Talk:Chem395:May 2 discussion

The final discussion will be used to try and bring a conclusion to the whole course. The topic will be derived from a slide in Unit 14:

Society will still need goods to be manufactured.

• Is sustainable manufacturing feasible?
• Full cost accounting – will it become the norm?
• Life Cycle Analysis and ISO 14000: Window dressing or a sea change?
• Remanufacturing, green chemistry – are these realistic & viable, or just environmental dreaming?

The discussion

You are Minister for Industry for the new US Administration elected in 2008. Pick one specific environmental initiative that you think have the most useful impact (you don't need to be limited to the examples listed above). Make the case for that particular initiative, and explain how it could be paid for.

Discussion

Hello! J-Fed 17:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Murphy44 17:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jesse! Chris, are you there? Walkerma 18:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Great! I think the agenda is quite clear. Notice that I chose Ministry of Industry, not of the environment; that means it should be something that industry could support (or at least accept) as strengthening US industry.

Jesse, can you start? You're in the new Obama/Clinton/McCain administration. What would you do as Minister of Industry? Explain why.

Sure! I would look at the how to improve mining practices, and look at ways to make it safer for the miners and communities.I would focus on pollution prevention and control, in other words, designing and mitigating operations and procedures for mining operations to follow to reduce wastes. I would assign specific responsibilities to the mining companies to minimize hazards and wastes. Air emissions, water pollutants, and ambient noise pollution are things I would stress as the minister. I would create and implement a comprehensive environmental / mine management plan to – restore areas that were destroyed, minimize land destruction, maximize water resources, utilize geothermal and geochemical stabilities, allow miners to use accurate maps and techniques to mine, and have better safety equipment brought in to assist them. I would make sure that the soil layers, and ground water is tested for purities and pollutants and make sure that OSHA regulations and other requirements are followed explicitly. J-Fed 18:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would work closely with other government agencies (EPA) to create and foster better industry/ government relations as well. J-Fed 18:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I would offer incentives to the private sector to promote projects and sustainability goals. I would encourage government, environmental, business collaboration and promote municipal regulations. J-Fed 18:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that dealing with today's problems without ignoring the future is imperative. J-Fed 18:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and an excellent answer in my opinion! That's an interesting choice - and one I'd applaud, because it's not one of the standard options, yet mining is perhaps the dirtiest part of the entire manufacturing process. It's wonderful to make cars using green methods, etc., but if some raw materials (metal) are products of mining, there is still a big (negative) environmental impact.

OK, Chris - could you be a skeptical colleague (who is about to get the same job in a few minutes time!) - and critique Jesse's proposal? Give both the pros and the cons. Walkerma 18:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, I agree with you Dr. Walker, if we could clean up the inputs before they made it to the manufacturing process that would make a huge difference. I agree with J-Fed that mining is a wonderful industry to get a handle on and control the dirty process that is so vital to manufacturing. I wonder about a time line for this plan, how long would it take? Where would the funds come from for cleaning up what has already been destroyed? (tax payers or the mining industry) I also like the idea of testing the soil and water, once again who would be paying? Either way, people are going to complain about the fact that they have to pay more. Murphy44 18:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesse, can you respond to that question - the billion dollar one - how would you fund it? Walkerma 18:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would assist the mining industry in extraction techniques and operations and promote safe, reliable, eco-friendly methods. My plan would be comprehensive in nature and encompass all of these issues. The time-line of this plan would be during my entire career in Washington. As far as the cost associated with this, it would come from an allocation of taxes that have been portioned, so there would not be an increase in how much citizens must pay. J-Fed 18:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So does that mean taxing the mining companies? On what basis - profits, or what? Walkerma 18:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It would come from the portioning and allocation of current taxes/ rates on mining companies, citizens as a whole. It is my belief that most of what is paid is not used wisely. J-Fed 18:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Chris – OK, it's your turn. Jesse's the victim of some political machinations and you are now the Minister for Industry. Jesse's plan has already gone ahead, so you can't just steal his idea! What would be your "pet program?" Walkerma 18:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As the new minister of industry I would work towards mandating that all major industrial companies have an EMS by the year 2015. This would require the creating of a new government organization to regulate all of these newly proposed EMS. The funding for this organization would be tax payer funded as a branch of the EPA. This would send industry in the write direction towards a greener future. Many of the polices that J-Fed has already set into place, before his untimely leaving, for the mining industry would fall into an EMS. This I feel is the best way to jump start the nation into a walk towards sustainability. Murphy44 18:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific. What type of EMS? How would companies implement it? How would you ensure that they were following the law? Walkerma 18:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

PROS Well, I would say that manufacturing technologies greatly influence the environmental performance of a product. The idea behind creating new technologies for recycling, transportation, manufacturing and energy production is a solid one. Chris has shown that such a practical application of eco-design (EMS) shows exceptional life-cycle-thinking processes! Using an EMS would mean that the use of raw materials, their manufacture, distribution and use / end stage would be evaluated by agencies and from an environmental point of view. This is an excellent step in promoting EMS and effective as a life-cycle analysis. J-Fed 18:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

CONS This approach has some constraints and makes it difficult to be effective and ultimately sustainable (in the eyes of some industrialists). From an industrial perspective it’s very complicated to try an educate employees in environmental-oriented methods, operations and tools, let alone make sure that everyone has an implemented, successful EMS. From a sustainability perspective, it’s difficult to do research in this area. How would one recognize any current and / or future influences on the type of product / company services / and industrial processes? How would you analyze and find the right strategy and the new goals? Do these solutions correct the problem or at least reduce it in the best way? Consuming resources leads to high environmental impacts because of the negative cash-flow in the economy. To correct this, reducing energy, pollution and promoting sustainable manufacturing processes must be done. The question that must be asked is “What can we do to have less of an impact on the environment and costs less?” Companies first must use their current resources more efficiently (ie: heating in buildings, recycling and waste management). This will help the company and ultimately the consumers. J-Fed 18:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)