All That Jazz About Sustainable (Green) Chemistry
I just came back from a meeting in Boston (Hahvahd St.) where activists like me got together with chemists and other smart techy-types to talk about our vision of a chemical future. Certainly we don’t want it to look like our past; legacy toxics like trichloroethylene and other carcinogens, mutagens, and reproductive toxics fill superfund sites all over this country, poison communities, leach into rivers, lakes, and drinking water sources, bioaccumulate in our bodies and breast milk, and volatilize into the air. And, we don’t want it to look like our present; toys from China with deadly leaded paint, plastic children’s toys leaching toxic hormone-disrupting chemicals, deadly tailpipe fumes, wastes from old electronics products going to Asia where little children are poisoned while scavenging the re-sellable parts. Nope, the toxic deadly chemical world that we live in now does not have to be our future.
The concept of clean production is developing sustainable, non-toxic solutions. This may mean using a safe chemical to replace a hazardous one. Or, it may mean using a different production process so that chemicals are not necessary. Or, it may even mean asking if we even need that stuff.
It’s a cradle- to-cradle design of stuff, instead of the -cradle-to-grave cycle that ends in landfills and waste dump sites. It’s fully reusable non-toxic carpets, its buildings in the desert that use the cool night air instead of air conditioning, its neighborhood designs that moves rainwater to lawns and gardens instead of streets and sewer systems, its using non-toxic chemicals from nature instead of laboratories.
The US EPA website on green chemistry says, “Green chemistry, also known as sustainable chemistry, refers to environmentally friendly chemicals and processes that result in: reduced waste, eliminating costly end-of-the-pipe treatments; safer products; and reduced use of energy and resources—all improving the competitiveness of chemical manufacturers and their customers.”
Using safe chemicals and safe industrial processes should also make good business sense. After all, if a company isn’t likely to explode, poison its workers, or leach toxic effluent into local waterways, then its regulatory burdens are reduced, its liability is reduced, and its costs of emissions controls and worker protections are reduced.
For example, lead in paints were restricted in 1971 (thanks, Prez Nixon) and banned in 1972 (after an unsuccessful court challenge by the lead industry), but the paint industry had already begun to phase it out in the 1940’s, not for health reasons (although its deadly health impacts were known in the 1930’s), but because leaded paint required more mixing and so ready-to-use paints using zinc and titanium pigments instead were being developed. In other words, lead, a very nasty toxic chemical that affects the brain, kidney, bones, blood, and even sperm, came out of paint partly because a safer replacement was also a better business choice.
Tragically, it took much longer to get tetraethyl lead out of gasoline. It was used as an additive because it increased the octane level and worked as an anti-knock agent, allowing the development of more powerful combustion engines. By 1959, 15% of the lead used in the US was for gasoline, resulting in thousands of tons of lead in our air, soil, water, and bodies. EPA proposed to ban leaded gasoline in 1972, but because of repeated challenges by the industry it took until 1995 when Congress outlawed it. Fortunately, by that time it had already largely been removed from gasoline, in large part because it interfered with the catalytic converters that were becoming increasingly popular to increase engine efficiency and reduce toxic emissions. Thus, it was a good business decision to let newer, cleaner technology drive lead out of gasoline.
Of course, this came far too late for the poor tetraethyl-lead workers that in 1924 gave DuPont’s famous “House of Butterflies” its name when it was publicized that the workers went crazy, seeming to grasp at invisible butterflies in the air, before dying of extreme lead poisoning. And, it came too late for the children that were poisoned by lead from gasoline; researchers estimate that the average reduction of 2.2-4.7 IQ points from lead poisoning has resulted in $100-300 billion dollars in lost productivity for the US economy. In other words, it makes good business sense to not poison our population with toxic chemicals.
Maybe DuPont’s old 1935 adage, “Better Things for Better living…Through Chemistry” could one day be true. What do you think about sustainable green chemistry?
