Catalyst

Recommendations

Info

The chemistry sector contributes greatly to reducing GHG emissions associated with agricultural production at all stages of the food chain through innovative packaging such as barrier films; oxygen or ethylene scavenging coatings; and, light and smart packaging that can extend the shelf-life of food and reduce waste. Energy It is clear one of the most promising approaches to reducing GHG emissions will come from the development of renewable energy solutions. Chemistry is an essential part of the solution through the development of photovoltaic cells, the production of composite materials for wind turbines, and improve battery performance. A shift to lower emission fuels – or decarbonization – will allow for the production of hydrogen through the electrolysis of water which can then be used in the production of various essential chemicals. Methanol and other synthetic gas and biofuels can also be produced using waste Report Looks at GHG Emissions Reductions A report published by the World Council for Sustainable Develop ment – Low Carbon Technology Partnership Initiative – Illustrates the important role the chemistry industry plays in transforming the products and services we use daily. The report looks at potential GHG emissions reductions both in chemical production and through the use of chemistry products. Various renewable bio-based chemicals can be produced using animal fats, vegetable oils, starch, sugar and cellulose. These can be made into plastics, detergents, fibres, inks, adhesives, construction materials, lubricants and medicines. To learn more, visit: www.lctpi.wbcsdservers.org. materials as feedstock instead of disposing of these materials in landfills. What can the chemistry industry do directly? Since reporting began in 1992, Canada’s chemistry industry has proactively reduced GHG emissions by 69 per cent. The industry continues to invest in more energy efficient projects and processes, increase its use of recyclable materials and continues to use scarce natural resources responsibly. Improvements like these allow the sector to continue to grow and innovate, and deliver the products and solutions to help reduce the impacts of climate change in Canada and abroad. CIAC members and partners, working with governments and stakeholders, are committed to investing in and developing innovative solutions to improve environmental performance and help other sectors meet their own emissions reduction objectives. Luc Robitaille joined the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada as Vice-President, Responsible Care® in November 2015. He is responsible for CIAC’s environmental, health and sustainability issues. 1 www.wemeanbusinesscoalition.org/content/ low-carbon-technology-partnerships-initiative 12 • <strong>Catalyst</strong> WINTER 2016 761871_CCC.indd 1 8/19/15 1:59 PM
Critical Perspectives WHO WILL FUND THE FUTURE? By Robin D. Rogers GREEN CHEMISTRY AND sustainability might be the catalyst for change that reestablishes the trust between the chemistry industry and society, or the catalyst which ends the industry as we know it. Does anyone remember photographic film and a company named Kodak? Interestingly, I am not sure the lessons of history have been ingrained enough to overcome the shortterm survivalist thinking that prevents us from risking change. Many chemistry industries today are trying to adopt the principles of green chemistry to become better at what they do and to respond to the new societal push prompted by the rising awareness of global climate change. Industries such as coal mining are disappearing, while companies based on oil, natural gas, and other nonrenewable fuels and chemical sources perhaps can see the handwriting on the wall. In survivalist mode, many companies seek societally-acceptable solutions that still fit their current business plans. For the chemistry industry this has meant biosourcing chemicals that they can sell instead of selling chemicals from the refining of oil. The change in our industry seems to be a combination of business as usual and small changes that seem meant to meet what society thinks it wants or needs at the moment. But who is finding and funding the future? Where is the transformational thinking that might eliminate the need for chemistry industries and who would fund such efforts? Indeed, almost all disruptive technologies come from the outside and not from within the industries being displaced. But for the chemistry industry, who is on the outside paying attention? Normally, I would look to the academic infrastructure, the discipline of chemistry, for disruptive changes in our industry; however, the funding climate does not seem to allow this. There has been, and apparently always will be, a tension between ‘pure’ academic research and ‘industrial’ research. When I started my first faculty position in 1982, I still remember being advised to stay away from working with industry (which was in the second breath after “I tried that 20 years ago and it didn’t work then and it won’t work now.”). However, in the United States, the changes in the economy and the changes in the funding of academic chemists turned virtually every successful fundraiser into essentially an entrepreneur, raising money wherever it could be obtained. I also see this trend in Canada, although many Canadian scientists must raise significant support from companies outside of Canada. The chemistry industry now provides a lot of funding to academics today, but the work appealing to industry is likely not going to be research, which would put that company out of business if successful. I still remember developing and patenting (U.S. Patent No. 5,603,834; Feb. 18, 1997), a technology that could be used to make a Technetium-99m radiopharmaceutical generator without using a source generated by nuclear fission. Unfortunately for me, there was only one company (a Canadian company) in that space and they certainly would not fund our work that could displace them from the market. Just as an update, I understand that perhaps this technology might now be needed since this company’s nuclear reactor had to be shut down. Where would we be today if the funding for such technologies was provided by the industries that might eventually take them forward? In today’s world, as an academic, I have also embarked into the world of the entrepreneur, if nothing else to at least encourage and teach (as much as an academic can) how to recognize disruptive technologies, market pain which needs relief, and the general thinking/planning/organization needed to be successful in a niche business world. Will the disruptive changes come from the growing entrepreneurial sector where big ideas can start small and take over? Here risk takes on a different meaning since entrepreneurs also need to raise money and the venture capitalists seem to be quite risk adverse. If there is already a good business case to be made, there is virtually no risk, and the return on investment (ROI) is guaranteed, can the new technology really be that novel or disruptive? My challenge to the chemistry industry is many fold, but perhaps the biggest part of it is answering the question, do you hang on forever or as long as possible for survival or do you reinvent yourself? The first step is to recognize when its time to change, in time to be able to change. I would suggest that now is the time to change. In the U.S. it seems both Congress and industry have been adverse to the concepts of ‘green’, accusing its proponents of being anti-business and the demands of society ringing the death knell of our economy. In Canada, at least before the last election, I noted policies and attitudes consistent with those in the U.S. In reality, the concepts of green and sustainability can make money and create jobs; likely they eventually will do so in a large and disruptive (i.e., transformational) way. Given what is happening with oil today, it should be clear the Canadian economy will suffer with business as usual, but could lead the world in alternative sustainable technologies based on wise use of renewable resources. So, who will lead our industry and the field of chemistry forward, those who are risk adverse, or those who recognize, adopt, and encourage change despite the risks? Robin D. Rogers is a Professor, Department of Chemistry, and Canada Excellence Research Chair in Green Chemistry and Green Chemicals, McGill University in Montreal. <strong>Catalyst</strong> WINTER 2016 • 13
Page 1 and 2: THE MAGAZINE OF CANADA’S CHEMISTR
Page 3: An online portal to help you networ
Page 6 and 7: President’s Message By Bob Master
Page 9 and 10: Edifications NEW GOVERNMENT, NEW DI
Page 11: Responsible Care ® By Luc Robitail
Page 15 and 16: CIAC member-companies have been lea
Page 17 and 18: Feature Honouring Richard Paton Aft
Page 19 and 20: Profil KEVIN HENDERSON, METHANEX CO
Page 21 and 22: Solutions THE CHEMISTRY BEHIND SKII
Page 24: What’s in your cart? At Imperial,

Catalyst

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?