Talk:Chem395:April 18 discussion

Today's discussion will consider how best to get the message of green chemistry and green manufacturing out to people, and to change the mindset of the skeptics. See the article page for background information.

Agenda

Specifically, we will consider how the following groups can help:

• Government
• Scientists
• Students and citizens like me
• A company such as Acme

We will discuss each in turn, in the order shown

Please make sure that you have read chapter 1 of Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice before the discussion.

Discussion

OK: Jesse, are you here? I just heard from Chris a few minutes ago, he can't attend today. Should we reschedule this, so we can have a proper three-way discussion? Would you be available next Wednesday at 2pm? Or would you prefer to continue without Chris? Walkerma 16:01, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Hello everyone! J-Fed 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Hi there, sorry for the confusion on Friday.Murphy44 13:59, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Welcome! OK, let's get started. Green chemistry has been very influential, as showing a practicable way to improve the environmental record of a manufacturing industry. But how can government help companies to adopt it in their approach to R&D, etc? Walkerma 14:01, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

The government could show support by setting aside funding to help aid in the expensive cost of R&D. This is one of the main stopping blocks of new technology, the cost. Can we really put a value on a cleaner environment? I feel it's a priceless commodity. The government could also step in with new legislation that has stricter rules and regulation about what is allowed to be returned back into things like waterways. This would help with the amount of toxic waste being put into the environment. Murphy44 14:06, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

s:The government can help companies adopt green chemistry practices by offering incentives for innovation in the industry. Awards and recognition are also possibilities. J-Fed 14:05, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Legislation and bills to foster green chemical practices and designs are also other things that the government can do. J-Fed 14:06, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

An excellent general approach to these sorts of things - a carrot and stick. But what sort of incentives are appropriate (let's get more specific)? Also, how can (say) the EPA know that Megacorp is doing true green chemistry, but that Superchem is just claiming to be green to get the money (I'm assuming money is part of the incentive)? Walkerma 14:11, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

The US EPA has set up 4 green chemistry programs:

• The Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge. Awards for innovative achievments in green chemistry.
• Educational materials. EPA and American Chemical Society have partnered in efforts to ensure that green chemistry is included in schools.
• The Synthetic Methodology Assessment for Reduction Techniques program (SMART). It talks about pollution prevention and awareness as well as better industrial practices.
• Green Chemistry Institute. A partnership between the American Chemical Society (ACS) and EPA allows the public to interact and fosters education about chemistry. J-Fed 14:11, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

The EPA can do audits and have inspectors check Megacorp or other companies that try to cut corners. J-Fed 14:15, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

It would seem that a system would need to be set up to regulate the companies that are participating in the gov. incentives. So the EPA would need a set of standards that would need to be met for a company to even apply. These standards would need to be something that are both beneficial towards the environment and rewarding for the company(hence the incentives) Murphy44 14:17, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

The EPA and many other governmental organizations have strict requirements for companies to adhere to if they want to participate in incentive programs. Green chemistry challenges, international organizations, partnerships, joint-ventures, programs, educational sessions / training are all things that can be done to promote green chemistry. J-Fed 14:19, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

This is an excerpt from http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/83/8326sci1.html

"The results of the awards program "are pretty impressive," Schnieder added. Since it began, EPA's tracking of the impact of the winning technologies shows them to have prevented on average 140 million lb of hazardous substances from being produced each year, saved more than 55 million gal of process water per year, and prevented 57 million lb of carbon dioxide emissions per year, she noted. "In total, by our current conservative estimates, green chemistry technologies are preventing more than 3 billion lb of hazardous materials or waste per year.""J-Fed 14:22, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

This is excellent proof that the carrot on the stick method is effective in getting results. Murphy44 14:23, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Such programs have allowed universities and academia institutions to participate also. Green chemistry is something that can be done on many fronts - it does not require certain sectors of the industry to operate. J-Fed 14:23, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Now, how can this approach be fostered among academics? Academics have often had an "ivory tower" mentality - they want to study pure science, and leave that dirty industrial stuff to the commercial sector. How can you get academics interested in changing their research programs?

Professors and faculty interested in a variety of topics can help academia. Research programs that allow student to make their own progress without too much help will allow for new and creative achievements. Applications to the real world are also things that can be taught in classes. Universities are offered money for their programs by the government (state/federal), alumni and the community. The better an institutions reputation for producing innovative technologies, the more money / research they can do. J-Fed 14:32, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Make the research in the world of academia and the world of industry become more of a similar entity. Meaning, use what is learned in the ivory tower and apply it to the industrial world. The industrial world can then give feed back on the problem and any results. Academia does great amounts of research, perhaps giving out more grants to projects that deal with real world applications and processes would start the ball rolling towards further research in this area. Murphy44 14:33, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Royalties are also other ways to get academia interested in the research field. Faculty who can write good grant proposals and create new and fresh ideas will boost their students'/ universities' reputation. J-Fed 14:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

One problem is the traditional system doesn't train academics well for this sort of thing. Most professors do BS => PhD => Postdoc1 => Postdoc2 => Faculty position, and at no stage to they get any real exposure to the chemical industry. Many have some strange ideas about what the chemical industry is like, as it is based mostly on their own speculation rather than any real experience. So how can academic scientists even know what problems are there to be solved, let alone actually solve them? Walkerma 14:36, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

So perhaps encouraging a few years of practical application of skills in the field for the PhD application process would help solve the problem. Murphy44 14:39, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Suscribing to journals and reading up on the current information out there. Faculty who have not been in the industrial arena must read constantly to stay up to date and teach the new problems and innovations to their students. Even for their own benefit it is necessary. J-Fed 14:38, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

This is important for the universities' library or educational centers - labs etc. It is important for students and faculty to have access to new materials. J-Fed 14:44, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Experience is very important for credibility. However, if some don't have it, they are not necessarily ignorant. To take a teaching job compared to a higher industrial paying job does say a lot. J-Fed 14:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

If it wasn't for our teachers, there wouldn't be any innovation. J-Fed 14:49, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

SOme problems with these ideas:

• Most industrial people want to bury knowledge in unreadable (to competitors) patents, not make them openly known through journals. That is changing a bit, though.
• The mentors for PhD programs can't train people in industrial methods, because they are clueless as well! In Ireland and the UK, though, there has been a trend towards putting industrial parks next to universities and pouring money into programs that link the two – with some success.

But let's now look at how YOU and Jane Doe can help... JaneDoe 14:52, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Having an educational body to regulate journals or online articles - ex- wiki! - are great for allowing people to read up on information. Everything is going online now and it would be foolish to ignore the wealth of information online. J-Fed 14:57, 23 April 2008 (EDT)