How to improve the US sustainable chemistry strategy

On Dec. 19, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released the long-awaited Federal Sustainable Chemistry Strategic Plan. Mandated under the Sustainable Chemistry Research and Development Act, enacted in 2021, the strategy was developed by an interagency team and outlines a series of goals and objectives to support the development and implementation of sustainable chemistry products and processes, including the following:

▸ discovering more sustainable chemistry for future processes and products

▸ supporting sustainable chemistry from discovery to commercialization

▸ promoting adoption of sustainable chemistry in business and government

▸ creating a 21st-century federal service for sustainable chemistry

While the strategy’s publication is an important milestone in centering sustainable chemistry—the design of chemicals and chemical products that benefit society without harming health and the environment—as a key economic and sustainability priority for the nation, it misses some important opportunities that would significantly advance growth.

First, unlike the European Transition Pathway for the Chemical Industry or other US manufacturing initiatives, such as the Bold Goals for US Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing and the Department of Energy’s Clean Products and Fuels Shot, the strategy lacks bold goals for sustainable chemistry or recommendations that would fundamentally transform the industry and sectors that rely on it.

Public goals for sustainable chemistry can help shape investment and research funding, provide a baseline from which to evaluate progress, and align government and private sector efforts in an exciting, emerging sector. The report misses a critical opportunity to coalesce disconnected actions about the sustainability of chemistry and chemical processes into a cohesive approach to achieve US leadership, as envisioned in the 2021 act.

Second, much of the report is focused on basic R&D rather than industrial solutions. While basic research is critical in chemistry innovation, it must be linked to technological, business, and societal needs to ensure that it stands a chance of uptake.

Many of the report’s research and technology recommendations unfortunately emphasize nonspecific basic research ideas. It does note that “any federal investment must be intimately tied to compelling value propositions for stakeholders.” But it offers few specifics for creating these ties and only suggests R&D road maps for discrete sectors and for connecting sustainable chemistry innovators with those looking for solutions.

While scientists have achieved many R&D innovations in sustainable chemistry, most have not made it to the marketplace because of the incumbency of existing chemicals and processes that are capitalized, broadly integrated into supply chains, and often not regulated. Industry has little incentive to absorb the additional costs of capital investment, reformulation, and regulatory approvals without strong policy or market drivers.

The report pays scant attention to the incumbency barrier, which I would argue is one of the biggest challenges to sustainable chemistry. While it recommends developing a comprehensive understanding of these barriers, particularly for small businesses, it does not acknowledge the extensive research on these barriers or the myriad tools the federal government has used to incentivize technologies such as renewable energy, sustainable aviation fuel, and semiconductor manufacture.

The report also fails to acknowledge what has already been articulated by industry. For example, at a Department of Energy roundtable last year cohosted with my organization, Change Chemistry, companies from multiple sectors outlined technology, infrastructure, and incentivization needs to move sustainable chemistry from R&D to deployment and adoption at scale. These needs include national infrastructure for fermentation, support to secure offtake agreements, and supply and adoption incentives.

Third, the OSTP strategy recognizes the need for criteria and metrics to guide government policy incentives and prioritization of innovation efforts, but it does not set out practical criteria to evaluate sustainable chemistry investments. Clear criteria are crucial to effectively target federal incentives and investments, guide private sector research and innovation activities, avoid greenwashing, and measure growth in the US sustainable chemistry sector.

Because sustainable chemistry is underpinned by green chemistry—the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances—at a minimum, sustainable chemistry innovations must be safe throughout their life cycles. This minimum criterion of safety is essential for addressing two of the report’s crosscutting themes: environmental justice for those disproportionately impacted by the life cycle of chemicals, and a circular economy in which materials are renewable and safely recyclable.

The federal government has recently awarded significant funding to chemistry innovations that decarbonize existing molecules and processes, support renewable energy and energy storage, and address plastic waste. Such investments may be an important step in meeting climate or waste reduction goals, but they should not be labeled ”sustainable chemistry” solutions if they only decarbonize, create circular versions, or potentially increase the use of existing toxic chemistries.

Unlike many other sustainability attributes, clear criteria for defining a safe or safer chemical exist and have been accepted and adopted by a broad array of stakeholders in industry, government, and academia. For example, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has developed safer chemical guidance. The US Environmental Protection Agency developed federal criteria for safer chemicals for specific uses under its Safer Choice program. And several states, including Washington, have policy-relevant definitions.

The air contamination and hazardous waste cleanup challenges posed by the burning of homes, commercial buildings, and vehicles during the recent California fires provide a clear example of the need for criteria for safer and sustainable chemistry.

The Sustainable Chemistry Research and Development Act, enacted during the first administration of Donald J. Trump, envisions a 10-year process to develop and implement the federal strategy. The next 4 years are critical. Much like the bioeconomy, sustainable chemistry has enjoyed broad bipartisan support because it has the potential to advance domestic manufacturing, supply chain resilience, rural economic development, national security, and job creation while improving environmental and human health.

As chemistry underpins most manufacturing activities, a well-crafted and implemented sustainable chemistry strategy can provide benefits for business and investors and can enhance US competitiveness. At the same time, it can reduce financial risks and costs associated with climate change, chemical pollution, and plastics waste. We must continue to work together to develop and advance bold goals for sustainable chemistry. While federal regulatory activity on chemicals can ebb and flow, the demand by consumers, investors, and state and international governments for safer and more sustainable chemistries and processes will not.

Joel Tickner is a professor of public health at the University of Massachusetts Lowell and executive director of Change Chemistry.

Do you have a story you want to share with the chemistry community? Send your idea or an 800-word submission to cenopinion@acs.org.