Editorial: ‘No excuses’ for the future of green chemistry

So many of the twentysomethings in chemistry laboratories and classrooms today are exceptionally passionate about sustainability. That’s something my colleagues and I hear a lot from the experts we interview. A professor recently told me, for example, that his group’s new effort to engineer enzymes to help disassemble hard-to-recycle polymers was developed almost entirely by his graduate students.

Variations on the same theme come up again and again. A lot of young chemists out there want to use their skills to help the health of the planet (which, let’s be honest, chemists have done their fair share of damaging).

That anecdotal observation lines up with generational trends: members of Generation Z, who are today between the ages of 13 and 28, consistently rate climate issues as a priority. These are the folks who are currently in high school and college, going to graduate school, entering the workforce. They’re the future of chemistry and every other field.

Young people overwhelmingly understand that the environmental problems we’re faced with today are existential threats. They want to do something about them. The business sphere is also interested in going greener: students at the University of Cambridge found that 72% of companies globally believe that sustainability initiatives are good for business.

That engagement is cause for celebration but also a call to action. We as a chemistry community need to make sure that we’re equipping and supporting the next generations to build a greener and more sustainable future for chemistry.

A good place to start is with an accessible lineup of teaching resources. The American Chemical Society’s Green Chemistry Institute offers educational resources for college-level general and organic chemistry that make it easy for instructors to inject a little bit of green chemistry into their curricula (ACS publishes C&EN but is not involved in editorial decisions). And a sizable list of institutions around the world offer undergraduate and graduate programs in green chemistry specifically. It’s great that those resources exist, but it’s important to also have broader awareness and incentives to use them.

We also ought to consider greening chemistry beyond the bounds of the established subfield of green chemistry. A lab module teaching college students about safer solvents or biocatalysis is all well and good but gives only a narrow view of what it means to do chemistry sustainably. Practicing environmentally friendly chemistry can and should transcend disciplinary categories, as Peter Licence notes in our first Greening Chemistry guest column.

If we teach in high school or even earlier how chemistry is related to topics such as green energy, designing safer products, reducing waste, and removing pollutants from water, students have an even better idea of the true breadth and depth of sustainable chemistry. And they can carry that knowledge forward into their careers, whether they go into chemistry or another field, such as policy or journalism.

Finally, for cross-disciplinary research and education to truly live up to the vision of Paul Anastas and John Warner’s 12 principles of green chemistry, it needs to be adequately funded. And I'd be remiss if I ignored that funding is in jeopardy in the US as federal agencies are drastically cutting programs and as PhD programs and undergraduate research opportunities are downsizing. Research related to climate, clean energy, clean air and water, chemical safety, and diversifying the scientific workforce—all of which are essential for a green future—is being particularly targeted for elimination.

The career options and educational opportunities for young chemists and would-be chemists are shrinking, at least in the US, exactly when they ought to be growing. Young people are resilient, but resilience can go only so far when the stakes are this high. They need reasons to believe that the future they’re working for is possible. It’s up to the rest of us to make sure it can be. No excuses.

The editorial is the result of collective deliberation in C&EN. For this editorial, the lead contributor is Brianna Barbu.

Views expressed are not necessarily those of ACS.