Archive for ‘Green’

April, 2014

Let’s heed the canary

Professor Rob MacKenzie

Image

IMAGE: Smog in the city (www.istockphotos.com)

Day three of southeast-England-in-the-murk, and still a pool of smoggy gloom catches your throat and wipes out the middle distance. This little week of blogs, with which I had hoped to engage with the large-scale and chronic challenges highlighted by the University of Birmingham’s Saving Humans theme, has — in the event — mutated into reflections on a local and acute threat to health and well-being. Such a change of focus may actually be for the better; perhaps through learning what pollution ‘feels like’ the debate about how to ameliorate the pollution that surrounds us every day can be reignited.

My suspicion is that there is a window of opportunity in public engagement with issues that are difficult to perceive directly most of the time. If nothing brings air pollution to our attention — really, tangibly to our attention — then we have to rely on expert opinion and ‘white-coat fatigue’ can set in. If we have to struggle through a pea-soup of pollution each and every day then it becomes easy to regard it as unavoidable and irremediable. But, in communities in which public engagement counts, sudden and perceptible reductions in quality of life can cause a commotion and galvanise governments into action.

Having issued the smog alerts and kept the message simple, scientific commentators are now beginning to fill-in some details. The analyses may, in the end, change our diagnosis of the event quite radically, reducing the role of Saharan dust and increasing the role of chemical production of particles in air travelling to us from Europe. A more complete diagnosis will enable policy-makers to consider options to minimise the risk of a repeat of these conditions in the future. Controlling local pollution would improve our chronic exposure to pollution and provide a little more ‘head room’ within which natural particle loadings and long-range transport of pollution can vary, but car bans and the like are unlikely to be a useful measure in the middle of episodes. International action to limit emission of the gases that react in the atmosphere to form particles looks to be necessary. Certainly we should not accept that there is nothing we can do simply because the particles did not, in the main, originate from within our borders.

International environmental regulation has enabled us to avoid catastrophic damage to the ozone layer and has outlawed many environmentally persistent poisons. Where, as in these instances, technological ‘fixes’ to industrial processes reduce the emission of pollutants, the chances of binding international agreement seem relatively high. Unfortunately, for smog, improving engine efficiency and fitting stack and tailpipe filters only gets us so far; human behaviour can subvert our best efforts. To go the next step towards clean air requires joined-up ‘systems thinking’ that, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change advocated this week, seeks win-win-win solutions, recognises that there will be unintended consequences, and privileges a love of life over incomplete measures of cost and benefit.

Professor Rob MacKenzie is Director, Birmingham Institute of Forest Research and Professor of Atmospheric Science, School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Birmingham.

April, 2014

The three-legged race to sustainability

Professor Rob MacKenzie

Image

Image: Dawn Smog (istockphoto.com)

The old adage says if you want to give God a laugh, tell her your plans. I had the best of intentions of putting all the cares of everyday academic life to one side for a day in order to enjoy the Trees, People & Built Environment conference, here at University of Birmingham. Then, late on Tuesday night, news began to filter through that weather patterns had conspired to produce a situation in which local air pollution, regional-scale pollution from north and central Europe, and Saharan dust were all contributing to an air pollution episode. So, instead of musing deeply on urban sustainability and our innate connection to “nature”, I spent the day saying what amounted to the content of the third sentence of this blog. Well, truth be told, I did manage to smuggle in a few sneaky references to what I think is really the “big picture” when we are confronted by one of these environmental episodes, be it flood, or heat wave, or smog: these are symptoms of a systems failure, and the system (or system-of-system) that is failing is UK land management.

Image

Image: Green City (istockphoto.com)

We can apply sticking plasters to a particular transport bottleneck, or a particular river, and relieve the problem for a while, only for it — or something quite different but subtly related — to pop up somewhere else. But perhaps there is another approach. I am feeling fired-up enough by Tuesday’s seminar on the biophilic city to venture an outlandishly ambitious vision: to reconfigure our relationship with “Nature” and with the City so that we break apart the old-fashioned dichotomy of town and country. Breaking these boundaries would usher-in a new view of human life: shared with every other form of life that can help us turn a linear highway to hell into a circular pattern of birth, death, regrowth. We have the visionaries to show us some of the way and we should not be scared to add to the canon of those ideas, so long as we recognise that ideas only work when in harness with strategy and serendipity. We are in a three-legged race to sustainability and, as I eventually learnt as a child, that can be an exhilarating race once you learn how not to fall over.

Professor Rob MacKenzie is Director, Birmingham Institute of Forest Research and Professor of Atmospheric Science, School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Birmingham.

April, 2014

Trees of life

Professor Rob MacKenzie

Welcome to a week of the Saving Humans blog focused predominantly on how the plant life with which we share the planet is saving, and can do even more to save, us. First and foremost amongst the plant life-savers are the plant crops we’ve domesticated and changed beyond all recognition for efficient production of food. This week, however, the focus will be more on trees: wild woodland and forest landscapes; trees in agricultural landscapes; parks and gardens; and trees in streets. The blogs coincide with the launch of the Birmingham Institute of Forest Research (BIFoR), an event to launch Birmingham as the UK’s first biophilic city, and the Trees, People & Built Environment conference of the Institute of Chartered Foresters.

The role and importance of the world’s woodlands and forests is hard to overstate: they prevent soil erosion, help in maintaining the water cycle, check global warming by using carbon dioxide in photosynthesis, provide recreational facilities, provide economic benefits, and are home to more than half of all species. Yet despite this the UK still has only 13% of its area given over to forest and the world’s forests are subject to continuing threats from emerging disease pandemics and from environmental change.

In response to these challenges, The University of Birmingham and the UK-based JABBS Foundation have invested £20million to establish the Birmingham Institute of Forest Research (BIFOR) that will address two fundamental and interrelated challenges: the impact of climate and environmental change on woodlands; and, the resilience of trees to invasive pests and diseases.

The Institute, which has secured initial funding for  ten years, will consist of refurbished laboratories and growth facilities on-campus, along with a large-scale, ground-breaking ‘free-air carbon dioxide enrichment’ (FACE) field facility that will enable globally leading scientists to take measurements from deep within the soil to above the tree canopy. The forest-FACE facility will be one of only two currently working worldwide (the other is in Australia) and one of only two that have ever attempted the experiment on a mature, mixed, semi-natural woodland.

Image

The Free-Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment experiment at the Hawkesbury Institute of the environment, University of Western Sydney. Photograph courtesy Prof David Ellsworth.

The Free-Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment experiment at the Hawkesbury Institute of the environment, University of Western Sydney. Photograph courtesy Prof David Ellsworth.

Autonomous sensors and instrumented trees will allow our scientists to take measurements continuously and remotely, over timescales ranging from seconds to decades. The facility will enable our ecologists, plant biologists, and environmental scientists to raise the concentration of CO2 in a specified area in an otherwise natural environment. By measuring the trees’ response, we will elucidate environmental risk and help developed and developing societies innovate to prepare, adapt and prosper to a future that is already set in-train by our current use of fossil fuels.

Yesterday saw the release of the Summary for Policymakers of the Working Group II contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — that is the non-technical summary of the part of the “IPCC report”, as it is known by scientists the world over, dealing with impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. The summary IPCC report weighing-up the evidence for man-made climate change was published in September 2013; the current part of the report is much about how we will feel climate change in almost every part of the Earth and in almost every part of society. The 44 pages of densely argued and comprehensively referenced text summarise many ways in which forests are under threat from climate change, each with the IPCC’s assessment of how confident they are in their statements:

“Carbon stored in the terrestrial biosphere (e.g., in peatlands, permafrost, and forests) is susceptible to loss to the atmosphere as a result of climate change, deforestation, and ecosystem degradation (high confidence). Increased tree mortality and associated forest dieback is projected to occur in many regions over the 21st century, due to increased temperatures and drought (medium confidence). Forest dieback poses risks for carbon storage, biodiversity, wood production, water quality, amenity, and economic activity.”

Thankfully, the report also points to the many ways — e.g. agroforestry projects and reforestation of coastal mangrove swamps in Asia — in which forests can be part of a solution or, at least, an accommodation to our changing environment. This upbeat identification of opportunities to change things for the better is the perfect introduction to this week’s series of blogs, so I leave the last word to the IPCC:

“Significant co-benefits, synergies, and tradeoffs exist between mitigation and adaptation and among different adaptation responses; interactions occur both within and across regions (very high confidence). …Examples of actions with co-benefits include …(ii) reduced energy and water consumption in urban areas through greening cities and recycling water; (iii) sustainable agriculture and forestry; and (iv) protection of ecosystems for carbon storage and other ecosystem services. (IPCC, WG2 SPM, p24)”.

Professor Rob MacKenzie is Director, Birmingham Institute of Forest Research and Professor of Atmospheric Science, School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Birmingham.

March, 2014

The vital role of trees: from atmospheric chemistry to architecture

Dr James Levine

As an atmospheric chemist, I am interested in the influence that trees have on the quality of air we breathe and the climate we either enjoy or ‘weather’, depending on where we live.  First off, there’s the appealing synergy between people and trees: as we breathe in oxygen and breathe out CO2, trees draw down CO2 from the atmosphere and top up our oxygen supply.  If we have an immediate need for oxygen, we have a long-term need for a habitable climate, and trees again play a vital role.  In drawing down, or sequestering CO2, they reduce the burden of this greenhouse gas (GHG) that is at the forefront of our minds as we consider the climate our children, and children’s children, will inherit.  But trees have a further, much more subtle means of influencing both air quality and climate.

iStock_000018037219Large

 

The atmosphere is predominantly cleansed of gases harmful to human health, and some potent GHGs (e.g. methane), by a perhaps surprising simple chemical species, the OH radical (just an oxygen atom joined to a hydrogen atom).  Trees emit gases, so called volatile organic compounds (VOCs), that influence the abundance of OH radicals globally.  As part of Prof Rob MacKenzie’s group here at the University of Birmingham, I am involved in the Cooperative LBA Atmospheric Regional Experiment exploring the influence that the Amazon rainforest has in this regard; this is a collaboration with the University of Sao Paulo (Brazil), the University of Lancaster and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.  Of course, whilst trees affect the climate, the climate also affects trees; changes in climate also ‘feedback’ on the chemistry stemming from the VOCs trees emit.  Under Rob’s direction, the new Birmingham Institute for Forest Research will explore some of these feedbacks.  In particular, it is tasked with exploring the impact of climate change on UK woodland, both directly via changes in physical conditions (e.g. air temperature and humidity), and indirectly via changes in the incidence of, and resilience to, pests and disease.

I now have a confession to make: I lead a bit of a double life.  Atmospheric chemist by day, I’m an architecture student by night.  Trees and timber have important parts to play in architecture too, including one pertinent to reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions.  Construction of the built environment, and the energy used to maintain a comfortable environment within it, account for around half the UK’s (and global) CO2 emissions.  If sustainably and locally sourced, timber embodies very little energy, or CO2 emissions; the CO2 locked up in the timber and ultimately released to the atmosphere (upon decay at the end of a building’s life), may be drawn down from the atmosphere by a tree grown in its place.  Timber construction is also readily compatible with approaches to radically reducing the ‘operational energy demands’ of maintaining a comfortable environment, reliant on high levels of insulation and air-tightness.  Built to the Passivhaus standard, for example, a house in the UK may require no more heating, year-round, than the warmth its occupants alone provide.  And it doesn’t stop there.

The use of trees and timber in architecture has a part to play in improving our quality of life and providing uplifting, life-affirming spaces.  Be it the oxygen they ‘breathe out’, the microclimates they yield, or the sense of well-being they inspire, research suggests trees benefit people living and working in their vicinity.  In schools, for example, they appear to increase children’s concentration and ability to learn.  The architect, Louis Kahn (1960), envisaged that “Schools began with a man under a tree who did not know he was a teacher discussing his realization with a few who did not know they were students.”  I wonder what role he imagined the tree played.  Did it simply provide shelter or did it also help cultivate a sense of security, that commodity which is recognised as key to learning?  We only have to look at David Nash’s Ash Dome  to see the potential the boughs of a tree have to offer both shelter and that peculiar sense of ‘rootedness’ a connection to the outdoors inspires.  For an exploration of the many and varied qualities we associate with trees and timber, Roger Deakin’s Wildwood – A Journey Through Trees makes a visceral and evocative read.

So what has motivated this brief reflection on the role of trees in relation to my dual interests in atmospheric chemistry and architecture?  It is the Trees, People and the Built Environment II conference, taking place in Birmingham this week.  Trees clearly have a vital role, be it at present or with a view to the future, and I look forward to learning in the next few days about many more, perhaps equally diverse, facets to this.

Kahn, L. I. (1960). Form and Design (1960). In R. Twombly (Ed.), Kahn (pp. 62-74). New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Dr James Levine is a Research Fellow at the School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham.

February, 2014

Energy security and saving humans

Jonna Nyman

Energy security is increasingly the subject of headlines around the world. Most states rely heavily on fossil fuels to serve their energy needs, and as these fuels are finite they will eventually run out. There is an ongoing debate over whether or not we already have or will hit ‘peak oil’ in the near future, but either way there is increasing worry over the availability of, and access to, energy in years to come. 

Energy security is a nebulous term which is often used by politicians to justify a range of different policy choices, but the term itself is rarely explicitly defined. Generally, it is used to refer to the availability of secure and reliable energy supplies at stable or reasonable prices. It is worth unpacking this a little further. Unlike renewable energy sources like wind and solar power, fossil fuels are geographically bound in a territory. They are not considered part of the global commons, but rather as the ‘property’ of the state in which they are located. 

In this way, ‘secure supplies’ tends to refer to energy resources which are supplied from one state to another, implicitly putting the focus on fossil fuels which are traded openly on the global market. The emphasis on security of supply also suggests a state-centric focus – energy security policy aims to secure energy supplies to the state. The focus on ‘stable prices’ indicates a heavy focus on oil, as the energy resource most vulnerable to volatile prices in the global market. These factors are at the centre of most discussions of energy security today. 

World oil chokepoints are at the centre of discussion on security of energy supply [map from http://www.eia.gov/countries/regions-topics.cfm?fips=wotc&trk=p3 ]

World oil chokepoints are at the centre of discussion on security of energy supply
[map from http://www.eia.gov/countries/regions-topics.cfm?fips=wotc&trk=p3 ]

There are a number of problems with understanding energy security in these terms. Firstly, securing states through continuous fossil fuel supplies is clearly not sustainable, neither geologically nor environmentally. It’s biased towards developed, energy importing countries, and large scale energy industries – energy exporting countries conversely need security of demand, and in parts of the world many still rely on locally collected firewood for energy. It also does not consider the impact of current energy exploitation on human security. 

There are a number of issues and unresolved questions around energy security which are relevant to saving humans, and this is what I’ll be blogging about this week. At the centre of this is the growing conflict between the focus of much energy security policy and discussion on fossil fuels, and the human need for a stable climate and environment. Current patterns of energy exploitation also affect human security directly, which will be the subject of another post later in the week. 

Ultimately, the planet cannot survive if we continue to consume fossil energy at current rates. Yet, continued energy supplies are essential to maintain human life as we know it. The world still depends largely on finite and dirty sources of energy, and the growing pace of human development has been accompanied by ever-faster resource depletion. Energy security is one of the most important issues today, bearing direct impact on the continued survival of human civilisation as we know it.

Jonna Nyman has just finished her PhD within POLSIS at the University of Birmingham.

Useful links:

UK Government Energy Security Policy

Energy Security- the price of diversity

Ensuring energy security

Conceptualizing energy security

Is natural gas worse than diesel fossil fuel?

Defining energy security

 

January, 2014

Chemistry for the future

Dr Zoe Schnepp

Image

In the past, chemists were free to play with any element or molecule they wanted. Hazards such as bioaccumulation were unknown and, importantly, unexpected. Chemists busied themselves making devices, materials and medicines for the 20th century world with no idea of the problems these products might cause. In the process, chemistry (and chemicals) got a pretty dreadful reputation! Now we have to keep up with the demands and needs of a 21st century population, as well as find solutions to problems like the energy crisis. 

So what are the next challenges for chemistry? Energy is certainly the biggest in my opinion. There are numerous options, with solar being perhaps the most attractive. The energy will also need to be stored, which is another big area of research. Another area that is becoming really interesting is where we source our feedstocks. Most school-age children will learn about fractional distillation of crude oil to produce molecules for the chemical industry (as well as the major fraction going to fuels). If oil becomes scarce then we will need alternative feedstocks and again nature may provide the answer. There is a lot of attention in the media about biofuels but similar chemistry is also being used to make useful molecules for the chemical industry. Plant matter (biomass) can be broken down in a biorefinery to make a whole range of molecules that can then be used to produce the drugs, plastics and other materials we use in our everyday lives. 

A large challenge that I’ve mentioned briefly this week is resources. Elements that we use in devices and materials have to be sourced from the Earth. Many of these are mined from the Earth’s crust and some are present only in very small quantities. These scarce elements are expensive and several of them are becoming very important in modern technologies. Most importantly, some elements such as platinum or indium will become increasingly important in future technologies such as solar capture or fuel cells. Finding alternative ways to make these technologies work without rare elements is one possibility. In the meantime, the careful use of resources is essential. 

There are so many other challenges I could discuss here. If you are interested in reading further, there is some great information (and a white paper) on the webpage of the Royal Society of Chemistry.[i] Scientists have always been good at solving problems, that’s the main reason that most of us do research! I’d like to think that the big challenges of the future represent some great opportunities.


January, 2014

Better living through materials chemistry

Dr Zoe Schnepp

As I mentioned yesterday, a big area of research in chemistry is controlling the size and shape of different materials. I talked about materials for water purification but that’s just one possible application. By controlling the size and shape of particles of a material you can do some really amazing things. You might have come across the example of gold already. It’s a really unreactive metal in the bulk state – that’s why people have used it for millennia in jewellery after all! But reduce gold down to nanoparticles and it can do amazing things like purify car exhaust.[i] 

Size and shape is most important for a class of materials called catalysts. These speed up chemical reactions and they are fundamental to many aspects of our lives. They will also be crucial in many future applications such as hydrogen-powered cars and capturing solar energy. There are many ways that scientists can control how catalysts are formed, but maybe the most exciting way is to copy nature! 

Living organisms have been controlling size and shape of materials for millions of years. Mammals generate bones out of a hard mineral called calcium phosphate. Bones have a microscopic honeycomb structure that allows incorporation of cells and blood vessels and also keeps the bones from being too heavy. Sea creatures create a spectacular range of shells that become even more amazing when you view them under the microscope![ii] The best thing about this ‘biomineralization’ is that living organisms create these structures under ambient conditions and from water. In this sense, they have designed the ultimate green materials chemistry. 

There are many ways that we can copy nature and control the microscopic architecture of materials. It’s a huge field of research and there are a lot of books on the subject. One way is to use the natural materials themselves as a template.

For example, by coating a leaf skeleton in a solution of iron and heating, we were able to replicate the microscopic vessels of the leaf in a magnetic material called iron carbide (an important catalyst for a range of processes).[iii] Another possibility is to use some of the remarkable polymers (long molecules) that nature produces. Seaweed is a particularly nice example. Brown seaweeds produce a polymer called alginate and this can be used to make nanowires of superconductors. The polymer is able to control how the crystals of the superconductor grow.[iv] 

Image
Magnetic Leaf

This method of using natural materials to create useful materials is the main area of research in my group.[v] It’s maybe not the conventional idea of a chemistry lab! We have boxes of sawdust (that we’re using to make water filtration materials) alongside tubs of gelatin (to make materials for fuel cells).[vi] As well as being interesting, this type of science is becoming increasingly attractive to industry. Waste materials from industry and agriculture often have very low value. In fact with increasing taxes on landfill and burning, waste materials now often have negative value – the represent a cost to the producer. So if we can take a waste material such as sawdust and create a useful material like a water filter it is not only attractive in terms of sustainability, but may generate valuable income.


[i] http://auto.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter2.htm

January, 2014

Sun worship – addressing the energy challenge

Dr Zoe Schnepp

Image

Enough energy from sunlight strikes our planet in one hour to provide all the energy needed for human activity in one year.

Given this astonishing fact, it is not surprising that governments all over the world now consider the harvesting of solar energy to be a priority. Several approaches exist, the most well known being the direct conversion of sunlight into electricity. However, sunlight is not constant and so to ensure a reliable national power supply an energy storage system is required. This cannot just be a daily charge-recharge cycle. For energy security most countries require a storage buffer. At the moment this often takes the form of an oil stockpile. Batteries could provide part of the solution, but current technology does not have the energy capacity or stability for large-scale long-term storage.

Another possibility is using solar energy to generate a fuel, in much the same way as plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into energy-rich carbohydrates. Chemical fuels offer a much higher energy density (amount of energy per unit of mass) than batteries and can be stored for use either in stationary power plants or in vehicles. However, ‘copying nature’ is not straightforward. Photosynthesis is actually quite inefficient and so to make artificial photosynthesis a viable industry we can’t just settle with copying nature. We need to go one better.

Photosynthesis in plants involves two main steps, both of which are driven by sunlight. One step splits water into hydrogen and oxygen. This hydrogen is not released as a gas but is transported as a positively charged hydrogen ion to another enzyme. Here, the hydrogen ion is combined with carbon dioxide to generate sugars. For a chemist, copying this exquisite multistep process is extremely difficult! One alternative is just to focus on part of the photosynthesis reaction: the water splitting. If we can generate materials to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, we could generate hydrogen gas, which is an energy-rich and clean fuel. The materials use energy from sunlight to drive the water splitting and are called photocatalysts.

This system has a lot of potential but many challenges need to be overcome. Current photocatalysts have quite low efficiency and many only work using UV light. When water is split, the hydrogen and oxygen gases need to be kept separate to avoid creating an explosive mixture! Furthermore, many existing photocatalysts for water splitting use toxic elements such as cadmium or extremely rare and expensive elements such as platinum. Viable, large-scale hydrogen production from sunlight will require efficient photocatalysts based on cheap materials and simple preparation methods.

It’s at this stage that you can envisage some of the enormous challenges facing scientists. We’ve already mentioned cadmium being toxic – it’s banned from many applications under EU RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) legislation.[i] But in artificial photosynthesis, there are materials containing cadmium that work really well! Should we continue to use cadmium, arguing that it may end up being the only material that works? Or perhaps we can learn a lot about the science of artificial photosynthesis by studying cadmium? It’s a very difficult problem and certainly not one that is confined to cadmium, or indeed to artificial photosynthesis. There are countless cases of toxic or expensive elements that perform their jobs extremely well. This is why some toxic elements are exempted from EU chemical hazard regulation for certain devices. I would argue that we have a unique opportunity. In terms of implementing the technology, we are in the very early stages with artificial photosynthesis. There is a lot more work to be done to make this very promising chemistry work and it could genuinely revolutionize our world. If we consider sustainability now, then we won’t be faced with a big clean-up operation in 50 or 100 years.


January, 2014

Can chemistry ever really be called ‘green’?

Dr Zoe Schnepp

Image

I tried an experiment today. I typed the word ‘chemical’ into a Google image search. Alongside images of glassware filled with colourful fluid and The Chemical Brothers in concert I got lots of hazard warning signs (TOXIC, WARNING, HARMFUL, RADIOACTIVE) and people in protective suits. Sadly, the search also returned many images from the recent conflict in Syria. Chemicals seem to be synonymous with danger, harm and even death, so can chemistry ever really be called ‘green’? 

Many of the chemicals responsible for this negative image were the result of a lack of foresight. With the advent of world-changing technologies in the 20th Century, it was inconceivable to scientists and industries at the time that many of the products they were making might harm people or the earth on which we live. CFC refrigerants were lauded at the time of discovery for being a non-toxic and ‘inert’ alternative to the much more dangerous and commonly-used ammonia. It was decades later that the complex atmospheric interaction of CFCs with ozone was discovered. The insecticide DDT was also once a success story, being used for example to combat malaria. Likewise, Thalidomide was initially used effectively to control morning sickness in pregnant women. Obviously, the image of the chemical industry has not been helped by some cases of appalling cover-ups. But the point is that these chemicals, and many others, were never designed to do the harm that they did. They were created with the goal of improving our lives. The terrible effects on human health and the environment were unforeseen.

With cases like DDT in mind, chemists in the US in the 90s coined the term ‘Green Chemistry’ and wrote a set of twelve principles. This was not a new field of chemistry, but rather a philosophy, a set of values to be used by all chemists when designing a new molecule or process. The twelve principles include minimization of energy usage and waste but also the design of new molecules to be non-toxic. The idea is that sustainability should be considered from the very first stages of a new research process, rather than after a new molecule or material has already been created. Of course the same principles can be applied to existing processes and in fact there are many examples of industrial processes that have been made much cleaner and more energy efficient through the application of Green Chemistry. But the long term goal is that sustainability should be considered at the design stage.

So can chemistry ever really be green? Will we ever have a world where all industrial processes produce harmless waste or even no waste at all? Can we generate all of the chemicals that we use in our everyday lives (medicines, detergents, electronic materials, food ingredients to name just a few!) from entirely renewable resources? It’s certainly going to be a challenge and there are many sceptics. But there are also some remarkable and exciting Green Chemistry success stories, some of which I hope to talk about in this blog over the next week!

Dr Zoe Schnepp is a Birmingham Fellow in the School of Chemistry at the University of Birmingham.

Useful links: 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 780 other followers

%d bloggers like this: