As of mid-2009, approximately 33 states had a climate change action plan and about 15 states had adopted California's vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards. California also has enacted a low-carbon fuel standard.

While California is well-studied, the researchers decided to study Minnesota because it is more representative of a typical state in relation to several factors affecting greenhouse gas emissions including population, registered vehicles, typical distances traveled, and gasoline consumption. Minnesota also enacted legislation in 2007 regarding emissions. The greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in Minnesota are 15 percent by 2015 and 30 percent by 2025, relative to 2005.

In their research, the team modeled several technology and policy options for reducing Minnesota's emissions. They studied a wide range of scenarios, from doing nothing, to adopting strict standards for fuels and vehicle efficiency, to increasing mass transit.

The researcher team, which included Humphrey School student Peter Nussbaum and Assistant Professor Elizabeth Wilson, concluded that Minnesota has a viable approach to meeting these goals only if advancements are made in all three areas--vehicle efficiency, decreased carbon content of fuels, and reduction of distances traveled by car. If the approach is not comprehensive and policies focus on only one or two areas, potential improvements may be negated by backsliding in another area, the report stated.

To view the full research report, visit http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es902019z.

Lack of political will, economic agendas, and uncertainties over environmental risk assessment are among the challenges to addressing environmental pollution before it's too late. Now, history seems to be repeating itself with the newest addition to the soup mix: engineered nanomaterials (ENMs).

Nanotechnology involves the manipulation of matter at the atomic scale, 1 to 100 nanometers (1 billionth of a meter), to create new products and processes with novel properties. It's being used in material engineering, consumer products, food production, agriculture, health care, environmental remediation and medicine.

Many portray nanotechnology as today's greatest revolutionary force. More than a thousand consumer products currently on the market contain nanomaterials, from dental fillers, fuel cells and tires to electronics, clothing and cosmetics. Nanotechnology could help improve human drugs, pesticide delivery, renewable energy systems, and the quality and safety of food.

At the nanoscale, matter takes on increased reactivity, unique electrical and physical properties, and the ability to penetrate biological and environmental systems. Some of these properties can be harnessed for environmental benefit. Superfund sites, where hazardous waste is located, are being remediated with iron nanoparticles. In addition, solar cells developed with ENMs are proving to be more efficient with the use of fewer materials.

However, these special properties also allow nanoparticles to cross the blood-brain barrier in the central nervous system, among other physical separations in organisms. And nano-versions of existing chemicals are more toxic to animals at lower concentrations than their larger cousins.

In other words, nanotechnology presents a double-edged sword. While it has potential to benefit society, it also has potential to increase risk.

The United States has yet to see a coordinated approach to environmental regulation of ENMs, even though their manufacturing, use and disposal have occurred for more than a decade. Our laws and regulatory processes are not designed to capture nano-versions of existing products. Moreover, there's little information on where nanomaterials are produced or in what quantities. No mandatory reporting requirements exist. There is also little pre-market testing for the ENMs used in most products.

Washing machines with silver nanoparticles illustrate just one crack in the regulatory system. The machines allow clothes to last longer without smelling (i.e. bacterial growth is prevented by the particles), but the associated ENMs end up in surface and ground water--despite the fact that their toxicity to microorganisms has already been established.

After intense pressure from non-governmental organizations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is just now starting to consider the regulation of silver ENMs as pesticides. But if the manufacturer does not claim that the product is a pesticide, the regulatory process is not triggered. For example, some silver ENM products are now marketed as "fresher longer" instead of germ-killing.

To date, about only 1 percent of federal government spending on nanotechnology research has been devoted to environmental risk-relevant research. A new bill to increase this percentage has been drafted, but has yet to pass the House and Senate.

At the same time, laboratory studies on the toxicity of ENMs to several indicator organisms are accumulating. Bans on the most toxic ENMs, such as certain carbon nanotubes with asbestos-like properties, should be considered until more studies are gathered and interpreted.

These bans may not be purely "science-based" decisions, in the sense that the damage hasn't been explicitly seen, at least not yet. Considering our history of chemical usage and environmental impacts, a cautious approach makes sense. Given its "newness," nanotechnology presents an opportunity for us to do better this time.

- Associate Professor Jennifer Kuzma

(Reprinted from the Institute on the Environment's Momentum magazine.)

I stood in awe as a thin strand of metal was sheared from the outside of the 40-foot-high AP-1000 nuclear reactor vessel, landing in a 5-foot-high pile of curly steel shavings. In the background, my tour group could see huge hunks of Japanese steel being molded into five other reactors in various states of construction. Our guide told us this facility, a building the size of several city blocks in an industrial area outside Shanghai, could produce seven to nine 1,000-megawatt nuclear reactors each year. All told, 25 nuclear plants are currently under construction in China, with 60 more in the planning stage

I work on energy and environmental policy, and to me China is the most interesting place in the world right now from a clean energy, climate and coal perspective. Until that day, I had never seen a nuclear reactor vessel being built. Not surprising: The U.S. hasn't built a nuclear power plant in over 30 years. As I craned my neck to see the Westinghouse-designed vessel being trimmed to shape, I gained new appreciation for the international nature of energy innovation and development.

The next building our group toured held massive wooden cases full of high-grade steel from Japan, Italy and France waiting to be transformed into steam turbines for coal-fired plants to further meet China's booming demand for electricity. Currently electricity demand in China is increasing 9 to 13 percent per year, the same fast pace the U.S. saw post-World War II as we invested in industry and infrastructure to build a modern America. Projections estimate China will add an additional 1,000 gigawatts of new coal-fired power plants by 2035 - roughly two times the TOTAL capacity of coal plants in the U.S. today.

The third facility we visited that day was filled with row upon row of 1.5 to 3 MW wind turbines. Wind turbines are being installed in China at breakneck speed: Installed capacity grew from 1.3 GW in 2005 to an estimated 41 GW at the end of 2010, making the country the global leader in installed wind capacity. Although an estimated 20 to 25 percent of Chinese wind turbines are not yet connected to power lines, investment in a smart grid--focused mainly on transmission--aims to alleviate this problem.

We also stopped at the largest coal-to-methanol gasification plant in the world (which uses a GE gasifier), a privately owned thin-film solar photovoltaics factory (tapping Applied Materials technology), and the soon-to-be-opened GreenGen integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) demonstration power plant.

China is working furiously to build infrastructure to power its booming economy. While serious challenges remain--the air quality gave me a new appreciation for the Clean Air Act, and coal is still projected to generate over 70 percent of electricity in 2035--it's clear this is a nation intent on pushing the boundaries of innovation when it comes to electric power technologies. Massive state investment fuels academic and industry research, and large-scale deployment allows for rapid adoption of the latest gasifiers, nuclear reactors, wind turbines, solar water heaters and more efficient coal plants.

As Americans, we like to think of our nation as the international epicenter of innovation. But just as manufacturing and production have done in the past, innovation is rapidly going global.

We also picture ourselves as good world citizens--but this, too, is changing. Throughout the tour we were continually asked, "Why should we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, when the U.S. isn't doing anything to reduce yours?" Whether China's push for low-carbon electricity technologies is driven by a desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or an eagerness to spur domestic innovation for future economic growth, the results are reshaping global energy innovation.

I went to China to look and learn. What I witnessed gave me a new appreciation for the challenges, rewards and sheer pace of development to be found there. It taught me that international innovation has important implications for the future of technology, in both China and the U.S. Perhaps most important, it showed me that U.S. inaction on climate and energy undermines both our moral authority to ask others to alter their systems and our ability to compete in the international innovation arena.

Two weeks before my visit to the Shanghai Electric Company, the U.S. Senate decided not to pursue a bill that would have capped greenhouse gas emissions and created a low-carbon energy policy. My experience in China made it clear to me how shortsighted this decision really was. It eroded not only our ability to design and deploy new energy technologies, but also the very foundation of America's innovation capacity - and with it, I fear, our long-term economic prosperity.

Without a comprehensive climate and energy policy, we face a real risk of being left behind in the shaving pile as China and other nations forge ahead. Creating such a policy could be a redeeming first step toward reclaiming our title as global innovators and good world citizens. That, I believe, is a goal we all can agree on.

Originally printed in the Institute on the Environment's Momentum, Spring 2011

Hubert Humphrey was an innovative leader for his time, championing legislation that promoted scientific discovery. In honor of his legacy, faculty members Deb Swackhamer, Elizabeth Wilson, and Steve Kelley will lead a lively conversation of the challenges involved in making science engaging, engaging young people and our broader society in science, and engaging science and policy making. The discussion will take place from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 23, at the Humphrey Center, and is free and open to the public. RSVPs required athttp://engagingscience.eventbrite.com/.

Denny Chair Deborah Swackhamer will to deliver the Ada Comstock Distinguished Women Scholar Lecture at 4 p.m. on Thursday, November 4, in Cowles Auditorium. In "Drop by Drop: Everyday Solutions to Toxic Water," Swackhamer will address the threats facing freshwater resources and the achievements made in turning the tide toward sustainability. Swackhamer also will offer an update on Minnesota's own groundbreaking 25-year plan for a sustainable water future. A dessert reception will follow the free event. RSVP at https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dEtTdFEtYmM2WGt4cG5SUUVEbFpSSGc6MQ.

The Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy will host a discussion with Dr. Jeremy Martin of the Union of Concerned Scientists at 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, August 12, in the Wilkins Room at the Humphrey Center, followed by a reception with light refreshments at 5:30 p.m. This event is cosponsored by the Institute on the Environment.

In the midst of renewed interest in energy independence and the role of biofuels, experts at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) are looking to move beyond the arguments that have mired real progress, and push policymakers to make real reforms that would move our country toward a cleaner biofuel future. Dr. Martin will give a first-hand account of the promise, the perils, and the steps needed in the state, regional, and federal arenas to reform biofuels policies to encourage innovative solutions. For more information or to RSVP, please visit http://www.hhh.umn.edu/news_events/BillionGallonChallenge.html.

The Humphrey School's Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy will host a discussion on the debate over climate change at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, August 11, in Cowles Auditorium at the Humphrey Center. Senior Fellow Steve Kelley will host Will Steger, Polar Explorer and Founder of the Will Steger Foundation, and feature Dr. Naomi Oreskes, author of Merchants of Doubt. According to a recent study from the Yale Project on Climate Change, 40% of Americans believe there is major scientific disagreement as to whether global warming is real, however, the vast majority of climate scientists fully believe in the phenomenon of climate change. Oreskes, a science historian explains what-or who-is to blame for this misinformation conundrum.

The event is free and open to the public. Guests who would like to meet Dr. Oreskes are welcome to purchase a ticket to a reception hosted by the Will Steger Foundation, which will be held prior to the discussion. More information can be found at http://willstegerfoundation.org/index.php/component/k2/item/986.

Humphrey School Senior Fellow Steve Kelley will take part in the Institute on the Environment's "Frontiers in the Environment" lecture series on April 28 from 12 to 1 p.m. in Room 380 of the VoTech Building on the University of Minnesota's St. Paul campus. Kelley, director of the Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the Humphrey School, will focus on new approaches to public policy development to help Minnesota move forward on energy efficiency and renewable energy. The event is free and open to the public and also will air live on the web; registration is not required.

Associate Professor Jennifer Kuzma will take part in a conference called "The Governing Nanobiotechnology: Reinventing Oversight for the 21st Century" from 8:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. on April 15 in Cowles Auditorium at the Humphrey Center. The conference will present findings and recommendations from a National Science Foundation project on evaluative oversight models for active nanostructures and nanosystems. The project has assessed five historical oversight models for drugs, devices, gene transfer, genetically engineered organisms in the food supply, and chemicals in the workplace using a comparative approach. Registration is $50 ($10 for students) and includes parking and lunch. For more information, visit www.lifesci.consortium.umn.edu/conferences/2010_challenge/about.

The Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy will host Candian Ambassador Gary Doer in Cowles Auditorium at the Humphrey School from 4 to 5:15 p.m. on Thursday, March 25. Ambassador Doer and Professor Deb Swackhamer will discuss the challenges and opportunities of crafting agreements on shared water resources between neighboring countries. RSVP is required to cstpp@umn.edu.

The Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy and the Institute on the Environment will host a conversation about the critically acclaimed film Garbage Dreams from 4 to 5:30 on Thursday, March 11, in Room 180 of the Humphrey Center. The film documents Zabbaleen, an impoverished community of mostly Coptic Christians that use traditional methods of collection and hand-sorting to reuse more than 80% of the garbage they collect.

Humphrey School professor Ragui Assaad; Mai Iskander, producer, director, and cinematographer for Garbage Dreams; Associate Professor Tim Smith; and Susan Hubbard, CEO and co-president of Eureka Recycling, will talk about lessons to be learned from the Zabbaleen and the implications for global waste management and recycling efforts. The event is free and open to the public, but registration is required.