Leaders of Green Chemistry Movement Call for Perspective Change on Science

Leaders of Green Chemistry Movement Call for Perspective Change on Science MISCELLANEOUS, INNOVATION By KALE WILLIAMS, October 27, 2015 Some of the biggest names in the green chemistry movement are calling for a radical shift in how stakeholders view science, progression and the environment. The call to action came at a green chemistry conference hosted by the Guardian1) where John Warner, co-author of the 12 Principles of Green Chemistry, asked if the work researchers are doing in the name of environmentally-friendly science were serving their stated goals. “We need to ask if the way we’re training future scientists is fitting the need of society," he said during one of two keynote speeches at the conference. “Instead of enacting another law that bans or regulates a chemical or a molecule that has a toxic or environmentally destructive effect, we need to think about how we invent a product that doesn’t have that effect.” The shift in approach will need to start at the bottom, Warner said, with students educating themselves in toxicity or environmental mechanisms as well as chemistry and more traditional academic endeavors. “Inventors don’t know how to identify the parts of a molecule that cause toxicity. And if they can’t anticipate a negative impact, then they can’t design it out in the beginning,” he said. “There has to be a day in the future when no one graduates with a chemistry degree without taking classes in toxicology and environmental health.” Green chemistry today, Warner said, is often focused on finding safe alternatives for toxic chemicals. But, as is the case with bisphenol A and bisphenol S, sometimes the alternatives can be just as harmful as the substances they aim to replace. In some products, harmful chemicals are included even when they aren't necessary. Arlene Blum, founder and executive director of the Green Science Policy Institute, pointed to chlorinated tris, a toxic flame retardant used in foam. “It has no significant safety benefit,” she said. “On furniture, fabric burns long before foam.” Others at the conference noted that changes in industry have been driven by purchasers who, when they demand more green alternatives, apply pressure to retailers who in turn apply pressure to manufacturers. That trend, while encouraging, is limited in scope, said Heather White, executive director of Environmental Working Group. “We can’t shop our way out of this problem,” she said. “Right now, we’re asking every consumer, every family, to be their own little EPA [Environmental Protection Agency]. We have to regulate chemicals.” But regulation alone won't solve the problem either, said Paul Anastas, director of Yale University’s Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering. He said it took 23 years to ban dioxin when he worked at the EPA. “We’ve been playing Whac-a-mole, going after the most hazardous products one after another,” he said. “Going after one chemical at a time will never get us to where we need to be. We need to go after the fundamentals.” Instead, Anastas said there were three key myths that need to be dispelled about green chemistry. First, that consumers will not pay for green chemistry, which is sometimes incorrectly assumed to be more expensive. Secondly, that the United States will forever remain a net energy importer. Lastly, everyone needs to realize that the environment will not always be a cost drain. These misconceptions can negatively impact policy decisions, Anastas said, with the key lying in switching from a focus on restriction to one on opportunity. “We have no desire to do the best green chemistry," he said borrowing a quote from Elon Musk. "We will do the best chemistry, and it will happen to be green.” [Source: Guardian1) ] Resources for this article 1. Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/sep/03/green-chemistry-john-warner-epa-toxic-substances- control-act-walmart-target-california.

Load more