This morning, I attended a lecture given by Paul Anastas - for those of you who haven't heard of him (and thats probably the majority), he used to work for the EPA, now for the US government as an environmental advisor.

I must say I was impressed by his efforts to get the worlds biggest fan of fossil fuels to talk about emissions control, (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020214-5.html) but I had to ask him if the task of creating environmental change, especially in the petrochemical industry, is bigger than the desire to take up the challenge.

Paul was naturally eager to assure me that all the Green Chemistry movement needed was a bit of inertia, which could be provided by explaining the economic benefits of clean, efficient alternatives to established processes (basically, lower running costs versus high initial outlay).


But I couldn't help but feel cheated by his answer.

On the same day that the "clear skies" announcement was made, the US and the UK agreed to undertake a series of below-ground nuclear tests in Nevada. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4355103,00.html).

How can an administration that justifies nuclear weapons testing be taken seriously in its initiatives to lower emissions?

My question is this: is endeavour towards a cleaner environment significantly hindered by the fact that the administrations which can effect the necessary changes are answerable to creditors and not to their conscience?

Also, would things be different is legislation was based upon public opinion?

Bo"how many of you support the Kyoto agreement? How many of you have read it and thought about its consequences?"urne