Toward a Global Environmental Ethic

The American Chemical Society currently is engaged in an extensive evaluation of the future of the chemical enterprise. So far, we are finding that the globalization of chemical sciences through instantaneous communication and of the chemical industry through market forces is changing the chemical venture dramatically. Yet, with vision, we can meet these challenges. We can lead the way to a better future for our science, profession, and business by working toward a sustainable enterprise that incorporates a consistent, internationally accepted framework for managing the production, use, treatment, and disposal of chemicals; in short, a global environmental ethic.

Industry, government, the scientific community, and the public need to craft the framework of the global environmental ethic, leading to safer, more secure, and more environmentally friendly products and processes in keeping with the green chemistry model led by ACS. A global framework can reduce liabilities, minimize production shifts to countries with lax regulation, and prevent dumping of hazardous chemicals in such countries. A truly supportive effort by the chemical enterprise in this endeavor could also build worldwide trust in the industry and in chemistry as a profession.

Why a global ethic? The chemical industry is global in its manufacturing as it searches for competitive advantage in labor costs, feedstock availability, and proximity to the market. So, too, are scientific organizations such as ACS, which are international in scope and concerned about the welfare of the chemical enterprise. A global viewpoint is further warranted by the fact that chemicals do not respect national boundaries. For example, one of the alarming findings of the past two decades is the worldwide migration of persistent organic pollutants and their accumulation in the food and population of the Arctic.

Can't each country develop its own policies? After all, most governments want to protect their people and environment, and are often pressured into regulations by the increasingly vocal demand of their populations. Japan, Australia, and Vietnam, for example, approach treatment and disposal of persistent organic pollutants differently than does the U.S. These regulatory differences reflect social, political, and economic realities specific to the particular area of the world and, importantly, the stage of development of the country. As a result, regulations defining notification of chemicals to be used in commerce, classification of hazards, and appropriate labeling are diverse. These differences impact the chemical enterprise greatly.

An example in the news recently illustrates the impact of this nonuniformity: Bhopal. In 1984, a production accident in a chemical plant in Bhopal, India, killed thousands of people. Examination of this tragedy was a driving force in establishing the American Chemistry Council's Responsible Care program. This voluntary program has benefited industry and society worldwide. My recent visits to Bhopal have crystallized my belief in the value of global environmental principles. When I consulted with European firms on restoration options for the Bhopal site, the absence of Indian restoration standards complicated the search for an acceptable cleanup and, more important, will probably delay providing the inhabitants of the area with a clean site.

What has been going on recently in assembling an international framework? The Committee on Environmental Improvement has been monitoring the European Union's proposed REACH (Registration, Evaluation & Authorization of Chemicals) program. This regulation may become effective in 2006 for all 25 countries of the EU and will impact worldwide chemical trade significantly. REACH would require two sets of data for chemical substances produced in amounts greater than 1 metric ton per year. The data would consist of basic physical and toxicity characteristics and a description of the use of the product. REACH would also severely restrict known carcinogenic, mutagenic, persistent, and bioaccumulative chemicals. It may well accelerate the use of green chemistry for replacement products. REACH is often considered an extension of the precautionary approach to chemical regulation and incorporates a belief that the cost of inaction can be greater than the cost of action.

There are large differences between REACH and the U.S. system embodied in the Toxic Substances Control Act. These differences include quantities triggering registration, grandfathered products, data requirements, testing requirements, exemptions, and confidentiality of data. Objections to REACH in the U.S. include trade restrictions, delays in bringing products to the market, and increased cost.

No doubt, we need a better understanding of chemicals, their use, and their environmental fate, and we need to increase our degree of caution in using them. It was not generally a lack of caring by chemists that led to past and current environmental problems related to chemicals. Rather, I believe that it was a degree of overconfidence about how much we thought we knew about chemicals. Now, we know that we must factor the short- and long-term impact of chemicals on the ecosphere into our decision-making. An additional benefit would be a worldwide trust engendered in industry and in chemistry as a profession.

Collectively, we believe that chemicals are beneficial to the world and that their manufacture, transportation, use, and ultimate disposal can be managed sustainably and profitably without damage to the world. We need to be involved in establishing an international framework that achieves these objectives. A proactive effort in this area will lead to a more sustainable, equitable, and socially acceptable chemical enterprise.