Mindfully.org

Let's Get Nanotech Right

Environmentalists and  Industry "Working Together"

FRED KRUPP and CHAD HOLLIDAY / Opinion / Wall Street Journal 14jun2005

Mindfully.org note:
This is an excellent example of the collaboration between the environmental movement and industry. "Working together" they compromise the health of all living organisms. Fred Krupp is president of Environmental Defense and Chad Holliday is chairman and CEO of DuPont (bios below). Their opinions would be inconsequential if not for the disastrous effects of people believing them. The use of nanotechnology is unprecedented. Next to nothing is known about its short- or long-term safety. It adds somewhat predictable dangers of a higher magnitude to the known dangers of existing and widespread technologies. For instance, there are already more than 82,000 chemicals in commercial production, of which next to nothing is known about their safety. Most of them were in production before the EPA started reviewing them in 1979. An EPA review generally consists of that agency reviewing what the manufacturer feels like sending them. The EPA is bound by law not to reveal anything that the manufacturer claims is confidential — secret. The EPA is privy to only what the manufacturer wants known to the EPA. In other words, it's a waste of time counting on the EPA to protect anything but corporate  profits. A corporation is not a person, but has more rights than any person. Corporations are only responsible to their shareholders. Corporations are required to profit without regard to the public good. The product of most corporations is toxic — plastics, pesticides, genetic engineering, nanotech, microwaves, and so on. If the product is toxic at any concentration — and indeed this stuff is — then it is not possible for anyone "work with industry" for the common good of the people unless it is to dissolve that toxic corporation and end the production of its toxic products. Its toxicity goes well beyond the product into every aspect of the corporation — who it hires and how it treats them; how those people are expected to think and act towards people within and outside the corporate walls; what is expected as a reasonable profit and who that profit is extracted from. . . 

Industries that work with environmental organizations do so for the explicit purpose of compromising that environmental organization; giving the corporation a "green" appearance when in fact it has extended the production of whatever is in question while "further studies" may be done to find a solution to the problem. While the studies continue, the corporate profits continue to accumulate. The studies themselves are generally of little or no value because they are paid for by that corporation. They apply only to present regulations, which themselves were written by that regulated industry and are, once again, protective only of corporate profits. The studies do not contribute towards a better world because, by design, they do not show meaningful results. 

Environmental organizations that work with industry do so to avoid a radical appearance and to maintain or increase their levels of contributions and members. They are but an extension of industry. Since the corporation cannot be of positive value itself, then the environmental organization working with it is virtually the same.

Working With Industry
is 
Working For Industry

 

The science of the small is raising big expectations. New materials a tenth the size of a human cell, engineered atom by atom, promise to revolutionize everything from energy production to medicine. We've seen many extravagant predictions surrounding this new world called nanotechnology: A single slender cable built from nanoparticles might carry the world's total electrical supply. Environmental burdens might be lifted by nano-pores that desalinate water or nano-cages that trap bacteria. As with new "miracle" technologies in the past, there is much speculation regarding how "nanotech" can transform the world and national economies. Governments and private investors are rushing to make major investments in projects bearing the "nano" prefix.

What is nanotechnology really? Is it a fundamentally new science or just an extension of the technologies already used to create new materials and products? Could the novel properties that make nanoparticles so promising affect human health and ecosystems in a different way than more familiar larger particles? These and other questions must be answered. The hype surrounding nanotech drowns out the need for sound, disciplined research and commercialization guided by thoughtful regulatory standards.

We've been here before. A new technology is heralded as the "next big thing." Companies are created. R&D budgets expand, and investors' eyes gleam at the prospect of new markets. Then two or 10 or 20 years later, when the technology is in widespread use, other effects become evident.

For example, before 1929, the toxic gases ammonia, methyl chloride, and sulfur dioxide were used as refrigerants, but fatal accidents occurred because of leakage. In 1928, a new family of non-toxic chemicals, chlorofluorocarbons, was invented and became the standard for refrigerants. Only decades later did we recognize that the release of CFCs was dissolving the earth's ozone layer.

Unfortunately there are many similar examples, including DDT and leaded gasoline, where we later learned of various unintended consequences of initially promising technologies.

An early and open examination of the potential risks of a new product or technology is not just good common sense — it's good business strategy. We need to make sure this assessment takes place now for today's "next big thing" — nanotechnology. With the right mix of voluntary corporate leadership, coordinated research, and informed regulation, we can reap the benefits of this promising technology while reducing the likelihood of unintended consequences.

Given potential liability and market risks, industry, universities, government and public interest groups should collaborate to determine what testing is necessary for new nanoproducts. Businesses should conduct the needed testing before new products enter commercial use. Products that use nanomaterials are already in our stores. Good product stewardship requires a commitment to identifying and managing any potential risks. A collaborative effort could set interim standards for nanotechnology around the world while regulations are under development.

At the same time, our government also needs to invest more seriously in the research necessary to understand fully nanoparticle behavior. Funding to study health and environmental risk represents only 4% of the proposed federal investment in nanotech and becomes vanishingly small when you factor in private investment. Government spending on nanotechnology should be reprioritized so that approximately 10% goes to this purpose. Compared to the estimated $1 trillion market for nanotechnology, this would be a wise insurance policy on such a high-potential investment.

Lastly, both public and business interests will inevitably compel regulatory protection to ensure product safety and to create a level playing field for business. Current regulations, designed for a world before nanotechnology, should be reassessed and changed as needed to account for the novel properties of nanomaterials. Business and government may need new approaches to make sure workers, consumers, the public and the environment are adequately protected.

In the end, it all comes down to this: Can we reap the benefits while minimizing the risks? We believe we can. The key steps are identifying and addressing the risks. We encourage those with an interest and a stake in nanotech to collaborate in the development of responsible safety standards and to exercise great care in the launch of new materials. We urge the federal government to adequately fund the agencies that need to understand nanotechnology so they can create thoughtful and informed regulations for this exciting field of scientific discovery and commercial promise.

Mr. Krupp is president of Environmental Defense and Mr. Holliday is chairman and CEO of DuPont.

Page B2

 

BIOS

Fred Krupp, President, Environmental Defense, New York Office

Fred Krupp, President, Environmental Defense, New York Office -- Let's Get Nanotech Right: Environmentalists and Industry "Working Together" FRED KRUPP and CHAD HOLLIDAY / Opinion / Wall Street Journal 14jun2005

Creates solution-oriented strategies for a wide range of environmental problems with Environmental Defense's teams of experts. Led Environmental Defense's delegation for the Buenos Aires Climate change negotiations and the Kyoto Protocol. Identified as a key figure behind the Congressional passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act, which employs an Environmental Defense-designed acid rain reduction plan. Helped initiate joint Environmental Defense-McDonald's task force which created a comprehensive solid waste reduction plan for the company. Also recognized as an authority on the relationship between the environment and the economy, and on innovative methods for achieving ambitious environmental goals. He led the environmental community in the use of Internet technology, most notably with the zip code specific information site www.scorecard.org.

Member, President Clinton's Commission on Sustainable Development; member, President Clinton's Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations; board member, H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment; the Kennedy School Environmental Council; and the Leadership Council of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, where a fellowship has been established in his honor.

Partner, Cooper, Whitney, Cochran & Krupp (1984); partner, Albis & Krupp (1978-1984); founder/general counsel, Connecticut Fund for the Environment (1978-1984).

J.D., University of Michigan.

source:http://www.environmentaldefense.org/aboutus.cfm?subnav=expert&contentid=3124 18jul2005

 

Charles O. Holliday, Jr., Chairman & CEO, DuPont

Charles O. Holliday, Jr., Chairman & CEO, DuPont -- Let's Get Nanotech Right: Environmentalists and Industry "Working Together" FRED KRUPP and CHAD HOLLIDAY / Opinion / Wall Street Journal 14jun2005

Chad Holliday, Jr., 56, is the chairman of the board and chief executive officer of DuPont. Chad is the 18th executive to lead the company in more than 200 years of DuPont history. He became CEO on February 1, 1998 and Chairman on January 1, 1999.

Chad has been with DuPont for more than 30 years. He started at DuPont in the summer of 1970 at DuPont's Old Hickory site after receiving a B.S. in Industrial Engineering from the University of Tennessee. He is a licensed Professional Engineer.

In 2004, he was elected a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He became chairman of the Business Roundtable's Task Force for Environment, Technology and Economy the same year. Chad is also past chairman of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), The Business Council and the Society of Chemical Industry – American Section. While chairman of the WBCSD, Chad co-authored a book Walking the Talk which details the business case for sustainable development and corporate responsibility.

Chad also serves on the board of directors of HCA and Catalyst and is a former director of Analog Devices.

Under Chad's direction, DuPont established the mission to achieve sustainable growth – increasing shareholder and societal value while decreasing the company's environmental footprint.

Chad says, "We will never compromise our core values – safety and environmental excellence, integrity, high ethical standards and treating people fairly and with respect. They are our foundation. We must continually strive to find ways to enhance them. "

Timeline

source: http://www1.dupont.com/NASApp/dupontglobal/corp/index.jsp?page=/content/US/en_US/overview/directors/holliday.html 18jul2005

To send us your comments, questions, and suggestions click here
The home page of this website is www.mindfully.org
Please see our Fair Use Notice