The global environment Zhe challengefor chemists
By John H. Atmell The theme “Chemistry, the International Scieme for International Bene fits,” is 80 apt, so true, and implies so much for humanldnd that it could serve as the theme at any meeting of chemists, at anytime and in any place. Indeed, if ever there is a World Chemical Society, this could well be its motto. Chemists are often accused of tunnel vision, their dedication to their labratori- being interpreted as indifference to the world outside. Nothing could be further from the truth. The chemist knows that each living thing is no more than one chemical component of an Earth that is, itself, just a large chemical system. So who is better placed to understand the interrelation between chemistry, chemicals, and the envirOnment-and the impact of that environment on man? Who would be more likely to feel apprehension on this account than the chemist? We all recognize that the gmterpart of what constitutes environmental degradation is chemically related. Public and private bodies in many parts of the world have, for 20 years or more, set about identiwig the problems in detail, and extensive lists of their concerns have been p u h l i . For me to addresssuch detailed issues here would seem pointless, for that work is largely done, broadly disseminated, and widely accepted. Rather, my task, as I see it, is to consider a more general question: What currently constitutes the main chemical challenge? Tbc answer, I have concluded, lies in the challenge to chemists themselvesnot in any challenge to our professional abiities to diagnose and treat environmental degradation, because that cannot be disputed, but in the challenge that calls to account our role and posture regarding environmental protection, now and in the future. Chemistry intrinsically is neither good nor bad; it is theuse we make of it that calls for the adjective. The Royal 20 Environ Scl Techno1 , Vol 22.N O 1, 1988
John H. PurneN
Chemical Society in New Orleans, John H. Purnell was a speaker at the President’s Plenary Session on Aug. 31, 1987. Honorary treasurer of the Royal Society of Chemistry, Purnell presented a challenge for chemists to be more involved in pclitical and economic matters relating to chemistrv
Society of Chemistry (RSC) produces a publicity poster with the caption “Chemistry is Everywhere.” This, of course, is hue, and this trnth underlies the origin of many of our environmental problems and, in panicnlar, the special responsibility of the chemist. There is almost nothing that p p l e meet within their daily lives today that has not felt the touch of the chemist. Indeed, the list of our contributions is so vast that it is possible to make a persuasive case that the quality of modern life is largely the chemist’s creation. But, as we know, chemical benefit is always accompanied by those two handmaidens, risk and pollution, which are growing ever more familiar to the public as the century moves on.
There is a tendency among environmentalists to imply that there was an age of environmental innocence in which we all respected our planet and would do nothing to demean it. The implication is that, having started from this Eden, we are progressively moving away as each new activity produces unthought-of problems. As one who grew up in the industrial valleys of South Wales and who has seen the spoil tips leveled, the valleys landscaped, and the rivers run clean, I dispute this notion. It is long indeed since there was an Eden on this Earth. Moreover, we have demonstrated our ability to tackle today’s major pollution problems with results as dramatic as the problems we set out to solve. It is only a matter of some 30 years since more than half of the. waterways in Britain contained water unfit for human use: Today you may dip your cup into 90% of them and drink a healthy draft. Thii-five years ago, London disappeared under the most spectacular of its once-famous “pea-souper” smogs; visibility was reduced to inches, and the mixture of fog and airborne pollution killed widely and indiscriminately. Appropriate action, in which chemists were much involved, rapidly consigned such phenomena to the history books in our country. But we have also shown our ability to project environmental dangers that could not have been foreseen by others. The basis for our worries regarding ozone depletion and C02 buildup lies almost entirely in laboratory studies rather than in direct observations of environmental effects. Perhaps the most encouraging aspect-thanks in no small part to chemistry-is that the life expectancy of less than 60 years that my grandfather looked forward to when he was born in 1873 will, according to present trends, be translated into more than 80 years for my grandchildren. This often-neglected observation is the most dramatic evidence that we have the ability
0013-936W87/0922-W20$01.5010 Q 1987 American Chemical Society
and the will to create a more benevolent environment for humankind. Growing international awareness in recent years has led to much progress in pollution control and environmental protection. Yet, if every problem of environmental degradation known to us tcday were resolved tonight, the problem of environmental protection would still be here tomorrow. The human race has unlimited aspirations, and each new step brings with it new potential for environmental change. We, as chemists, recognize this immediately. It tells us that environmental protection is no longer an o p tional extra but a permanent and central part of life. It tells us, too, that in this chemical world burdens will always fall most heavily upon the shoulders of the chemist. Our role must be made plain to ourselves, in the widest possible terms. It may seem paradoxical that, as the smoke and haze of an earlier industrial era have been scrubbed from our skylines, an array of public interest groups, commonly nonscientific, has appeared to articulate concern about myriad aspects of environmental degradation. The paradox is, in some measure, of our own making. The dramatic advances in analytical techniques that arose from the research of the past three decades now allow us to determine the presence of chemicals in amounts so minute that, not long ago, they would have gone unnoticed. Inevitahly, this has encouraged an increase in public awareness of potential pollutants-an issue that will always follow us as we strive for more effective performance. We chemists have a clear duty to make sure that such information is made widely available. It is of no less importance that we ensure that this information is properly understood, properly interpreted, and properly used. The public perception of what constitutes pollution is neither universal nor constant. Both individual and collective views are commonly influenced by geographical, socioeconomic, and political factors; in consequence, these views also change with time. Whatever the perception, if we are to guide the public toward the best possible environment, we must first earn the public’s confidence. Does the public, in fact, endow the practicing chemist with sufficient respect and confidence to allow us this leading role? Those of you who have seen the results of the American Chemical Society’s attitude surveys will know that a substantial majority of the American public actually thinks that chemists are good and beneficial creatures. In contrast, their view of chemi-
cal industry is far less benign; for reasons that are not immediately obvious, most people see the industry as a bad and harmfid sector of human activity. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support a similar sentiment among the British public as well. One may argue with conviction that this judgment on our industry is unfair. In fact, objective analysis of all the evidence shows that the chemical industry
~posals I would not for one moment suggest that the world’s governments should be run by scientists. What I am saying is that, where the environment is concerned, adequate scientific advice must be available not only at all times but, most emphatically, at the right level. In saying this I explicitly accept that we cannot be the sole arbiters of the degree of hazard. nor can we alone determine
“Environmental protection is no longer an optional extra but a permanent and central part of life!’ creates considerably less pollution than do those industries dominating other areas of everyday needs, such as agriculture and energy. The former head of our largest local authority scientific unit recently recalled bow his chemical colleagues were consistently seen by the public as being “on our side” and in a primary position to help tackle the pollution “created by industry.” The layman, it seems, is happy to cast chemists in whatever role we wish to assume when it comes to safeguarding the environment. Although it’s nice to be seen in this light, a more important concern is how much influence do chemists have within the structures of governments amund the world to make a real impact on environmental protection and pollution conhol measures? The clear answer from many sources is: Not as much as they should. Within the RSC, as with the ACS and other societies, we have developed a significant capabiliry for providing information to government and the legislature. We do this in a nonpartisan way in pursuit of the requirement in our Royal charter that we should seek to use chemistry for the public good. There is also an excellent body in the governmental structure of Britain called the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which is chaired by the RSC president, Sir Jack Lewis. This commission is a permanent organization able to draw on information and assistance from all sources to put together reports for government. Eleven such reports have already a p p e d . Despite such excellent channels, it seems to many that when the final decisions on environmental and pollution-control measures are taken, scientists are notably absent.
the action to be taken, although we may well be expected to e x p d t e it. Scientific options, in any given situation, are unlikely to be the only ones or indeed the best overall. Scientists (and chemists are no exception) will always have to accept that their requirements must be placed alongside those of the wider community when we seek to devise practicable solutions to environmental problems. This situation introduces further difficulties for the chemist. We know that if a problem needs 10 years of study to provide adequate data, then five years of work will not be enough. Indeed, in the case of ozone layer depletion or atmospheric carbon dioxide buildup, even 50 years of study may not be adequate to provide a sure basis for interpretation and public action. The people on the street, however, want their problems solved today, whereas our legislators, often bound by the limits of their electoral life, are rarely allowed the luxury of real longterm planning. This is the time scale in which they will need to make decisions, and I am afraid that the scientific tortoise has great difficulties in competing with the electoral hare. But in the fable, the tortoise won in the end. In this brief prologue I sought to set the scene and establish a number of propositions upon which to expand my theme. I stated that chemists accept that environmental protection is no longer an option but an integral part of every activity. I expressed the view that we believe ourselves to have the competence to deal, on an appropriate time scale, with all chemical aspects of environmental degradation. I adduced evidence that implies that the public subscribes to this view and would offer us the opportunity of leadership. And now I suggest that in most respects we Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 22,No. 1. 1988 21
chemists have not sought this leadership role with sufficient conviction. I implied clearly in the foregoing that the chemist alone cannot provide all of the environmental protection that is necessary. In the final analysis, legislation is essential. The scientific input to the legislative process will never be the only one, nor wiU it be the best in all circumstances. It is appropriate, therefore, to look briefly at the world outside to get some picture of the trends in environmental legislation.
Best practicable concept A concept that has recently gained wide currency is that called the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO). In the most elementary terms it is described as the best way of protecting the environment that takes into account all scientific, economic, and local circumstances. This very attractive notion is, however, open to interpretation in different ways. Already the possiblity has arisen that the European community might go down a different path than that of the European Trade and Industry Associations in its interpretation of BPEO for specific instances. Nevertheless, BPEO is providing a useful catalyst for advance, not least because of its unifying quality. For instance, it accommodates with equal facility such broad issues as a national choice between fossil fuel and nuclear power; such specialized concerns as design and control of a whole process from raw materials to wasteproduct disposal; and such individual decisions as choosing the most appropriate method for radioactive-waste disposal. Its flexibility provides for different solutions in different economic and social circumstances which, most importantly, can be changed with time. As chemists, we must work toward
This part of the discussion is devoted to “seeking means to provide the best possible environment for humankind.” The issues, as I have sought to show, are complex. The definitions of the phrases “means to provide” and “best possible’’ are open to subjective judgment. BPEO has, in principle, the merit of accommodating this subjectivity and, in consequence, of becoming an internationally accepted approach. So, what does it ask of chemists? And what are the consequences for us? The first answer that emerges is that BPEO demands unequivocal definition of the scientific options in comprehensive and quantitative terms. Without this the concept is flawed. In most foreseeable situations this demand will require definitive chemical input-truly a chemical challenge because, as many authorities have pointed out, quantitative information on the effect of known or alleged pollutants is sparse and often confusing. In many instances we know nothing at all and have to rely on supposition. The Royal Commission addressed this latter issue in a manner more appropriate, perhaps, to Perry Mason, by posing this question: Is a chemical in the environment to be regarded as guilty until proven innocent or, as is customary in law, innocent until proven guilty? Many countries have sought the best of both worlds by adopting whichever view circumstances seemed to require. On the other hand, special interest groups uniformly assume guilt, and who is to say that this is wrong? However we look at these issues, it is clear that we will need copious data if we are to properly fulfill our responsibilities for the future. And this means research on a very considerable scale. We can reasonably assume that chemical industry is obliged, indeed is will-
“As chemists, we must work toward acceptance of internationally uniform standards of pollutant levels . I’
.
acceptance of internationally uniform standards of pollutant levels, but at the same time we must see these standards as targets within the BPEO concept toward which regions will move as circumstances permit. This statement precludes any acceptance of a situation where different standards are applied between developed and developing regions or urban and rural locations for commercial reasons only. 22
Environ. Sci.Technol., Vol. 22,No. 1, 1988
ing, to conduct the necessary studies in the context of its own specific activities. But chemical industry provides only a minor contribution to the global problem. The greater issues revolve around everyday human activities in the quest for survival. Each year we spread hundreds of millions of tons of inorganic fertilizers on the land in order to feed the people, and then we dispose of billions of tons
of agricultural waste. We burn fossil fuel in similar amounts in answer to our energy needs and, in so doing, generate vast amounts of damaging oxides that alter the atmospheric balance, create acid rain, and influence stratospheric chemistry. Indeed, we are learning rapidly, as analytical techniques improve, that the combustion of any material of organic origin liberates into the environment a wide m y of chemicals that have the potential to degrade. These problems are international and will be exacerbated into the next century as a result of the projected vast growth in the world population. They cannot be resolved by the action of individuals or of corporations, only by publically supported action on a wide scale. We chemists, as a body, must press with all OUT force for a long-term, worldwide program of basic research on environmental impacts and continual monitoring of chemical species of great concern. Only by initiating such action now can we eventually contribute to appropriate legislation, thus relieving our descendents of the worries that beset our generation. This brings me to my second point, the role of chemists in the provision of legislation. Our input should not stop at the point where we have provided the necessary scientific evidence on the options available. The chemist has, in addition to specialized skills, all the attributes of the ordinary man. He or she can, and thus should, make significant contributions at higher levels of decision. We need, as a body, to seek to ensure that chemists are placed in such positions. But the foregoing assumes that the necessary cohort of professional chemists is available to fill the gaps at all levels of environmental protection, from the research laboratory to the decision-making process. The evidence from many sources makes it plain that this is not true even today. A major reason offered by those close to the problem is that scientific work in the area of environmental p r o tection is not given appropriate status, even within our profession, nor is it seen to be as scientifically and materially rewarding as work in other chemical areas. We must do all we can to bring a b u t change in this direction, which brings me to my third point. To ensure a continuing and adequate supply of chemists qualified to work in the areas of environmental protection and pollution control requires two things. First, a sustained education p r o gram for young chemists designed to confirm that work for the environment is both legitimate and rewarding. Second, a cooperation between countries in
creating strong, uniform, and enlightened postgraduate training schemes. I emphasize the postgraduate aspect because the first requirement is that environmental chemists be no less chemist than their peers if they are to serve the people well.
Controlling toxic chemids
A declaration of chemists Industrial waste reduction The points I have made are only a few of the many that could be brought and integrated pest managemem out. I have chosen them because, if brought to fruition, they seem the ones on which we can build a greater edifice. By Sondra Postel This leads me then to a fourth, and more general, proposal. I believe that An uneasy face-off between benefits what I have suggested demands that and risks marks the course of the chemchemical societies around the world ical age. The fashioning of tens of thoulead our profession toward a greater in- sands of new chemical compounds has volvement in environmental protection. led to a host of industrial and consumer Our societies are uniquely placed to do products-horn plastics and pesticides this and, in the process, serve not only to birth control pills and polyester fithe professional but the public interest bers. Yet events continue to reveal that as well. Through them, we must seek “better living through chemistry” to make an impact upon national gov- comes with serious costs. Pesticides ernments, and through their joint turn up in rural drinking-water wells. action, on international bodies. In a Underground plumes of toxic chemiword, our societies should aim for a cals emanate from abandoned waste place at the leading edge of environ- sites and contaminate city water s u p mental protection. plies. A gas leak at a chemical producIf there is a call to arms in my pre- tion plant in Bhopal, India, kills more sentation 1 am sure that my fellow than 2000 people. In many wayster of the residents of Iowa have drinkchemists will rise to the occasion. some dramatic, others insidiousThose of us from Great Britian were chemicals seem to be escaping society’s ing-water supplies contaminated with pesticides. The states with the best taught the power of a Declaration of control. monitoring programs have found the The use of pesticides in agriculture Intent. Would it not be appropriate, greatest number of farm chemicals in therefore, if today we were to subscribe and the disposal of industrial chemical wastes constitute two major pathways groundwater, suggesting that more exto a Declaration of Chemists that might by which people are inadvertently ex- tensive monitoring might reveal even run as follows: “Chemists of all nations readily ac- posed to toxics. These practices release more pervasive problems. Presumably, pesticide use makes cept the responsibility that in develop hundreds of millions of tons of potensense as long as the benefits outweigh ing and practicing our profession we tially hazardous substances into the enwill take all necessary steps to ensure vironment each year. the costs and risks. But this case is getting harder to make. Insects and weeds that the outcome of our work provides Pesticides account for only a small now reduce crop production by about the best possible environment for hu- share of the 70,000 chemicals commankind, and we will aim to achieve monly used, but they present some of 30%.apparently no less than before the this objective, both through our work the greatest hazards. Each year chemical age dawned. In response to heavier pesticide use, pests have and through the influence that can be 400,000 to 2 million pesticide poisonbrought to bear on other individuals ings occur worldwide, mostly among evolved mechanisms to detoxify and resist the chemical action designed to kill and on institutions, governments, and farmers in the Third World. Many them. As a result, chemicals intended international bodies.’’ chemicals restricted or outlawed by into enhance and stabilize agricultural There is ample evidence that we, dustrial countries are still widely used production have in many cases done aided by nature’s resilience, have the in developing countries. For example, ability to protect the environment in ret- DDT and benzene hexachloride are just the opposite. From conon growers in Nicaragua to potato growers on rospect. The challenge before us is to both banned in the United States and Long Island, the “pesticide treadmill” provide this service to humankind in much of Europe, yet these chemicals has taken a toll. As farmers apply inaccount for about three-quarters of total prospect. pesticide use in India. Studies in India’s creasing amounts of chemicals, the agricultural Punjab region have shown chemicals become less effective, raising production costs, depressing yields, that, through their mother’s milk, babies daily injest 21 times the amount of and increasing threats to health and the John H. Purnell, professor of physical these chemicals considered acceptable. environment. chemistry at University College, SwanIn many ways the situation with inOver the past few years, pesticide sea, has sewed as vice president of contamination of groundwater has dustrial chemical waste parallels the both the Royal Institute of Chemistry emerged as a major concern in the predicament with pesticides: Not only nnd lke Chemical Society. He has pubare current practices contaminating the farming regions of industrial countries. lished widely in areas of gas-phase In the United States routine agricultural environment and creating health risks, chain reactions. photochemistry, heter- practices have contaminated ground- but they are unsustainable over the long ogeneous catalysis, and chromatogra- water with 24 different pesticides in term. For many countries, cleaning up old more than 22 states. At least one-quarphy. 0013-936W8710922M)23$01.SO10
0 1987 American Chemical Society
Environ. Sci. Technol.. Val. 22. NO. 1, 1988 23
