Powered by Delicious
The language of climate change became a common part of the American political dialog in the late 80s. 1988 was one of the hottest years on record and farmers felt the affects of drought. The first Bush administration signed (non-binding) climate agreements in Rio and scientists testified to Congress about a need to address this mounting issue.
Original efforts to limited CO2 emissions were fought by many companies in the energy and transportation sectors. Major campaigns were wagged to attach the science of climate change and were successful in confusing the American public about consensus in the scientific community. But prominent political figures such as Al Gore kept the "debate" on the agenda. In the 2000 election George W. Bush even "out greened" Gore by stating that Texas would have mandatory cuts in emissions, an idea that he could enact nationally. Ultimately he reversed his decision and even pulled America out of the Kyoto Protocol which had been signed by the Clinton Administration but never ratified by Congress. However, California took action to impose restrictions. Companies fearing state by state regulations then pressured the Congress to take actions as to insure uniform regulation.
The issue is still on the agenda but there is partisan divide between how you impose restrictions without taxing or increasing prices on consumers. The focus on creating "Green Jobs" is an excellent stance to take considering the current political climate. Its good for business, it helps solve for a shifting economic condition and for those that are marginally following the issue the debate is easy to form an informed opinion on. Innovation is an idea to latch on to.
Comments by our Denny Chair Deb Swackhamer:
"While there are no known human effects from the chemicals, research shows the compounds affect fish at very low concentrations."
"I think the reason people are nervous about that is that these are very biologically-active compounds," Swackhamer said. "So it's not to say we can definitively say the concentrations in the environment are harmful, but we're paying a great deal of attention because these are very potent chemicals at very small concentrations."
Read the full article here at MPR NewsQ.
As we make scientific and commercial advancements in bio-based energy and building materials we are witnessing an emerging market for "sustainable" and "bio-based" products. With these terms being thrown around the question is bound to come up: what does it mean to be sustainable or bio-based?
This question was recently raised at IREE's E3 conference. Among the numerous breakout sessions at E3 was a session on the challenges and opportunities of biopolymers, and among the panelist at this session was Cargill representative Yusuf Wazirzada. Wazirzada spoke about Cargill's BiOH, a soy-based polyol that is used to manufacture some of the foam found in furniture, carpeting, and automobiles. BiOH is one of the first examples of a bio-based product that has gone through the full product development cycle and is now available for purchase. While discussing his experience as a participant in this cutting-edge development process, Mr.Wazirzada referred to an experiment the BiOH team took part in to verify the bio-based claims of its product and its competitors. The experiment found that while BiOH lives up to its claims, being between 96% and 98% bio-based, its competitors fell quite short. One competing product, which claimed to be 20% bio-based, turned out to be 12% bio-based. A second product, labeled as having "high bio-content" was found to be only 1% bio-based.
With such mislabeling already underway we may quickly see the terms sustainable and bio-based lose their meaning. This linguistic diluting could be dangerous; it causes economic harm to those who manufacture truly sustainable or bio-based products and exploits the environmental concerns of customers. Before any more damage occurs we as a society need to stop and ask what the terms sustainable and bio-based mean. We need to define these terms and set standards for manufactures who wish to make sustainability and bio-based claims. And we need to do this now, before our new sustainable and bio-based market is flooded with products that are no different than those found in our old petroleum-based market.
The website for the Center for Sustainable Polymers can be found here.
You can join the Center for Sustainable Polymer's Facebook Group here.
The University of Minnesota's Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment recently hosted its 6th annual E3 conference. This was a big event, and in the coming weeks I will make a number of specific posts about E3, but to start off I would like to share some personal reactions:
The E3 website, which will soon include videos and recaps, can be found here.