[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BENIGN BY DESIGN:
INNOVATIONS IN SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 25, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-41
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-127PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania BRIAN BABIN, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DON BEYER, Virginia JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida Rico
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois VACANCY
KATIE HILL, California
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
------
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
HON. HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, Chairwoman
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JIM BAIRD, Indiana, Ranking Member
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
BRAD SHERMAN, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
PAUL TONKO, New York ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
BEN McADAMS, Utah JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BILL FOSTER, Illinois
C O N T E N T S
July 25, 2019
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Haley Stevens, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 8
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Subcommittee on
Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Jim Baird, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 11
Written Statement............................................ 13
Witnesses:
Dr. Timothy Persons, Chief Scientist and Managing Director,
Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics, U.S. Government
Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Dr. John Warner, President and Chief Technology Officer, Warner
Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry
Oral Statement............................................... 40
Written Statement............................................ 42
Dr. Julie Zimmerman, Professor and Senior Associate Dean, School
of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and Deputy Director,
Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering, Yale
University
Oral Statement............................................... 55
Written Statement............................................ 57
Ms. Anne Kolton, Executive Vice President, Communications,
Sustainability, and Market Outreach, American Chemistry Council
Oral Statement............................................... 76
Written Statement............................................ 78
Mr. Mitchell Toomey, Director of Sustainability, BASF in North
America
Oral Statement............................................... 85
Written Statement............................................ 87
Discussion....................................................... 99
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Timothy Persons, Chief Scientist and Managing Director,
Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics, U.S. Government
Accountability Office.......................................... 114
Dr. John Warner, President and Chief Technology Officer, Warner
Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry.......................... 116
Dr. Julie Zimmerman, Professor and Senior Associate Dean, School
of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and Deputy Director,
Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering, Yale
University..................................................... 117
Ms. Anne Kolton, Executive Vice President, Communications,
Sustainability, and Market Outreach, American Chemistry Council 119
Mr. Mitchell Toomey, Director of Sustainability, BASF in North
America........................................................ 121
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letters submitted by Representative Haley Stevens, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 124
BENIGN BY DESIGN:
INNOVATIONS IN SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 25, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Haley
Stevens [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. This hearing will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at
any time.
Good morning, and welcome to our distinguished witnesses.
We are here to discuss a very important topic, one that has
enormous potential to change the way we protect human health
and the environment. This hearing is an opportunity to discuss
the opportunities and challenges for expanding the use of more
sustainable chemicals and processes through the chemical
science and engineering enterprise.
I look forward to a discussion about the market drivers for
sustainability in the chemical industry, the integration of
sustainability in chemistry education, and the role of the
Federal Government in supporting research and commercialization
of these innovations.
Chemistry touches every aspect of modern society.
Innovations in chemistry have improved the performance of
countless products we use every day, including cars, kitchen
appliances, and clothing. These improvements have increased our
productivity and our quality of life immeasurably.
Unfortunately, many of the most widely used industrial
chemicals are potentially hazardous to human health and the
environment. PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), for
example, has become an environmental and public health crisis
in my home State of Michigan, which may have more than 11,000
sites contaminated with PFAS chemicals. These chemicals have
been linked to cancer and other disastrous health side effects,
particularly for children and pregnant women.
Instead of focusing on the containment and safe disposal of
toxic waste products at the middle or end of the lifecycle,
sustainable chemistry emphasizes the design of safer, more
sustainable chemicals and processes at the beginning. However,
the widespread adoption of sustainable chemistry principles has
been hindered by a number of challenges such as a need for more
research, a lack of coordination across the Federal
Government--and that's something that we here at the Science
Committee appreciate and champion, which is the interagency
effort of making this Federal Government work better for the
people it serves--the need for large capital investments, and a
lack of consensus among stakeholders about how to characterize
and assess sustainability in the chemistry industry.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Stevens follows:]
Good morning and welcome to our distinguished panelists. We
are here to discuss a very important topic, one that has
enormous potential to change the way we protect human health
and the environment.
This hearing is an opportunity to discuss the opportunities
and challenges for expanding the use of more sustainable
chemicals and processes throughout the chemical science and
engineering enterprise. I look forward to a discussion about
the market drivers for sustainability in the chemical industry,
the integration of sustainability in chemistry education, and
the role of the Federal government in supporting research and
commercialization of these innovations.
Chemistry touches every aspect of modern society. Nearly
every object you see contains materials derived from or
processed by industrial chemicals. Innovations in chemistry
have improved the performance of countless products we use
every day - including cars, kitchen appliances, and clothing.
These improvements have increased our productivity and our
quality of life immeasurably.
Unfortunately, many of the most widely used industrial
chemicals are potentially hazardous to human health and the
environment. PFAS, for example, has become an environmental and
public health crisis in my home state of Michigan, which may
have more than 11,000 sites contaminated with PFAS and PFOA
chemicals. These chemicals have been linked to cancer and other
disastrous health side effects, particularly for children and
pregnant women.
Chemical companies and the public are rightly concerned
about risks of industrial accidents like chemical spills,
explosions, or fires. Another concern is the reliance on fossil
fuels in the production process and the chemical industry's
contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. Manufacturers use oil
and natural gas as the starting material for many of the
chemicals they produce. Fossil fuels are also the primary
source of energy for production.
Sustainable chemistry is a new paradigm for chemical
research and innovation that is motivated by environmental
stewardship and protecting human health and welfare. Instead of
focusing on the containment and safe disposal of toxic waste
products at the middle or end of the lifecycle, sustainable
chemistry emphasizes the design of safer, more sustainable
chemicals and processes at the beginning. Careful consideration
of the life-cycle implications of new chemicals and
manufacturing processes can reduce or eliminate hazards to both
human health and the environment. Reducing the amount of raw
materials and energy used in the manufacturing process is also
good for the company's bottom line. It's a win-win proposition.
However, the widespread adoption of sustainable chemistry
principles has been hindered by a number of challenges. Chief
among these are a need for more research, a lack of
coordination across the Federal government, the need for large
up-front investments, and a lack of consensus among
stakeholders about how to characterize and assess
sustainability in the chemical industry.
We will also hear our expert panel's input on the
bipartisan Sustainable Chemistry Research and Development Act,
introduced by Congressman Lipinski. The bill provides for
improved coordination of Federal activities, including research
and development of more sustainable chemicals, processes, and
systems. The bill also supports improved education and training
in sustainable chemistry and expands opportunities for the
Federal government to partner with industry to bring
innovations to market.
I look forward to the testimony and discussion.
Chairwoman Stevens. I would now like to yield the remainder
of my time to my colleague, Dr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. I want to thank you, Chairwoman Stevens, for
yielding. Thank you for holding this hearing.
I've long supported investments in research in our Nation's
universities and national labs, as well as methods of improving
technology transfer. Sustainable chemistry is one of the areas
that I think merits extra attention, and I want to thank
Chairwoman Stevens, Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Baird,
and Ranking Member Lucas for holding this hearing today.
Chemical innovation means that products perform better and
are more affordable. Increasingly, consumers are also demanding
innovations that result in lower environmental impact. I'm
concerned that the Federal Government does not currently do
enough to incentivize basic chemical research that, when scaled
at the industrial level, minimizes harm to human health and the
environment. We need a national framework that incentivizes
research on reactions that require less energy, processes that
generate less waste, and products that are less harmful to the
environment. If these concepts are considered at the basic
research stage, companies will have more tools to create benign
products while minimizing adverse environmental impacts. This
is an opportunity for Federal, academic, and industry partners
to work together in a way that will grow our economy and
improve our environment.
That's why I've introduced H.R. 2051 along with my
Chemistry Caucus co-Chair Mr. Moolenaar. The Sustainable
Chemistry Research and Development Act would improve
coordination across the Federal Government for research, tech
transfer, and training in sustainable chemistry. I thank many
of my colleagues, including Chairwoman Stevens, for being
cosponsors, and I hope others will join after this hearing
today.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. Again,
thank the Chairwoman for holding this hearing; I think it's a
very important hearing. I don't want anyone to take the fact
that there are few Members here of a lack of interest. This is
probably, fingers crossed, our last day before getting out of
here for August. I think there is a great interest. I know
there's been great interest in Members who I have spoken with
about this bill, and I think it's something important that we
can do in a bipartisan manner here. And I thank the Chairwoman
again, and I yield back to her.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:]
Thank you Chairwoman Stevens for yielding. I've long
supported investments in research at our nation's universities
and National Labs, as well as methods of promoting technology
transfer. Sustainable chemistry is one area that merits extra
attention. I thank Chairwoman Stevens, Chairwoman Johnson,
Ranking Member Baird, and Ranking Member Lucas for holding this
hearing.
Chemical innovation means that products perform better and
are more affordable. Increasingly, consumers are also demanding
innovations that result in a lower environmental impact. I am
concerned that the federal government does not currently do
enough to incentivize basic chemical research that, when scaled
at the industrial level, minimizes harm to human health and the
environment.
We need a national framework that incentivizes research on
reactions that require less energy, processes that generate
less waste, and products that are less harmful to the
environment. If these concepts are considered at the basic
research stage, companies will have more tools to create benign
products while minimizing adverse environmental impacts. This
is an opportunity for federal, academic, and industry partners
to work together in a way that will grow our economy and
improve our environment.
That is why I've introduced H.R. 2051 along with my
Chemistry Caucus co-chair, Mr. Moolenaar. The Sustainable
Chemistry R&D Act would improve coordination across the federal
government for research, tech transfer, and training in
sustainable chemistry. I thank many of my colleagues, including
Chairwoman Stevens, for being cosponsors. I hope others will
join after this hearing.
I thank the witnesses for being here, and I yield back to
the Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Stevens. Congressman Lipinski is right; we're
fired up about sustainable chemistry.
And before I recognize Dr. Baird, I'd like to present two
letters for the record. The first letter is from the American
Chemical Society, and the second letter is from GC3 on the
Sustainable Chemistry Alliance in support of H.R. 2051.
And with that, the Chair now recognizes Dr. Baird for an
opening statement.
Mr. Baird. Good morning, and thank you, Chairwoman Stevens,
for holding today's hearing on innovations in sustainable
chemistry. This hearing introduces or continues our
Subcommittee's focus on new innovations and technologies that
will drive the American economy into the future.
Chemistry is essential to our economy and plays a vital
role in helping to solve the biggest challenges facing our
Nation and the world. From medicine to energy to production,
chemical manufacturing touches our lives every day.
In the Hoosier State--and I'd also say that's where Purdue
University is--chemical manufacturing is one of the largest
industries, and it represents over $27 billion of our State's
economy every year. In my district alone, the chemical industry
employs over 2,300 people.
The United States is second only to Germany in the export
of chemical goods. But global competition is increasing, and we
must innovate to meet the demands of the 21st century. There is
a market demand for chemical products that use resources more
efficiently, are safer for both humans and the environment, and
at the same time, consumers want these products to be just as
effective or more effective than the traditional products of
the past.
Sustainable chemistry, or green chemistry is a relatively
new field intended to meet this market demand.
As we hear today, industry is investing considerable time
and resources in research and development (R&D) for sustainable
chemistry. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about
those innovations, and I really appreciate all of you witnesses
taking the time to be with us today.
I also look forward to hearing what appropriate role the
Federal Government might play, whether it's investing in the
basic research to address any knowledge gaps that we might have
or helping the industry develop voluntary standards or metrics.
I again thank Chairwoman Stevens for holding today's hearing,
and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]
Good morning and thank you Chairwoman Stevens for holding
today's hearing on ``Innovations in Sustainable Chemistry.''
This hearing continues our Subcommittee's focus on the new
innovations and technologies that will drive the American
economy into the future.
Chemistry is essential to our economy and plays a vital
role in helping to solve the biggest challenges facing our
nation and our world.
From medicine to energy production, chemical manufacturing
touches our lives every day.
In the Hoosier state, chemical manufacturing is one of our
largest industries, representing over $27 billion of our
State's economy every year.
In my district alone the chemical industry employs over
2,300 people.
The United States is second only to Germany in the export
of chemical goods.
But global competition is increasing, and we must innovate
to meet the demands of the 21st Century.
There is market demand for chemical products that use
resources more efficiently and are safer for both humans and
the environment. At the same time consumers want these products
to be just as effective, or more effective than traditional
chemical products.
Sustainable Chemistry, or Green Chemistry, is a relatively
new field intended to meet this market demand.
As we will hear today, industry is investing considerable
time and resources into research and development for
sustainable chemistry.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about those
innovations.
I also look forward to hearing what appropriate role the
federal government can play, whether it is investing in basic
research to address knowledge gaps or helping industry develop
voluntary standards or metrics.
I again, thank Chairwoman Stevens for holding today's
hearing, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. The Chair now recognizes the Chairwoman
of the full Committee, Ms. Johnson, for an opening statement.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Stevens
and Ranking Member Dr. Baird, for holding this hearing. And I
would like also to welcome the expert witnesses and thank you
for participating today.
The purpose of this hearing is to explore the challenges
and opportunities to expand the development, production, and
use of more sustainable chemicals across our economy. The
Science, Space, and Technology Committee first advanced
legislation to promote sustainable chemistry 12 years ago. Back
then, my Republican colleague, Congressman Phil Gingrey,
introduced the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of
2007, which the Committee and then the House supported on a
bipartisan basis. There was a bipartisan bill in the Senate as
well. Unfortunately, it did not advance. And that was already
10 years after Dr. Paul Anastas and Dr. John Warner developed
the 12 Principles of Green Chemistry to guide the principle of
sustainable chemistry.
In this job, we know we have to take a long view. However,
the longer we wait to take action on so many fronts the more we
are seeing consequences of our inaction.
The chemical industry, which created many of the great
innovations of the 20th century, has also resulted in
substantial harm to both human and environmental health. We
rushed to develop innovations to make our lives easier and more
convenient without considering the lifecycle cost. I'm
concerned about the steps that this Administration has taken to
reverse the little progress we've made in sustainable
chemistry.
In 2015, President Obama issued an executive order that
required Federal agencies to purchase selected products
manufactured with more sustainable chemicals, creating a market
for these products. Our purchasing power is one of the
important levers of government, and also a demonstration of
leadership. Unfortunately, that executive order was rescinded
by President Trump in May 2018.
In addition, EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has a
longstanding program called STAR (Science To Achieve Results),
which has been an important source of funding for sustainable
chemistry research at our Nation's universities. The current
Administration has proposed to eliminate that entire program. I
spoke with the Administrator of EPA just yesterday on this
program, of which he committed to look into.
Even the National Science Foundation (NSF) could do more.
While the agency has supported initiatives focused on
sustainable chemistry, they have not made much effort to
integrate the principles of sustainable chemistry into their
broader portfolio of chemistry research and education.
While I support additional investments in sustainable
chemistry, leadership is not always about more money and new
programs. I want to commend Congressman Lipinski for
introducing the Sustainable Chemistry Research and Development
Act. I'm happy to be a cosponsor of that legislation, and I
look forward to advancing it on a bipartisan basis.
Twenty years have passed since the 12 Principles of Green
Chemistry were proposed. It is past time that the Federal
Government, in partnership with the private sector, prioritizes
investing in the research and tools to enable a sustainable
chemical industry.
I look forward to today's testimony and discussion, and I
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens and Ranking Member Baird, for
holding this hearing. I would also like to welcome the expert
witnesses and thank you for participating this morning.
The purpose of this hearing is to explore the challenges
and opportunities to expanding the development, production, and
use of more sustainable chemicals across our economy. The
Science, Space, and Technology Committee first advanced
legislation to promote sustainable chemistry 12 years ago. My
then Republican colleague, Congressman Phil Gingrey, introduced
the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2007, which
this Committee and then the House supported on a bipartisan
basis. There was a bipartisan bill in the Senate as well.
Unfortunately, it did not advance in the Senate. And that was
already ten years after Dr. Paul Anastas and Dr. John Warner
developed the 12 principles to guide the practice of
sustainable chemistry.
In this job, we know we have to take the long view.
However, the longer we wait to take action, on so many fronts,
the more we are seeing the consequences of our inaction. The
chemicals industry, which created many of the great innovations
of the 20th century, has also resulted in substantial harm to
both human and environmental health. We rushed to develop
innovations to make our lives easier and more convenient,
without considering the lifecycle costs.
I am concerned about steps this Administration has taken to
reverse the little progress we have made in sustainable
chemistry. In 2015, President Obama issued an executive order
that required Federal agencies to purchase selected products
manufactured with more sustainable chemicals, creating a market
for those products. Our purchasing power is one important lever
of government, and also a demonstration of leadership.
Unfortunately, that executive order was rescinded by President
Trump in May 2018. In addition, EPA has a longstanding program
called STAR, which has been an important source of funding for
sustainable chemistry research at our nation's universities.
The current Administration has proposed to eliminate the entire
program.
Even the National Science Foundation could do more. While
the agency has supported initiatives focused on sustainable
chemistry, they have not made much effort to integrate the
principles of sustainable chemistry into their broader
portfolio of chemistry research and education. While I support
additional investments in sustainable chemistry, leadership is
not always about more money or new programs.
I want to commend Congressman Lipinski for introducing the
Sustainable Chemistry Research and Development Act. I am happy
to be a cosponsor of that legislation and I look forward to
advancing it on a bipartisan basis. Twenty years have passed
since the 12 principles of sustainable chemistry were proposed.
It is past time that the Federal government, in partnership
with the private sector, prioritizes investing in the research
and tools to enable a sustainable chemical industry.
I look forward to today's testimony and discussion and I
yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. If there are any Members who wish to
submit additional opening statements, your statements will be
added to the record at this point.
At this time, I would like to introduce our witnesses. Our
first witness is Dr. Timothy Persons. Dr. Persons is the Chief
Scientist and Managing Director of GAO's (Government
Accountability Office's) Science, Technology Assessment, and
Analytics team. He also directs the GAO's science, technology,
and engineering portfolio, as well as GAO's Audit Innovation
Lab. He's a busy guy.
Prior to joining GAO, Dr. Persons was the Technical
Director for the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects
Agency. He received his bachelor of science degree from James
Madison University, a master of science from Emory University,
and a master of science and Ph.D. from Wake Forest University.
After Dr. Persons is Dr. John Warner. Dr. Warner is the
Founder and Chief Scientific Officer of the Warner Babcock
Institute for Green Chemistry, a research laboratory that
partners with industry to develop green chemistry technologies.
In 1998, Dr. Warner co-authored the 12 Principles of Green
Chemistry, and he is currently the editor of the journal Green
Chemistry Letters and Reviews. In 2004, Dr. Warner received the
Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and
Engineering Mentoring for his work to increase participation of
students from underrepresented populations in chemistry. Wahoo.
Prior to founding the Warner Babcock Institute, Dr. Warner
was a Senior Research Group Leader at the Polaroid Corporation
and a Professor of Chemistry in Plastics Engineering at UMass
Boston in Lowell. He received his B.S. in chemistry from UMass
Boston and his Ph.D. in chemistry from Princeton University.
Our third witness is Dr. Julie Zimmerman. Dr. Zimmerman is
a Professor and Senior Associate Dean at the School of Forestry
and Environmental Studies, and the Deputy Director of the
Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering at Yale
University.
Prior to working at Yale, Dr. Zimmerman was a Program
Manager at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, where she
established the National Sustainable Design Competition, P3,
people, prosperity, and planet. We like that, which is an
award. She is also the co-author of the textbook, Environmental
Engineering: Fundamentals, Sustainability, Design.
Dr. Zimmerman earned her bachelor of science degree from
the University of Virginia and her Ph.D. from the University of
Michigan. Go blue.
Our next witness is Ms. Anne Kolton. Ms. Kolton is the
Executive Vice President of Communications, Sustainability, and
Market Outreach for the American Chemistry Council (ACC). Ms.
Kolton is responsible for the development and execution of
domestic and international strategies to advance industry
advocacy priorities, sustainability practices, and marketplace
relationships with manufacturers and retailers.
During the Administration of President George W. Bush, Ms.
Kolton held a number of positions at the Departments of Energy
and the Treasury, as well as Assistant Press Secretary in the
White House Press Office. I also served at the Department of
Treasury, so glad to be with a fellow Treasury alum this
morning.
Ms. Kolton is a graduate of Southwestern University in
Georgetown, Texas.
Our final witness is Mr. Mitchell Toomey. Mr. Toomey is the
Director of Sustainability for BASF in North America. Prior to
joining BASF, Mr. Toomey served as a sustainability expert at
the United Nations where his most recent position was Director
for the Sustainable Goals Action Campaign.
Prior to joining the U.N., Mr. Toomey worked in the private
sector helping to build two startups. He has earned a B.A. in
philosophy and a master of business administration degree. And
where was it from?
Mr. Toomey. New York University.
Chairwoman Stevens. Oh, right. Great. Thank you.
As our witnesses should know, you will each have 5 minutes
for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be
included for the record of the hearing. And when you've
completed your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions.
Each Member will have 5 minutes to question the panel, and we
will start with Dr. Persons.
TESTIMONY OF DR. TIMOTHY PERSONS,
CHIEF SCIENTIST AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT,
AND ANALYTICS, U.S. GAO
Dr. Persons. Thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman Stevens,
Ranking Member Baird, and Members of the Committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to discuss our technology assessment on
sustainable chemistry.
Chemistry contributes to virtually every aspect of modern
life from the production of food and clean drinking water to
medicines, cleaners, personal care products, and more.
According to the American Chemistry Council, the chemical
industry in 2016 supported more than one-quarter of U.S. GDP.
Moreover, the Federal Government estimates that the chemical
manufacturing industry employed more than 858,000 people in
June 2019 and generated an additional 2.7 million indirect jobs
via industry suppliers.
Despite these positive contributions to quality of life and
other social and economic goals, chemical production can result
in negative health and environmental consequences. Many in the
chemical industry are working to address these issues through
improving the environmental sustainability of their own
chemical processes and providing more sustainable products and
technologies to others.
In my testimony today, I will discuss an overview of the
concepts behind sustainable chemistry, how the Federal
Government, industry, and others contribute to the development
and use of such technologies, and key opportunities and
challenges.
In spite of the lack of a standard definition for
sustainable chemistry and lack of agreement on standard ways of
measuring or assessing it, there are nevertheless common themes
underlying what sustainable chemistry tries to achieve,
including improving the efficiency and the usage of natural
resources, reducing or eliminating the use or generation of
hazardous substances, developing innovative chemical
transformations, minimizing the use of nonrenewable resources,
and considering all lifecycle stages when evaluating a product,
as depicted in this figure up on the screen.
The Federal Government, industry, and other stakeholders
play a number of roles sometimes in collaboration to advance
the development and use of more sustainable chemical processes
and products. Federal programs support research on the impacts
of chemicals on human and environmental health, support the
development of more sustainable chemical processes and their
commercialization, and aid the expansion of markets for
products manufactured with more sustainable chemicals and
processes.
The chemical manufacturing industry, companies, and
retailers, State governments, academic institutions, and NGOs
(non-governmental organizations) also seek to influence the
development and use of more sustainable chemistry processes and
products through activities such as supporting workforce
development, exploring breakthrough technologies, setting
sustainability criteria or purchases, regulating chemicals and
products, conducting research on chemical impacts, and
developing tools and resources for industry respectively.
Integrating these principles and activities together, the
field of sustainable chemistry has the potential to inspire new
products and processes, create jobs, and enhance benefits to
human health and the environment. Much more work is needed to
realize its full promise, including the following: First, the
development of a robust definition of sustainable chemistry
leading to a lifecycle assessment framework for metrics,
measurement tools, and assessments.
Second, the realization of a strategic and effective
national initiative formulated by the Federal Government in
partnership with industry, academia, and key nonprofit
institutions.
And third, the integration of sustainable chemistry
principles into educational programs for the current and future
generation of chemists.
Although there are several challenges to implementing more
sustainable chemistry technologies, including technological and
business ones, the preeminent issue remains the lack of a
standard definition for sustainable chemistry and lack of
standard ways of measuring or assessing it. Without basic
information such as a standardized approach for assessing the
sustainability of chemical processes or products, better
information on product content throughout the supply chain, and
more complete data on the health and environmental impacts of
chemicals throughout their lifecycle, stakeholders cannot make
informed decisions that compare the sustainability of various
products.
In conclusion, there is a recognized need for new processes
that make more efficient use of available resources, reuse
products or their components during manufacturing, and account
for impacts across the entire lifecycle of chemical processes
and products. A transition toward the use of sustainable
chemistry technologies is possible and could be catalyzed by
national leadership and driven by cross-sectoral collaboration
to help guide the future choices of consumers, chemists,
workers, and others for overall economic, environment, and
social good.
Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking Member Baird, and Members of
the Committee, this concludes my prepared statement. Thank you
for your attention on this important issue, and thanks to the
GAO team who made this testimony possible. I'd be happy to
respond to any questions when you're ready.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Persons follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN WARNER,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER,
WARNER BABCOCK INSTITUTE FOR GREEN CHEMISTRY
Dr. Warner. Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking Member Baird, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
speak today. My name is John Warner. I've been a professional
chemist for 31 years with nearly 250 U.S. and international
patents. I've worked with more than 100 companies helping them
invent cost-effective green chemistry solutions.
In the early 1990s, I was a chemist at the Polaroid
Corporation. Because of one of my first inventions was Benign
by Design I started interacting with the EPA's nascent green
chemistry program.
In the mid-1990s, Dr. Paul Anastas and I wrote the book
Green Chemistry Theory in Practice that presents the set of 12
principles to help chemists avoid the use and generation of
hazardous materials. At that time I came to realize that few if
any universities or university chemistry programs in the world
require students to have any training in the understanding of
the relationship between molecular structure and negative
impacts on human health and the environment.
Wanting to change the way we teach chemistry, I left to
become a Professor of Chemistry and Plastics Engineering in the
UMass system where we began the world's first Ph.D. program in
green chemistry like a typical chemistry graduate program in
chemistry but it added classes in toxicology, environmental
mechanisms, and chemicals law and policy. In 2004, I received
an award from President George W. Bush and the NSF for these
efforts.
As you will note, I have been using the term green
chemistry, not sustainable chemistry. Both are important for
the future of society. Sustainable chemists use a large
umbrella concept that addresses many aspects of the chemical
enterprises. Green chemistry specifically focuses on the
inventive process to reduce hazards broadly in the first place.
One way of looking at it, sustainable chemistry deals with what
a technology does. Green chemistry deals with what a technology
is. My point is that by mitigating risk by controlling and
limiting exposure of hazardous materials will always come at a
price. Every effort to reduce intrinsic hazards through green
chemistry will lessen these associated costs.
To demonstrate the economic viability of green chemistry,
in 2007 Jim Babcock and I formed the Warner Babcock Institute
for Green Chemistry that focuses on creating commercially
relevant chemistry technologies consistent with the principles
of green chemistry.
Since its creation, we've partnered with over 100 companies
to invent technologies across a wide variety of industry
sectors. Our inventions have also been the foundation of new
companies in personal care, in construction materials,
pharmaceuticals, and energy. All of these inventions in such a
short time with only 20 scientists is extremely fast and
efficient. I feel that the major cause of our high productivity
is the fact that we do green chemistry.
In 2014, I was honored to receive the Perkin Medal, the
highest honor in U.S. industrial chemistry. In 2016 I was named
the AAAS-Lemelson Invention Ambassador. While I was the
individual named in these awards, I feel that they're actually
recognition of the entire growing field of green chemistry and
the green chemistry community.
In 2007, I cofounded the nonprofit organization Beyond
Benign with Dr. Amy Cannon. Our K-12 curriculum and teacher
programs integrate green chemistry and sustainable chemistry
principles into the classroom. We develop and provide open-
access modules to all school levels that illustrate real-world
industrial examples of green chemistry. Our higher education
efforts support colleges and universities trying to implement
green chemistry into their curricula. This is a very small
organization. It needs to be emulated, it needs to be expanded.
The Sustainable Chemistry Research and Development Act of
2019 is a timely and important effort in maintaining and
growing U.S. industrial competitiveness. It is important to
underscore the critical need to see green chemistry as the
fundamental differentiating concept within the framework. In
order to have a workforce with the skills and training
necessary to achieve these aspirational objectives, a specific
focus on green chemistry must be central to this effort.
Green chemistry has been around for nearly 30 years. Unlike
sustainable chemistry, it is well-defined. It is an established
science with dozens of international journals and nearly 50
textbooks. For both environmental protection and economic
competitiveness, it is urgent that the U.S. find way to
accelerate education, incentivize investment, and facilitate
more widespread adoption of green chemistry, the molecular
science of sustainability.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Warner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TESTIMONY OF DR. JULIE ZIMMERMAN,
PROFESSOR AND SENIOR ASSOCIATE DEAN,
SCHOOL OF FORESTRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES, AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR GREEN
CHEMISTRY AND GREEN ENGINEERING, YALE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Zimmerman. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Dr. Baird,
and Members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to
be here today, and thank you for your attention on this
important and urgent topic.
My name is Julie Zimmerman, and I'm a Professor at Yale
University in the Department of Chemical and Environmental
Engineering, as well as the School of Forestry and
Environmental Studies. I also serve as our Deputy Director for
our Center of Green Chemistry and Green Engineering. I'm here
to express my strong support for the Sustainable Chemistry
Research and Development Act being considered.
It is appropriate that this hearing is in the House Science
Committee because, as we have heard earlier this morning from
Dr. Warner, green chemistry is the science of sustainability.
I'd like to make four brief points. First, to paraphrase a
fellow New Jersey native, green chemistry was born in the USA.
In the early 1990s, the green chemistry program was launched
and was defined by Dr. Paul Anastas and Dr. John Warner as the
design of chemical products and processes that reduce or
eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances. The
term sustainable chemistry has been introduced more recently
and possesses countless definitions.
Green chemistry is chemistry. There are few people in the
world that would argue that a sustainable future can be
achieved in the absence of green chemistry. Everything we see,
touch, and feel is a chemical, and green chemistry provides the
opportunity to fundamentally redesign the material basis of our
economy and our society.
However, it is equally true that green chemistry alone, no
matter how fundamental, broad in reach and impact, is not going
to be sufficient for achieving a sustainable future.
Sustainable chemistry cannot be conducted in the absence of
green chemistry. Therefore, any construct of genuine
sustainable chemistry would need to recognize that green
chemistry is the centerpiece, heart and soul, central and
essential element.
Second, green chemistry is not a theory or merely an idea
but rather a proven demonstrated success story over the past 20
years. Green chemistry has filled scientific journals with
world-class science that has invented new benign materials and
molecules and has even been cited in Nobel Prize awards. It has
not only been extremely effective in protecting human health
and the environment, it has accomplished this while increasing
profitability and competitiveness of almost every industrial
sector. From plastics to pesticides, from energy to
electronics, from building materials to biotech, green
chemistry has a proven track record of success.
Third, four words: Nothing to fight about. At a time when
every environmental issue seems contentious and controversial,
green chemistry has accomplished all of the success with
astounding levels of strategic and systematic partnerships
between environmentalists and industry, as well as other
stakeholders. Examples include the Green Chemistry and Commerce
Council, the American Chemical Society's Green Chemistry
Industrial Roundtables, and even the work of my own center at
Yale.
Fourth, with such great news story, what is the problem? It
is that green chemistry is still the exception to the rule.
With all of the products and manufacturing processes that have
been reinvented using green chemistry, there are a plethora
that have yet to be addressed. All of the successes thus far
represent a small fraction of the power and potential of green
chemistry.
Why is this? Lack of awareness in general, lack of training
for students and practitioners, lack of funding for scientists,
and lack of incentives for industry. In my written testimony I
address these issues in much greater detail, but in summary, I
would suggest that: One, there needs to be an awareness raising
campaign such that people are aware of the benefits and future
potential of green chemistry, scientists to do it, industry to
pursue it, consumers to demand it.
Two, every student and practitioner that makes molecules
and manipulates materials needs to be trained and have a
working proficiency in green chemistry.
Three, there needs to be interagency coordination and
research funding in green chemistry that is substantial and
sustained rather than marginal and mercurial.
Four, industry efforts toward green chemistry should be
recognized and facilitated.
In conclusion, the powerful tool of green chemistry is
essential to sustaining healthy people, a healthy planet, and a
healthy economy. It must no longer be the exception to the rule
but must become the rule itself, simply the way things are
done. Because in the final analysis, while this is certainly
about our immediate prosperity, more importantly, it is about
our posterity.
Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Zimmerman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix 1 can be found online at: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/
content/articlelanding/2018/gc/c8gc00482j#!divAbstract.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix 2 can be found online at: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/
content/articlehtml/2019/gc/c9gc01293a.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TESTIMONY OF ANNE KOLTON,
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
COMMUNICATIONS, SUSTAINABILITY, AND MARKET
OUTREACH, AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL
Ms. Kolton. Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking Member Baird, and
Subcommittee Members, my name is Anne Kolton. Thank you for
inviting me to testify and voice ACC and our members' strong
support for the Sustainable Chemistry Research and Development
Act of 2019. This legislation will play a key role in enabling
technologies and tools that can help advance the sustainable
chemistry innovations that ACC members are developing.
ACC represents the leading companies engaged in the
business of chemistry, a $526 billion enterprise and a key
element of our Nation's economy. Our members apply the science
of chemistry to make the innovative products that help improve
people's lives.
As we've heard, sustainable chemistry can mean different
things to different people. In our view, sustainable chemistry
captures two equally important concepts, first being that
chemistry is manufactured and utilized in a responsible way
that manages associated risks. ACC and its members have a long
history of continuously enhancing environment, health, safety,
and security performance through our world-class Responsible
Care program, a requirement of ACC membership which celebrated
its 30th anniversary in 2018.
To further emphasize the importance of product safety and
stewardship to ACC members, the Responsible Care Product Safety
Code was adopted in 2012. This code emphasizes the need for
strong cooperation between chemical manufacturers, their
customers, and their customers' customers to promote the safe
and sustainable management and use of chemical products.
The second important concept of sustainable chemistry is
that innovations in chemistry enable progress and achievement
of a variety of sustainability goals from reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions to hunger alleviation and improved
quality of life. In fact, chemistry is the science behind
sustainability. And without chemistry innovations, a
sustainable future will be an unattainable goal.
Harnessing this power to enable sustainability progress is
embedded in our industry's values and central to the business
strategy of our members. As such, our companies are investing
more than $12 billion a year in research and development to
help advance sustainable chemistry.
In 2017, ACC's board of directors approved a set of
sustainability principles to capture our members' commitment to
safe use of chemicals and their efforts to build an innovation
pipeline of products and technologies that contribute to
sustainability through lower greenhouse gas emissions,
increased energy efficiency, less water, improvements in health
and wellness, food security, access to clean water, modern
sanitation, and safe, comfortable shelter.
I'd like to share just a few examples of ACC member company
innovations: A refrigerant developed by the Chemours Company
which can help reduce nearly 60 million tons of carbon dioxide
emissions equivalent to taking 15 million cars off the road,
agriculture films made from polymers developed by ExxonMobil
Chemical can help preserve and prevent damage to crops and
produce, reducing food waste and spoilage. And scientists at
Covestro have developed a catalyst that can put waste carbon
dioxide to work by converting it into flexible polyurethane
foam for use in products like mattresses and furniture.
As you can see, sustainable chemistry is dynamic and
multidimensional. To define it by a single attribute or
outcomes such as the hazard profile of a specific chemical
could mean forgoing numerous sustainability benefits even when
decades of scientific research have shown that chemicals can be
used safely in a range of applications.
At the same time, we do know that the products and
processes of chemistry can have an impact on people and the
planet. Through the Responsible Care program and individual
company actions, our members are continually working to drive
solutions to these challenges, including one of the most
compelling issues facing us today, and that is the unmanaged
plastic waste in the environment. Many ACC companies have
joined with companies across the chemical and plastics value
chain, including consumer goods manufacturers and waste
management firms, to found the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, a
CEO-led cross-sector nonprofit organization dedicated to
developing and accelerating scalable solutions to help end
plastic waste in the environment.
Alliance members are committed to deploying $1.5 billion
over the next 5 years to develop the systems, knowledge, and
infrastructure needed to reduce, recycle, reuse, recover, and
repurpose plastic waste. I've highlighted some of these
initiatives in my written testimony.
I'd like to thank you for your time and the opportunity to
share ACC's views and commitment to sustainable chemistry. We
look forward to serving as a resource for this Committee and
others as this important sustainable chemistry legislation
moves ahead. I'd be happy to take questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kolton follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TESTIMONY OF MITCHELL TOOMEY, DIRECTOR OF SUSTAINABILITY, BASF
IN NORTH AMERICA
Mr. Toomey. Good morning, Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking
Member Baird, and Members of the Research and Technology
Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify this morning
about BASF's views on sustainable chemistry and the Sustainable
Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2019.
BASF corporation is headquartered in Florham Park, New
Jersey. This is the North America affiliate of the German
global company BASF. In the United States, we have 16,000
employees working at more than 100 sites across 30 States,
including Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Tennessee,
Ohio, California, among others.
As the leading chemical company worldwide, BASF supplies
ingredients and solution that house, feed, drive, and care for
the world. At BASF we understand the challenges for a more
livable, sustainable future. Toward 2050, several megatrends
are seen on the horizon: Projected population growth to 10
billion people around the world, a doubling of per capita
income, and close to 70 percent urbanization and with more than
1 billion people moving toward cities.
We provide chemistry solutions to customers across a broad
range of industries to start to tackle some of these
megatrends, including the materials for batteries for electric
vehicles, lowering the impact of agricultural solutions on the
environment, insulating homes and businesses to use less
energy, and to increase resilience to natural disasters.
Perhaps the most important thing we are doing can be
explained through our sustainable solutions steering
methodology. Since 2013, BASF has been using its own method for
ensuring that we produce sustainable chemistry. We assess the
economic, environmental, and social impacts of a product and
its application in various markets and industries. Products are
categorized into sustainability accelerators, performers, and
challenge products. We've conducted these sustainability
assessments on almost all of our relevant portfolio of 60,000
products, which account for about $63 billion in sales. My
written statement includes some examples of these accelerator
products.
Around half of our total annual R&D spending goes toward
developing low-carbon-emitting products and optimizing our
processes. In 2018, the use of BASF products by our customers
prevented 640 million metric tons of CO2 emissions.
We ourselves recently announced our target of CO2
neutral growth into 2030 for BASF.
BASF has more than 11,000 employees involved in research
and development in 2018. We once again ranked among the leading
companies in the patent asset index, a method that compares
patent portfolios industrywide. Due to the growing demands of
our customers for sustainability, more and more of our
innovation initiatives focus on sustainability gains.
BASF proudly supports the Sustainable Chemistry Research
and Development Act, H.R. 2051. We are encouraged by the
increasing support for this legislation that seeks to
coordinate Federal activity, including research, development,
demonstration, commercialization, education, and training
efforts in sustainable chemistry.
At BASF we see global market and regulatory drivers for the
development and use of more sustainable chemistry throughout
the value chain, the challenges companies face finding suitable
sustainable alternatives and the role of innovation in
addressing this challenge. By better coordinating and focusing
existing relevant Federal R&D, H.R. 2051 can help guide
researchers, especially in academia and smaller companies, to
focus their development activities on sustainable chemistry and
generate the innovation that is needed to bring these
chemistries to market faster.
Thank you again for inviting me to talk about BASF's views
on sustainable chemistry and the reasons for our support of
this Act. I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have
regarding my testimony. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Toomey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. Well, thank you so much to our expert
witnesses. And at this point we're going to begin our first
round of questions. And the Chair is going to recognize herself
for 5 minutes.
Dr. Persons, one of the primary findings in the 2018 GAO
assessment of sustainable chemistry is this lack of
coordination across the Federal Government and its hindrance of
the development and use of more sustainable chemical products
and processes. Why is this the case, and what's the best
approach to coordinating activities and programs across Federal
agencies?
Dr. Persons. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. When we did our
study, coordination did come out, as you say, and I think GAO
sees this in much of its work, which is that coordination is
easy to say but often hard to do. And the issue has to do with
the incentives on issues. It's almost always in our experience
unintended. I think in this particular case, it's like putting
a mosaic picture together except not everyone knows exactly how
the picture is supposed to work out and they're putting their
pieces in while leaving a large amount of gaps there.
As you and Chairwoman Johnson mentioned, the idea of
leadership is a key issue that came out of our stakeholders in
that report. And then as we see where we sit looking across all
of the Federal Government on coordination issues, that's
particularly the case.
Chairwoman Stevens. And do any of our other panelists have
comments on that or they wish to chime in about their
experiences within the Federal Government and lack of
coordination? Just wanted to give you a chance. Otherwise, I'll
continue.
A major challenge identified, Dr. Persons, in the 2018 GAO
assessment was the lack of consensus regarding the
environmental and health factors, most important in assessing
sustainability. And I'd like all of you to chime in, as I have
the time. Would you assign a single factor, whether it's
toxicity, greenhouse gas emissions, energy use, or
recyclability as the single most important measure of
sustainability? And if not, how do you go about prioritizing
the factors here?
Dr. Persons. Yes, thank you for the question, Madam
Chairwoman. As our Technology Assessment of 2018 reported, we
did a survey with a series of A-B choices to various
stakeholders asking, would you prioritize energy or water use
or this or that. The top choice in our report, as one of the
graphics shows, is toxicity. That is the reduction of toxicity
was the number one concern of the stakeholders.
With that said, I think as Drs. Warner and Zimmerman have
spoken well about the green chemistry idea, about how do you
think about things in terms of what the technology is and what
it does, that larger framework is still absent. That's the key
thing. You can be necessary and do everything right in green
chemistry, and it's still not sufficient to do the full
sustainability cycle that we pointed out in our report. Thank
you.
Dr. Warner. It's an important issue because I think if you
ask 10 people what should be the number one priority, you'll
get 10 answers. And if you say, OK, then let's do all 10 of
them, then someone's going to want an 11th. And then someone's
going to want 50 and then someone--and if we approach it by
trying to achieve infinity, we can't do it. So who among us
decides where do we draw the line? Unfortunately, that is
critical, and it's a hard thing to do and it's going to leave,
you know, some people disappointed.
But if an organization wants to do the right thing and we
give them as a task infinity, that can't be done. So how do we
decide what are the endpoints that we should be focusing on?
How do we measure them, and how do we promote them? And that is
something we really need to take some serious time thinking
about. It's a very difficult task, but I think it's a very
critical one.
Chairwoman Stevens. And building the consensus among
industry.
Dr. Warner. Yes. Absolutely. Yes.
Dr. Zimmerman. So I think this is a really important point
to include this development of criteria as a goal of this bill
is to bring together this group that would form these consensus
standards. I think the word hazard has a really broad
definition beyond toxicity. This includes things that might
explode or react. Greenhouse gas emissions come under something
that might be hazardous.
These criteria are so important, as we heard earlier, in
the executive order for environmentally preferential
purchasing. If we have criteria in place, we can start to drive
the market. It will also help with marketing claims and how
people are able to make these claims out in the marketplace.
And as John mentioned, I think there is this idea of we
need a goal out there, and it's OK to drive toward continuous
improvement. We don't have to have success immediately on
everything, but we can hold that out as a true north of the
direction we're all working toward. And as long as we're moving
in that direction, we can claim that as a success and a win.
Ms. Kolton. First, I'd say I think you hear there does need
to be some element of flexibility in defining sustainable
chemistry and for any criteria that are applied to it. I think
we at ACC would of course advocate for a lifecycle approach
where you are looking at the effects of chemistry across--and
benefits across its lifecycle from production to end of use.
I think we would also support a system where there was
flexibility to look at the priorities in a particular geography
or application. So, for example, in some parts of our country
water scarcity is more of an issue than in others, and so water
efficiency might be a more important priority or criteria than
in some areas. So as long as risks are managed and managed
well, I think we would want to have some flexibility to look at
the application and how it can benefit different areas,
different geographies, and different applications.
Mr. Toomey. I think we are acting in a marketplace where
this is a very real issue. There are demands from different
industries for different priorities. And I think as a
commercial actor, we need to be ready to not wait for some
definition of what's most important but to respond immediately
to those market signals.
What we try to do is look at the overall value to society
of a specific intervention. You know, if you look at the net
costs and the net benefits, you can start to create a decision
matrix that makes sense in a business context. It's impossible
to have a perfect balance, but I think for each application you
have to make sure that you're taking all those characteristics
into account and not just focusing on the potential hazards but
looking at those exponential benefits that could be provided by
the application of the technology.
Chairwoman Stevens. And with that, I'm out of time, and I
will yield to my counterpart, Dr. Baird, for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Persons, on the definition and so on of sustainable
chemistry, could you elaborate on what the GAO found in terms
of a common understanding of the definition of sustainable
chemistry and how that overlaps with green chemistry? And then
if you're successful with that, did you find a common Federal
definition would be helpful?
Dr. Persons. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. The
report did not identify a definitive definition of sustainable
chemistry. That was in one sense the key finding that there
isn't that common understanding yet, but there were instead
themes, some of which I mentioned in my opening remarks:
Improving efficient use of resources, managing energy and
water, and also as you have heard some of our other panelists
say, the reduction in toxicity or hazardous substances, so all
of these elements.
And then how do we do come up with chemical transformations
perhaps with more Earth-abundant metals in catalysts versus
rare or nonrenewable-type resources. So the idea about
emphasizing and using nonrenewable resources is critical. And
again, trying to do this all in a lifecycle context, about how
to build and have at least a sufficient yet flexible
understanding of sustainability and yet still a clear enough
framework around what is there.
Currently, Federal agencies are doing various programs and
elements with respect to green chemistry and so on, but it just
lacks that overarching coordination and framework to help drive
that.
In terms of the green chemistry versus sustainability, sir,
I think Dr. Warner spoke well about the idea about green
chemistry in terms of what the technology is versus what it
does, and I think that's the variance. Green chemistry is a key
concept within the umbrella of sustainable chemistry. And so
winning there is necessary, as Dr. Zimmerman said, but not
sufficient; we will want to still think about things in this
sustainability framework that heretofore has not existed.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. Ms. Kolton, I understand that you're
leading the development of the first-ever chemical industry
sustainability metrics which will measure and report the U.S.
chemical industry's sustainability performance. Can you tell us
why ACC is undertaking this effort and how it will help
industry?
Ms. Kolton. Certainly. As I mentioned in my testimony, in
2017 ACC adopted industrywide sustainability principles. And
based on those principles, we are in the process of developing
metrics to assess progress, encourage process changes, process
advancements and enhancements. We think that this will help
express our industry's commitment to sustainability, as well as
encourage sustainability progress across industries and in our
customers and their customers as well.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. And I have about a minute and a half
left, and so, again, Ms. Kolton, would you and Mr. Toomey
both--you're going to have about 75 seconds anyway. What role
should the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) play in supporting industry development of sustainable
chemistry? And then the second part of that, should NIST be
working with the industry on voluntary standards?
Mr. Toomey. Thank you. Quite simply, I think that there's a
need for a comprehensive framework to house this discussion. I
think we're all coming at it from different points of view. If
we can establish a clear language that--to talk about these
emerging sciences together, that in itself would be the most
valuable output of this.
As for the measures, I don't have a position on that.
Ms. Kolton. I would say that there's a role for
organizations like NIST and many others in this process. I
think the principle of stakeholder input, of gathering the
perspectives and expertise from a variety of inputs is going to
be very important. So certainly we would support the engagement
of NIST and others as part of this process.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. I wish I had more time because I have
a question for the other two, but anyway, I'm out of time, and
I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. I now
recognize myself for 5 minutes as I sub here for Chairwoman
Stevens. And I thank her and Representative Baird, that Ranking
Member, for hosting what I think is a very important hearing.
And thank you also to our witnesses for joining us today to
discuss sustainable chemistry, the future of green innovation.
Sustainable chemistry responds to the American people's
demands for products made with respect for the health of our
environment, our natural resources, and our families. We have
an opportunity and I would say a responsibility as
representatives of the people to foster growth in the field of
sustainable chemistry, not only to protect our environment and
public health but also to establish the United States as a
global leader in sustainable manufacturing and family and
community-safe consumer products.
In the 114th Congress, I was intimately involved with
negotiations surrounding the Toxic Substance Control Act. While
I support many of the positive steps taken by the most recent
chemical protections, we have much more to do to ensure
Americans' public health and our environment are protected from
hazardous chemicals. Supporting the research and development
efforts of sustainable chemists will have a direct positive
impact on nearly every facet of American industry. The
innovation we will need to tackle America's greatest
challenges, whether from toxic water and air or the growing
climate crisis, starts at the molecular level with sustainable
chemistry solutions.
Through partnerships between State agencies and local
universities and high school teachers, New York's Capital
Region has established itself as a leader in sustainable
chemistry education, research, and development. Our State is
inspiring a new generation of sustainable chemists through
courses of study that only deepen students' understanding of
the subject but also provide them with a broader awareness of
how their actions impact our environment.
Manufacturers throughout our region have also taken actions
to reduce their environmental impact in all stages of
production from chemical research to waste reduction. And I
strongly support our Chair's decision to focus today's hearing
on research and funding to allow for advances in sustainable
chemistry. These advances will stimulate the American economy,
protect our health, and preserve the environment for
generations to come.
And so for all of our witnesses, my question is what are
some examples of green or sustainable chemistry, chemistry
innovation that can help us understand the future that green
chemistry can offer? Anyone want to take the first stab there?
Dr. Warner?
Dr. Warner. Yes, thank you. Thank you very much for giving
me the opportunity. You know, one example that comes to mind is
we've recently commercialized the technology to--when we
recycle asphalt pavement, when we repave a road, most of the
previous asphalt goes to a landfill and can't be reused because
the sun and the air oxidize it. A company has invented a
technology to allow the complete reuse of the old asphalt so
that instead of using virgin materials, you essentially can
replace the road with the same materials and repave it so
therefore reducing the energy used and the materials used. That
is a company called Collaborative Aggregates. It has sales
forces across the country. That is an example of a green
chemistry sustainability technology that quickly gets adopted
into the marketplace.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much. Any other examples? Dr.
Zimmerman?
Dr. Zimmerman. Yes, I would say that there are lots of one-
off examples. I think the bigger issue around green chemistry
has been that it is not systematic. And we know that the
breadth of the applications and the success of green chemistry
really goes across the chemical enterprise. And so I think
really important to this is we can all name, I'm sure, examples
within our own experience and our own companies of where we've
demonstrated success. I think the idea is that this needs to be
much more systematic and the way things are done rather than
the exceptions and the small stories that we're able to tell.
Mr. Tonko. Awesome. And, Ms. Kolton?
Ms. Kolton. Certainly. I had several examples in my opening
statement, but I did want to mention one process that is a
focus of significant research within the chemical industry, and
that's chemical recycling. And this is the opportunity to take
used plastics and other plastic-based products back to their
monomers and create entirely new products from them. This has
the opportunity and the potential to be transformational, but
it is a process that requires additional research, development,
and refinement. But that is a good example of a large-scale
potential technology development that could truly change our
society and relies on the principles of sustainability, as well
as supporting overall sustainability progress.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Mr. Toomey?
Mr. Toomey. Simply to reinforce that, we are seeing an
enormous demand for recycled content in food applications and
other areas where you can't currently use recycled content.
This will require some legislation to define exactly how you do
that but also technology innovation. One example is in the
automotive industry. We've seen a lightweighting revolution of
taking--using more and more plastic parts within the cars. Now,
the automakers are asking us can you actually make that plastic
part from recycled content? And so that will require
sustainable chemistry.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much. That concludes my 5 minutes,
so the Chair recognizes Representative Balderson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
panel, for being here today and taking the time out.
My first question is for the full panel. Currently, the
National Science Foundation supports innovative research in
chemical sciences integrated with education through
investments, and developing a globally engaged America
chemistry workforce. Could you each weigh in on what mode the
NSF and other Federal agencies could be doing to develop a
workforce with the skills to fill the industry jobs?
And, Dr. Persons, you may lead off.
Dr. Persons. Yes. Thank you, sir, for the question, and
I'll just say briefly that NSF has centers for chemical
innovation, as you mentioned. There is one, for example, at the
University of Minnesota on sustainable polymers. And so a lot
of it is learning by doing and putting that framework around.
But, again, in the absence of that framework, there's still
pieces of mosaic that NSF and others are laying in without
seeing the full picture. And so there are elements of training
in this regard toward green chemistry and sustainability, but
again, nothing in a holistic or systematic manner yet.
Dr. Warner. Thank you. Einstein had a quote, ``No problem
can be solved at the level of awareness that created it.'' I
think the chemical enterprise needs to reinvent itself. We need
to bring new eyes, new ideas into the chemical sciences. The
NSF has an opportunity to focus on that, to bring in not just
the traditional, you know, acceleration of that which already
exists. But when you look at the principles of green chemistry,
it actually catalyzes a creative different way of looking at
things and so has the opportunity to not just accelerate that
which we're doing but expand the bottom, the foundation of what
we're doing and what chemical sciences can do to contribute to
the economy.
And so if we--yes, we need to take the traditional chemical
sciences and accelerate green chemistry now, but we also have
to look at this as an opportunity to broaden what it means to
be a chemist, what it means to be an inventor, and to bring
along into that society new eyes and new ideas.
Dr. Zimmerman. So I think the NSF has a broad opportunity
across many of their programs from supporting development of
new curricular materials, informal science education, this is a
great opportunity to go into museums and libraries and have
conversations with the public, so broadening what we think
about as education. And then, you know, you could really push
the field by tying grant funding from the NSF to demonstrating
that your curriculum has changed, has evolved, and is aligned
with these principles of green chemistry in terms of what is
the department level or school level doing. So that would be a
criteria in actually receiving grants from the National Science
Foundation.
And just one other point, I'm going to build on what Dr.
Warner said. We have done some research to show that when you
teach green chemistry and green engineering in the curriculum,
you recruit and retain women and underrepresented minorities in
STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)
disciplines that would not be there otherwise because of the
compelling nature of this work.
Ms. Kolton. So while I can't speak to exactly the role that
NSF should have versus others, I do think that this is a
critical issue for industry and for government, and it's going
to require the investment and the commitment of both the public
and private sectors.
Yesterday, there was a story in the media about the skills
gap in science and technology could cost the economy over $1
trillion, so this is a critical issue. I think we have an
opportunity, as Dr. Warner said, to sort of recast chemistry
and really emphasize the role it will play in a sustainable
future that's more appealing perhaps to younger students,
people of a different generation, and giving them the
opportunity to be part of an enterprise that does advance us to
a more sustainable future. Programs committed to attracting
underrepresented groups to STEM education and industries like
the chemical industry are very important, and our members are
very committed to those and active around the country and
around the world in trying to attract new industry members,
students and otherwise, to help us achieve these goals.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you. Mr. Toomey?
Mr. Toomey. We would--as a company would be delighted to
see more collaboration with NSF specifically in what you might
call applied sustainability. We have questions coming from
customers' real-world demands that are problem statements that
we're trying to tackle but would also, I think, stimulate the
interest of university students and others to engage further. I
think sometimes you have to have a practical challenge in front
of you, especially in a fairly nebulous ill-defined topic as we
are entering into sustainability. We have challenges. We'd love
to see those challenges proliferate through the academic
community, and the NSF could be a great partner in such
affairs. Thank you.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you all. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens [presiding]. The Chair will now
recognize Dr. Marshall for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Welcome,
everybody. I want to talk about biofuels, conservation, and
innovation for a second. So I'm a biochemistry major, obviously
went on to medical school, and certainly have seen these
incredible things happen since my first memorizing that atomic
chart back in 10th grade as well.
Maybe we'll talk about biofuels. Anybody experience with
any of the biofuels, what is happening at the basic science
level, what is happening at the innovation level? Mr. Toomey,
you want to share anything, what you got cooking?
Mr. Toomey. Well, we've always been excited to find new--
what we call feedstocks, so we've got fossil fuels. There are
other things that you can use to start the chemical process.
Biofuels, biocomponents are a great source of that. In fact,
the recently passed farm bill, there was some very important
language about defining how do you account for the bio elements
within your feedstocks? And that's been transformational in
allowing us to show biobased plastics. So I think that the
feedstock, using it not only as a fuel for mobility but
actually as the source for plastics is an incredibly exciting
future.
Mr. Marshall. Yes, I was down in Florida and they were
taking sugarcane and turning it into plates and biodegradable
cups and stuff like that, a great future for it.
Dr. Warner, did you have something you wanted to share?
Dr. Warner. Yes, it's an interesting issue when we look at
the bioeconomy and trying to make traditional materials from
biofuel sources. The 270 years of modern chemistry we've been
doing chemistry trying to make things easy to purify at the
end, easy to extract, to scale up. Bioprocesses essentially
make that really hard, that bio milieu if you will, we haven't
really invented enough technologies to efficiently and cost-
effectively pull them out. And that's one of the big research
barriers right now is the cost-effective way to scale up the
final purification of those materials. So from a technical gap,
that's where the technical gap actually lies.
Mr. Marshall. OK. Dr. Zimmerman? I read body language
pretty good.
Dr. Zimmerman. I do a lot of research in my own laboratory
on this question. I think the other big issue with biobased
feedstocks is, you know, the petroleum industry is really good
at getting a barrel of crude oil out of the ground and using
every single fraction of that.
Mr. Marshall. They do.
Dr. Zimmerman. We are not as good when we take a bio
feedstock. We're seeing this much goes to fuel and the rest
isn't waste; what do we do with it? And I think the other big
chemical challenge is being able to harness value out of every
fraction of that biomass just like a petroleum refinery would.
We call it the integrated biorefinery. And that changes the
economics of the system where sometimes those really low-volume
but high-value fractions actually drive the economics, and your
fuel becomes a waste product out of going after these other
compounds.
The other thing biobased and biofuels offer is new
chemistry, things that we can't do from petroleum feedstocks.
We have new starting materials, and we can make new things, new
performance that we're not able to get out of the petroleum
economy. So I think it's not just replacing what's there but
actually creating and innovating a new opportunity.
Mr. Marshall. Right. I think another great example I can
think of is when ethanol first kind of hit the market 20 or 30
years ago, the cattle feeders were, oh, my gosh, this is going
to drive the cost of corn up. Well, the next thing you know, a
byproduct, dried distillers grain, has a huge high protein
content, and what was once a waste product, we now export it
across the world and we feed it to our cattle and again, every
month it seems like there's something new and improved coming
out in that industry. Now they're using sorghum, which uses
less water to grow in place of corn and able to use those
interchangeably. And now we haven't even started about the
biodiesels.
So let's maybe talk about conservation and innovation that
since 2003, the carbon gas output of this country is a nice
steady trend downward and I am curious what you all see the
future looks like, what conservation projects you think might
be, and you probably may be more in the lines of innovation as
I look at this crowd and your industry. What do you see for the
future of innovation? I happen to believe that innovation can
do more to drive the carbon footprint down than any law that I
can write up here, so prove me right.
Ms. Kolton. You know, I would say from the chemical
industry standpoint there's a tremendous incentive to always
look for new efficiencies and new processes and technologies
that can help drive down emissions, whether it be of carbon or
other potential air pollutants. We, as an industry, have made
significant progress since we started measuring carbon
emissions in 1990 through the Responsible Care program, which I
mentioned earlier, and commit--and are committed to continuing
that progress in the future.
Mr. Marshall. Anybody else on innovation? Dr. Persons, go
ahead.
Dr. Persons. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, thank you. I just want to
mention one example. When we looked at technologies across
catalysts, solvents, and continuous processing in our 2018
report, one of the things that came out in the catalyst
category--this relates to Mr. Tonko's question earlier--was
that a company called Newlight Technologies won a 2016
Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award for developing and
commercializing a biocatalyst that captures methane and
combining it with air to create a material that matched the
performance of petroleum-based materials. So there was a way to
reduce a very intensive greenhouse gas, put it into everyday
products like packaging and cell phone cases, furniture, and a
range of other things. And based upon what we heard our
stakeholders say and I think you're hearing here that we're
sort of scratching the surface on some of these things that
could be a win-win in that regard.
Mr. Marshall. Thanks. Chairwoman, am I the last questioner
or have you got anybody else?
Chairwoman Stevens. You are, but we're going to do another
round.
Mr. Marshall. OK. I yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman Stevens. We're going to start a second round of
questioning in part because I didn't even get all my questions
in in the first 5 minutes, and this is such a fascinating
topic.
You know, we go back to the original charter here and the
12 Principles, one of which is on the safety standards, as well
as the role that our agencies provide in codifying those
standards, I think about the Environmental Protection Agency
and, you know, we're talking about the hazardous claim and what
chemicals fall under that and how it's governed.
And I was just wondering if maybe a handful of you could
shed some light in terms of the regulation from the EPA and if
it's seen as cumbersome or welcome, if it's a guiding force,
and maybe if there are some improvements that we can make to
that EPA regulatory process, we'd love to hear it.
Dr. Persons. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. In our tech
assessment, there were several EPA programs, some of which were
prize-oriented and others were basic research and doing
toxicology. As you know, we've done other work on TSCA (Toxic
Substances Control Act), as Mr. Tonko mentioned, and the IRIS
(Integrated Risk Information System) program just to collect
toxic substances in a database, which we recently had on our
high-risk list because of the challenges there. So there's more
research and development for EPA to do in its own way in terms
of managing or understanding environmental risks, not only in
the toxic spaces but as you open the aperture so to speak into
more green chemistry, as Drs. Warner and Zimmerman have been
discussing, and then again as you open it even more in terms of
sustainability to be able to build those metrics and do that
research and compile the data if you will over a long period of
time.
Mr. Toomey. Thank you. We--one program we'd highlight is
the EPA Safer Choice program, which is a voluntary program to
get EPA imprimatur on products that have improved hazard
characteristics. And I think that that can go even further by
doing a little bit more scientific lifecycle analysis and
calling for that. But we really find that to be a great program
underway.
Dr. Zimmerman. So I did--I want to make one point--it's
really important is that green chemistry has never been about
regulation, and there's actually not a regulatory framework
that goes along with the idea of green chemistry. I think the
reason there is such broad consensus on this topic is because
it's about innovation, it's about aligning environmental and
economic goals. And I think we should be mindful of bringing
regulatory----
Chairwoman Stevens. So we can do innovation as we regulate?
That's great. Keep going if you want to. I love what you're
saying.
Dr. Zimmerman. So I think we need to lead with an
innovation agenda if we're going to talk about these topics of
green and sustainable chemistry.
I think the other interesting thing to point out is this
regulation around collecting this tox data, the toxicity data
is--especially around green chemistry is being able to use that
information to drive design and innovation of new chemicals and
new molecules so we're not just regulating for the sake of,
should this be good or bad but how do we use that knowledge to
actually design a future that's better than the one we have
today?
Dr. Warner. That's a really important part. So, right now,
you'd be amazed that your average Ph.D. graduating from a
university in chemistry is probably completely unaware of the
regulatory frameworks. It does not drive innovation. There is a
disconnect for what--you know, so you don't have a class at
universities on chemical regulations. You graduate, you get a
job, and then you find out when you're on the job about the
real world. If we could have this be part of the intellectual
process both becoming a chemist, it has the potential to change
everything. And that's what we really need to do is we need to
create a conduit. Every time we learn about some mechanism that
causes some harm, if that does not make it to an inventor's
laboratory, then what's the point? We need to invent the better
things, and we need to see that the most critical element is to
take the knowledge of the bad and make it a design principle of
the future technology. And right now, those connections are not
made.
Ms. Kolton. Certainly I just would like to mention that the
2016 update to TSCA that's being implemented right now was
really designed with innovation in mind and certainly trying
not to be a hindrance to innovation. We were very supportive of
that legislation. We worked closely with NGOs and with Members
of Congress from both sides of the aisle. It was signed into
law by President Obama. And going through the process of
prioritizing chemistries for review, which is underway right
now, and looking again at utilizing modern approaches to
chemical assessment and chemical regulation and protection of
confidential business information at the same time really is
designed to help encourage innovation without stifling it.
Chairwoman Stevens. Wonderful. I'm out of time. I have more
questions. OK. I'm going to yield back my time and recognize--
did you want to do 5--OK. And I'm going to recognize Dr. Baird
for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that.
You know, I'm amazed at the talents and skills that you
have. And I'm sure that, as you thought about this meeting and
being a witness, that you had things you thought we ought to
know. So I'm going to give each one of you that opportunity to
tell us the one or two things that you think on this
Committee--because we have oversight on a lot of the science
and research and basic research, and that's not an easy task.
So I'd just like to give each one of you, if you want to, a
couple things that you think you'd like for this Committee to
know.
Dr. Persons. Thank you, Ranking Member Baird. I just want
to touch on something you said in your opening remarks. It
really does constitute, as you're hearing I think from the
panelists here, it's a tremendous opportunity for the United
States in innovation and competitiveness. I think the last
discussion about it's not regulations versus innovation; it's
how innovation can symbiotically interact with things. And it
does require a key element of leadership, not the Federal
Government in and of itself but the convening power of the
Federal Government to try and do this. And I think it goes
significantly to the future of U.S. competitiveness, the
manufacturing sector in general, the way we do research, again,
thinking in this lifecycle context where that's been largely
absent is the key opportunity. And if any country in the world
can do this, it's the United States with the collective
resources that we have. Thank you.
Dr. Warner. Thank you. I have two points. The first one is
about education. I think that if a young child dreams to be a
musician, they understand that they're going to have to
practice, practice, practice, and it takes a pathway to become
a musician. If a child wants to be an athlete, they know that
the first time they throw a ball it's not going to work well
and they've got to practice, practice, practice.
But is there a model of what it means to be an inventor? Is
there a model of what it means to be an innovator? Does a young
child see that path, and what opportunities are we losing
because we're not illustrating that path?
And if the crisis of sustainability lies in the domain of
invention, we need more inventors. And we need to really be
introspective. Does our educational system in K-12 and in
university actually foster the concept of innovation and
invention or--and that's just something we really need to take
a deeper look at.
And the second point is just to reiterate the field of
toxicology, the field of environmental health sciences is
burgeoning with information. Every day there's new results
happening. There is no conduit to the inventor's lab table. We
need to find policy with whatever ways to help facilitate that
invention. If smart people that want to invent things have the
tools to invent, they will invent.
Dr. Zimmerman. I have two points also. I think one is this
is a great space for public-private partnerships. There's a lot
of opportunity here where there are a lot of innovations and
discoveries that are in academic labs, in national labs, or in
startups that don't have the capital or the expertise to go
through that pipeline and get those at scale in the market and
commercialized.
There are some really good examples of this in other
countries, including GreenCentre Canada where they have set up
a similar idea of bringing technologies in. It's a self-
supporting entity on the royalties and licensing agreements of
those technologies that come out the other end go back into
support for the research and development.
And speaking of the national labs, it's a great place for
us to go look, so that's research that is being mandated and
can be directed, and there are a lot of innovations and patents
that are sitting on the shelf at the national labs that should
be in a database that's searchable that other people in
academia and small businesses can build on to advance green
chemistry.
Ms. Kolton. I would just reiterate the importance of that
collaboration between the public and private sectors. I think
there--through that collaboration we can make significant
strides and new innovations but also in idea incubation,
commercialization, and otherwise and legislation like that
which we were talking about today. There's another piece of
legislation called the Clean Industrial Technologies Act that's
being introduced today as well that's looking more at processes
and how to make more sustainable processes available and refine
them for the industrial sector. These kinds of initiatives by
the government I think are the kind of opportunities where you
allow the private sector to do what they do best, and you allow
the government and the public sector to do what they do best.
Mr. Toomey. And, very briefly, I think it's just important
to reiterate how much demand we're seeing in the marketplace
for these solutions. The market is correcting toward a
sustainable economy, and I think that we are actively pursuing
that. And if we can do anything as companies, perhaps it would
be to bring you the evidence. And especially we as a business-
to-business company across so many different sectors, we're
seeing this articulated in every industry. And so I think that
there is a maturing process going on within the marketplace
that needs some knowledge-sharing and some access to new
patents and ideas, but it is active and happening, and we'd be
delighted to be able to help increase the kind of knowledge
base of this committee.
Mr. Baird. Thank you.
Chairwoman Stevens. So the United States often feels like
it's in this big global competition because we are. And the
squirm is China's out-investing us. They're out-investing us in
R&D. They're, you know, outpacing us on applications for
artificial intelligence. And we look at the spends, we look at
our budget, we play a role as the Science Committee in the R&D
investment conversation, although we're not appropriators, as
our Chair likes to say. We're authorizers. And we're all, by
and large, fans of the investment in basic research to spur the
innovations and to help set the table.
So the takeaway from the conversation around public-private
partnerships and where industry and academia tie into the table
setting that the Federal Government offers is an imperative.
And it's obviously essential to our success. And it's the
American best practice that we afford here.
I'm going to give Mr. Toomey a warning because I think I've
got some questions for the record coming to you. But we're
delighted to have had BASF here today and in particular coming
from southeastern Michigan where you employ nearly 100 people
in my district from Wixom to Livonia, Michigan. And as the home
of our Nation's automotive capital, I'll just say your role in
terms of helping us meet our sustainable chemistry goals and
your dedication to best practices and your leadership as a
corporate steward have really meant a lot to us. And so we look
forward to following up with you on some additional technical
questions.
And that's in part why we were gnawing at this notion of
regulation because there are nuances and there are complexities
and a toughness to it, but it doesn't impede what we're
ultimately doing with sustainable chemistry, which is
propelling the innovations of the future.
We recently had a hearing here on the Research and Tech
Subcommittee on recycling technologies and started to dig at
plastics. And certainly we're dismayed to find out that we
really haven't been studying some of the toxicological effects
to plastics but also recognizing that there is great
opportunity here with reuse, that we don't have to make the
hysteria of the plastics paradox the failure of what we can do
to achieve sustainability goals.
So, Ms. Kolton, we'd really like to recognize you and the
work that you're doing with the Alliance and would like to
continue to invite you to chime in and be a part of the
discussions and the solutions that we'd like to catalyze here
in the United States around recycling technologies for plastics
and single use.
Everything that you all touch and do is responsible for the
might of not only our economic success but our health success
and frankly the outcomes for national security as well. So we
thank you for that.
And I will also recognize Dr. Zimmerman for her dedication
to definitions. As somebody who was doing the taxonomy around
the future of work in the digital age of manufacturing,
codifying the job roles specific to the changing nature of
advanced manufacturing, utilizing a taxonomy, we know how
important definitions are and how important they are to our
scientists.
So I'm sure Dr. Warner and your center and just your great
success, you know, utilizes some of that. And we'll take your
recommendation, by the way, to continue to encourage academia
to instruct around the regulations.
It's always such a surprising thing. You graduate college,
you spend 4 years steeped in a degree program, maybe you go on,
and then you emerge and you realize, oh, there's a whole bunch
of other things I didn't learn. And so the charge, too, to how
we continue to spur and create a nation of innovators, our
plight in the post-9/11 era, frankly what emerged this country
out of 9/11, which was this incredible ability to innovate and
proliferate the internet and propagate the iPhone, by the way,
using those rare-Earth minerals that we want to continue to
have access to.
So as this country finds itself in the middle of a trade
war, we might say that we want to go into trade wars
strategically with our allies and the alliances that help us be
successful. We're just so grateful for your leadership.
And thank you, Dr. Persons, for your incredible portfolio
of work. We know it's not easy to work at the GAO. We in
Congress love the GAO because we're going to cite your studies
and we get your charts. Now, when you're on the agency side
like Ms. Kolton and I were, oh, a GAO study is coming up, how
do we make sure we really get our points in there? But keep
going with everything you're up to. We're certainly thanking
all of you.
The record is going to be open for an additional 2 weeks
here. And statements from Members or additional questions, as I
already alluded to, are coming for Mr. Toomey that we may ask
of the witnesses.
But at this time, our witnesses are excused. Thank you for
just a wonderful hearing. And we are now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Timothy Persons
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. John Warner
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Julie Zimmerman
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Ms. Anne Kolton
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Mr. Mitchell Toomey
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Letters submitted by Representative Haley Stevens
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]