Green Alternatives – What Is Green Chemistry ? – By Definition, Alternatives Are Inferior – 2012 12 04

 

 

 

 

 

Overview

 

 

Green Alternatives are now called GREEN CHEMISTRY, but they are still BOGUS !

 

Enviro-Lunatic Activists and Left-Wing Radicals have tried to market GREEN CHEMISTRY under various names, ranging from the very-boring « toxics use reduction » to the soft-sounding « precautionary principle ».

 

Activists really want GOVERNMENT-DRIVEN GREEN CHEMISTRY, and not MARKET-DRIVEN GREEN CHEMISTRY.

 

GREEN CHEMISTRY supposedly removes « bad » or « dangerous » chemicals from the market, and replaces them with « safer » ones ( a.k.a. GREEN ALTERNATIVES ).

 

What society can survive if it continues to throw away its useful technologies for no good reason ?

 

The Manufacturing Industry performs its own version of GREEN CHEMISTRY  ―  every time it develops new products.

 

The Manufacturing Industry succeeds by PRODUCING USEFUL AND SAFE PRODUCTS AT AFFORDABLE PRICES.

 

GREEN CHEMISTRY is NOT cutting edge, scientific, progressive, and good for public health and the environment.

 

GREEN CHEMISTRY is GOVERNMENT-GUIDED PRODUCT DESIGN aimed at SERVING POLITICAL PREFERENCES rather than market demands and economic, scientific, or engineering specifications.

 

The underlying assumption that government regulations serve society by forcing industry to find ALTERNATIVES to a growing list of politically-selected CHEMICALS-OF-CONCERN is FOOLISH as it IGNORES LONG-TERM SOCIETAL COSTS.

 

Such forced re-formulation also WRONGLY ASSUMES THAT ALTERNATIVES will be safer and work as well.

 

But, by definition, ALL EXISTING ALTERNATIVES ARE INFERIOR, which is why they did not win the market-place originally.

 

Alternative products are usually LESS TESTED as well, raising the prospect that they are NOT ANY SAFER THAN THE PRODUCTS BANNED BY GOVERNMENT.

 

And when one product is banned, companies must divert resources away from other enterprises that might have benefited society in order to find substitute chemicals and reformulate products.

 

The costs to our economic well-being and overall human progress are substantial.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What Is

 

Green

 

Chemistry

 

?

 

 

 

 

December 4th, 2012

 

OpenMarket.org

 

Selected and Adapted Excepts

 

 

 

Is Green Chemistry Worth Spending Millions Of Dollars ?

 

Washington’s state bureaucrats are soliciting proposals from « public and private sector firms to help create a technically competent and vibrant GREEN CHEMISTRY CENTER to help transition towards a greener and more sustainable economy in Washington State ».

 

But what exactly is GREEN CHEMISTRY ?

 

Is it worth spending 550 million dollars to advance so-called GREEN CHEMISTRY in the State of Washington ?

 

Here’s a multiple choice question to address this issue  ―

 

GREEN CHEMISTRY is  …

 

A.   New & Cutting-Edge

 

B.   Scientific

 

C.   Pro-Technology & Pro-Growth

 

D.   A Way To Improve Public Health

 

E.   All Of The Above

 

F.   NOT New or Cutting-Edge, Unscientific, Anti-Technology, Anti-Growth, & Dangerous.   [ Yes ! ]

 

Environmental Activists ( a.k.a. Greens ) want you to think the answer is E.

 

 

 

Green Chemistry Is NOT Cutting Edge

 

 

After all, the term GREEN CHEMISTRY, on its own, sounds cutting edge, scientific, progressive, and good for public health and the environment.

 

The general idea of GREEN CHEMISTRY is to REMOVE « BAD » OR « DANGEROUS » CHEMICALS from the market, and replace them with « safer » ones ( a.k.a. GREEN ALTERNATIVES ).

 

The concept of GREEN CHEMISTRY is not exactly new or cutting edge.

 

Activists and Leftist Policy-Makers have tried to market GREEN CHEMISTRY under various names, ranging from the very-boring « toxics use reduction » to the soft-sounding « precautionary principle ».

 

So we can cross off answer A  ―  New & Cutting-Edge.

 

 

 

Green Chemistry and Market Demand

 

 

The ostensive goals of GREEN CHEMISTRY can be achieved WITHOUT government, DRIVEN PURELY BY MARKET DEMAND.

 

In fact, the Manufacturing Industry performs its own version of GREEN CHEMISTRY  ―  every time it develops new products.

 

The Manufacturing Industry succeeds by PRODUCING USEFUL AND SAFE PRODUCTS AT AFFORDABLE PRICES.

 

But the activists really want GOVERNMENT-DRIVEN GREEN CHEMISTRY, which is something completely different than MARKET-DRIVEN GREEN CHEMISTRY.

 

 

 

Green Chemistry Is NOT Scientific

 

 

Here is how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) defines GREEN CHEMISTRY  ―

 

Green chemistry is the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use or generation of HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES. [ ?!?! ]

 

Note the word HAZARDOUS.

 

The word HAZARDOUS focuses on REPLACING RISK-MANAGEMENT WITH RISK ELIMINATION, which is IMPOSSIBLE.

 

EVERYTHING POSES A HAZARD, and under certain conditions, could do harm, while under other conditions is perfectly safe.

 

For example, WE CAN DIE FROM CONSUMING TOO MUCH WATER, but the risk of that is LOW, particularly if we control our intake.

 

Similarly, chemicals can be dangerous when exposure is high and long term, while low, short-term exposures may pose negligible risks.

 

Regulators can USE HAZARD AS AN EXCUSE TO REGULATE ANYTHING AT ANY LEVEL.

 

Accordingly regulations based on hazard grant bureaucrats arbitrary power rather than require them to adhere to scientific standards.

 

Hence, we can eliminate answer B  ―  Scientific.

 

 

 

Green Chemistry Is NOT A Revolutionary Philosophy

 

 

A definition found on an Enviro-Lunatic web-site named Beyond Benign clearly focuses on the agenda of Green Activists and Leftist Policy-Makers  ―

 

GREEN CHEMISTRY is a REVOLUTIONARY PHILOSOPHY [ ?!?! ] that seeks to unite government, academic and industrial communities by placing more focus on environmental impacts at the earliest stage of innovation and invention[ ?!?! ]

 

According to Beyond Benign, its organization is somehow dedicated to providing future and current scientists, educators, and citizens with the tools to teach and learn about GREEN CHEMISTRY in order to create a sustainable future.  [ ?!?! ]

 

Here, GREEN CHEMISTRY is somehow a PHILOSOPHY ( suggesting a way of life ).

 

GREEN CHEMISTRY supposedly unites various players ( involving more and more people ), and it focuses on the « earliest stages » of product design.

 

Product design and development become a POLITICAL PROCESS.

 

 

 

Green Chemistry Is NOT Collaborative

 

 

Some people even refer to GREEN CHEMISTRY as COLLABORATIVE CHEMISTRY.

 

The Manufacturing Industry cannot accomplish this alone.

 

It must be guided by bureaucrats and « stake-holders ».

 

Based upon what observers are seeing in terms of GREEN CHEMISTRY laws and advocacy at the state and federal levels, here is a definition  ―

 

GREEN CHEMISTRY is GOVERNMENT-GUIDED PRODUCT DESIGN aimed at SERVING POLITICAL PREFERENCES rather than market demands and economic, scientific, or engineering specifications.

 

 

 

Government-Guided Product Design

 

 

This raises a very important question  ―

 

Who really knows best when it comes to manufacturing and product design ?

 

Government or industry ?

 

Advocates of GREEN CHEMISTRY appear to choose GOVERNMENT-GUIDED PRODUCT DESIGN despite some serious pitfalls associated with government policies that second-guess private-sector decisions.

 

Bureaucrats lack situation-specific expertise as well as technical information that tens of thousands of product engineers working in thousands of businesses possess.

 

It is information that CANNOT BE AGGREGATED IN GOVERNMENT to design a product, let alone guide an entire industry.

 

Perhaps most disconcerting is that government regulators are not particularly accountable to consumers.

 

When products fail or prices skyrocket, no one blames the government.

 

They blame business, which produces yet more regulation on business.

 

Rather than mitigate green demands, which many businesses hope will happen if they play the GREEN CHEMISTRY game, this process becomes a vicious cycle for industry.

 

And the result is VERY BAD FOR CONSUMERS.

 

 

 

Green Chemistry Laws

 

 

Consider the laws now on the books and under development in several state-regulatory agencies.

 

Washington, Minnesota, Maine, and California all have PASSED GREEN CHEMISTRY LAWS that require bureaucrats to develop CHEMICALS-OF-CONCERN LISTS.

 

These are based on the HAZARD PROFILES of chemicals RATHER THAN REAL RISKS.

 

And the criteria they use tends to select the most widely used and most widely tested chemicals.

 

BAD PUBLICITY from unfair CHEMICALS-OF-CONCERN LISTS can force companies to reformulate their products, replacing well-studied chemicals with less understood and potentially MORE DANGEROUS ALTERNATIVES.

 

Walmart, Target, and other stores, have already pulled VINYL SHOWER CURTAINS and other innocuous products off the shelves because of hype generated by CHEMICALS-OF-CONCERN LISTS from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ).

 

Laws in California and Maine go even further, commencing regulations that WILL FORCE COMPANIES TO REFORMULATE PRODUCTS THAT USE POLITICALLY UNPOPULAR CHEMICALS.

 

The underlying assumption that government regulations serve society by forcing industry to find ALTERNATIVES to a growing list of politically-selected CHEMICALS-OF-CONCERN is FOOLISH as it IGNORES LONG-TERM SOCIETAL COSTS.

 

 

 

Throwing Away Useful Technologies

 

 

What society can survive if it continues to throw away its useful technologies for no good reason ?

 

And when one product is banned, companies must divert resources away from other enterprises that might have benefited society in order to find substitute chemicals and reformulate products.

 

The costs to our economic well-being and overall human progress are substantial.

 

 

 

By Definition, Alternatives Are INFERIOR

 

 

Such forced re-formulation also WRONGLY ASSUMES THAT ALTERNATIVES will be safer and work as well.

 

But, by definition, ALL EXISTING ALTERNATIVES ARE INFERIOR, which is why they did not win the market-place originally.

 

Alternative products are usually LESS TESTED as well, raising the prospect that they are NOT ANY SAFER THAN THE PRODUCTS BANNED BY GOVERNMENT. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NORAHG is the National Organization Responding Against HUJE that seek to harm the Green space industry.

 

Communities and businesses are being HARMED by PROHIBITIONS against the use of pest control products in the Urban Landscape.

 

NORAHG morally represents the VAST SILENT MAJORITY of people associated with turf and ornamental plant maintenance who are OPPOSED to Anti Pesticide PROHIBITION and the CLOSURE or ABANDONMENT of green spaces under the RIDICULOUS PRETEXT of somehow « saving » the environment.

 

NORAHG is a NATIONAL NON PROFIT NON PARTISAN organization that does not accept money from corporations or governments or trade associations, and represents NO VESTED INTERESTS WHATSOEVER.

 

NORAHG is dedicated to reporting the work of RESPECTED and HIGHLY RATED EXPERTS who promote ENVIRONMENTAL REALISM and PESTICIDE TRUTHS.

 

NORAHG pledges to deliver reports that are worthy of peoples’ time and of peoples’ concern, reports that might ordinarily never have breached the parapet.

 

NORAHG was the brainchild of William H. Gathercole and his colleagues in 1991.  Mr. Gathercole is now retired, although his name continues to appear as founder.

 

 

 

For the original copy of this Force Of Nature Report, go to the following link  …

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Force-Of-Nature-Green-Alternatives-2012-12-04-What-Is-Green-Chemistry-Alternatives-Inferior-pdf-300-dpi.pdf

 

 

 

 

Here are previous reports concerning GREEN ALTERNATIVES, just in case you missed them  …

 

 

GREEN ALTERNATIVES  …  BOGUS & DISMAL FAILURES ( Web-Page )

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-24g

 

 

 

 

NORAHG has archived more information on The Pesticide Truths Web-Site  …

 

 

THE PESTICIDE TRUTHS WEB-SITE

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/

 

 

PESTICIDE BANS ARE A FARCE ( Report )

 

http://wp.me/p1jq40-4mS

 

 

REAL TRENDS AGAINST PESTICIDE BANS ( Web-Page )

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-1JO

 

 

CARNAGE CAUSED BY CATASTROPHIC ANTI-PESTICIDE PROHIBITION  –  MAIN WEB-PAGE

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-5On

 

 

CARNAGE CAUSED BY CATASTROPHIC ANTI-PESTICIDE PROHIBITION  –  RE-DIRECT LINKS ( Web-Page )

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-26P

 

 

GOLF DESTRUCTION  –  GOLF IS NEXT ( Web-Page )

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-4FC

 

 

WHITE PAPER  –  THE MYTHS ABOUT BANNING PESTICIDES ( Part 2 )  –  LEADING SCIENTIFIC HEALTH AND POLICY EXPERTS

 

http://wp.me/p1jq40-5DD

 

 

THE COMPLETE LIBRARY OF REPORTS & REFERENCES ( Web-Page )

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-2rr

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS REPORTS ( Web-Page )

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-53G

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uncategorized
https://wp.me/p1jq40-5R8