Chemistry is having “an innovation crisis”, according to John Warner, co-author of the 12 Principles of Green Chemistry. “We need to ask if the way we’re training future scientists is fitting the need of society.”

The push for green chemistry began over two decades ago, and Warner has been part of the movement the whole time. On Wednesday, he presented one of two keynote speeches at a Guardian conference on green chemistry.

One of the recurring themes of the conference was the need for all stakeholders to radically shift their perspective on green chemistry.

As the long overdue revision of the Toxic Substances Control Act highlights, the US approach to making chemistry greener has mainly been conducted through regulations and restrictions.

Warner proposed a slightly different perspective: “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.”

To make that happen, he said, universities need to reconsider the way they train chemists of the future. Currently, chemical degrees don’t require any classes in toxicity or environmental mechanisms, he said.



“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.”

Another problem is that much of today’s green chemistry is focused on finding replacements for toxic chemicals that are currently in use. Unfortunately, as in the case of BPA and BPS plastic, the chemicals substituted can be as problematic as the ones taken out.

According to Arlene Blum, founder and executive director of the Green Science Policy Institute, one answer may be for businesses to question whether their products need to use chemicals of concern in the first place, which she says are often used to add a function that the product doesn’t need.

Some chemicals provide essential benefits in some products, but aren’t needed in many others in which they are used. For example, she argued that furniture foam doesn’t need chlorinated tris, a toxic fire-retardant chemical. “It has no significant safety benefit,” she said. “On furniture, fabric burns long before foam.”

After considerable lobbying, the state of California agreed with her, and as of 1 January, it no longer requires furniture to have fire retardant foam.

In recent years, purchasers have provided much of the impetus for green chemistry and sustainable chemical replacements. Calling for a larger selection of affordable green options, they have applied pressure to retailers, who have passed it along to suppliers and manufacturers. For example, Walmart and Target – among other retailers – have emerged as a major force for more environmentally friendly products and have reduced the use of chemicals of concern far beyond what’s required by law.

But Heather White, executive director of Environmental Working Group, pointed out that consumers can only do so much. “We can’t shop our way out of this problem,” White said. “Right now, we’re asking every consumer, every family, to be their own little EPA [Environmental Protection Agency]. We have to regulate chemicals.”

Paul Anastas, director of Yale University’s Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering, argued that regulation is often slow and limited. He recalled that during his first stint at the EPA, the US banned dioxin – but it took 23 years of work.

“We’ve been playing Whac-a-mole, going after the most hazardous products one after another,” Anastas 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.”

According to Anastas, product development and manufacturing in the US relies on misguided conventional wisdom. He said these three popular aphorisms are among those he believes to be untrue:

“People will not pay more for green.” “The US will always be a net energy importer.” “The environment will always be a cost drain.”

Anastas said these miconceptions often have a negative influence on policy decisions, design decisions and investments. To achieve what Anastas described as “transformational change”, we need to fundamentally shift the way we look at green chemistry, he said, adding that the key is to shift the frame of the conversation from a focus on restriction to a focus on opportunity.

Adapting a quote from Elon Musk, Anastas suggested a potential motto for the next generation of green chemists: “We have no desire to do the best green chemistry. We will do the best chemistry, and it will happen to be green.”