roughly 2.0 kg CO2eq/kg (≈2.0 tCO2/t) for a typical blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) route ^{[1] [2]}. The IEA material in the pack discusses industry-wide emissions totals and measurement needs but does not offer a single authoritative per-tonne figure that confirms the 1.4 tCO2/t claim ^{[3] [4] [2]}.

1. Why the 1.4 tCO2/t claim appears weak — a direct look at the IEA excerpts

The IEA items in the dataset emphasize sector-wide emissions accounting, roadmaps and measurement frameworks rather than publishing a single per-tonne carbon intensity value. The 2020 roadmap and 2023–2024 IEA analyses provided here discuss priorities for decarbonization, data collection and the fact that the sector emits around 2.8 GtCO2 annually (about 8% of energy-system emissions), but they do not list “1.4 tCO2/t” as an IEA number ^{[3] [4] [2]}. Given those summaries, the claim that the IEA asserts 1.4 tCO2/t is not corroborated by these IEA excerpts.

2. What the supplied peer literature actually reports — numbers and routes matter

The academic and sector sources in the dataset show variation by production route. One assessed German BF-BOF average cited here reports approximately 2.0 kg CO2eq per kg of steel (≈2.0 tCO2/t), which is substantially higher than 1.4 tCO2/t and reflects conventional primary steelmaking ^[1]. Other life cycle assessments in the set address environmental profiles without single consolidated per-ton figures, but they consistently highlight that process choice (BF-BOF vs. EAF vs. hydrogen direct reduction), energy source, and scrap share drive large differences in intensity ^{[5] [6]}.

3. Industry-level framing: totals vs. per-ton metrics and why they diverge

IEA summaries in the materials emphasize aggregate sector emissions (2.8 GtCO2/year) and policy pathways rather than point estimates per unit of steel ^[2]. Translating an aggregate national or global emissions total into a per-ton figure requires clear definitions — which types of steel counted, boundaries (process-only vs. upstream materials), and allocation methods. The supplied IEA-focused documents stress improving measurement consistency and data frameworks precisely because current reporting heterogeneity makes single universal per-ton numbers unreliable ^{[4] [3]}.

4. Recent figures in this packet point to higher averages for primary routes

Within the assembled analyses, the most explicit per-mass number is the ~2.0 tCO2/t for a BF-BOF average in Germany, dated December 2022 ^[1]. This indicates that, at least for typical primary production using fossil-based ironmaking and basic oxygen furnaces, carbon intensities commonly exceed 1.4 tCO2/t. The dataset therefore suggests that a 1.4 tCO2/t figure, if used, may represent a specific lower-impact configuration (high scrap, low-emission power) rather than the sector-wide average ^{[1] [5]}.

5. Missing pieces and methodological caveats the dataset highlights

The materials repeatedly point out gaps in per-ton reporting and methodological variation: life cycle system boundaries, co-product allocation, and regional energy mixes alter results significantly ^{[5] [6] [4]}. The IEA excerpts included emphasize the need for robust, harmonized measurement protocols to enable apples-to-apples comparisons across countries and routes; therefore, isolated per-ton claims without methodological transparency risk being misleading ^{[4] [3]}.

6. Competing agendas and why claims like “1.4 tCO2/t” may be promoted

Given the heterogeneity in reported intensities and the dataset’s focus on decarbonization pathways, parties seeking to portray progress or justify policy might select a lower-bound per-ton figure (for specific low-carbon routes or product mixes) while others emphasize higher averages for incumbent technologies. The documents provided show both advocacy for technology change and the need for standard measurement, indicating potential motivation to cherry-pick favorable numbers absent harmonized reporting ^{[3] [1]}.

7. Bottom line for verification and recommended caution

Based on the provided sources, the statement that the IEA reports a carbon footprint of 1.4 tCO2 per tonne of steel is not supported. The supplied analyses instead show sector totals and route-specific intensities that are often near 2.0 tCO2/t for conventional primary steelmaking, and they highlight methodological reasons why a single number is unreliable without context ^{[2] [1] [4]}. Treat any per-ton figure as conditional on production route, geographic mix, and system boundaries, and consult the original IEA reports and underlying LCA studies for precise definitions before quoting a universal value ^{[3] [5]}.