{"id":59765,"date":"2026-04-10T11:39:43","date_gmt":"2026-04-10T09:39:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.deutscher-abbruchverband.de\/?p=59765"},"modified":"2026-04-10T11:39:43","modified_gmt":"2026-04-10T09:39:43","slug":"hazardous-substances-in-the-anthropogenic-stock","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.deutscher-abbruchverband.de\/en\/2026\/04\/hazardous-substances-in-the-anthropogenic-stock\/","title":{"rendered":"Hazardous substances in the anthropogenic stock"},"content":{"rendered":"

Why We Need to Rethink How We Deal with Contaminated Materials<\/strong><\/p>\n

Hazardous substances are one of the major, unpopular topics in the construction and environmental debate. They are complex, emotionally charged, and politically sensitive. They reliably return to the agenda whenever circular economy, resource protection, and sustainable construction are discussed.<\/p>\n

This is no longer about isolated cases or historical contaminated sites. It is about a fundamental question:<\/p>\n

How do we, as a society, deal with the substances that we ourselves have put into circulation and that are now part of our built environment?<\/p>\n

The answer will determine whether the circular economy becomes a viable model for the future – or fails due to its own contradictions.<\/p>\n

The Earth Is a Closed System<\/strong><\/p>\n

A central starting point is as simple as it is uncomfortable: we live in a closed system. There is no \u201coutside\u201d to which we can permanently dispose of substances. Whatever has been produced, installed, or distributed remains part of this system – visible or invisible, used or stored.<\/p>\n

Over decades, the construction sector in particular has moved enormous quantities of material. Buildings, roads, bridges, and technical structures are not only infrastructure\u2014they are also repositories: repositories for raw materials, for energy, and indeed for hazardous substances.<\/p>\n

This anthropogenic – i.e., man-made – stock is a reality. It is neither good nor bad; it is the result of our economic and technological progress.<\/p>\n

Anyone talking about the circular economy today must accept this stock as the starting point\u2014anything else is theory. Hazardous substances are part of history and therefore part of responsibility.<\/p>\n

Many substances we view critically today were considered technically sensible or even progressive at the time they were used. Asbestos was a high-performance material; certain additives improved the properties of building materials; industrial by-products were used to conserve resources.<\/p>\n

With today\u2019s knowledge, we assess these decisions differently – and rightly so. But that does not change the fact that these substances exist. They do not disappear simply because we now consider them problematic.<\/p>\n

The key question, therefore, is not whether we like or dislike hazardous substances. It is whether we are willing to take responsibility for how we handle them\u2014rather than pushing them out of sight.<\/p>\n

From Linear Disposal to a Systemic Approach<\/strong><\/p>\n

For a long time, the handling of hazardous substances followed a linear logic: identify, remove, landfill. In the short term, this suggested safety; in the long term, it primarily caused one thing: a displacement of problems – spatially, temporally, and often politically.<\/p>\n

In a circular economy, this way of thinking reaches its limits. If materials are to remain in the system for as long as possible, the question inevitably arises: how do we deal with contaminated components? A simple \u201cget rid of it\u201d no longer works without creating new conflicts of objectives.<\/p>\n

Substance Content Is Not the Same as Risk<\/strong><\/p>\n

A key point that is often overlooked in public debate is the distinction between substance content and hazard.<\/p>\n

A material can contain hazardous substances without automatically being dangerous. What matters is not merely that a substance is present, but:<\/p>\n