As spring approaches, the woods around Frankfurt are beginning to get green again. Taking in this annual transformation, it seems like a good time to reflect on how the meaning of the word "green" has changed — through misuse or at least, in my opinion, overuse of the word. Many press releases course through our offices, and more and more (it seems), companies are touting a greener process, a greener product, or how green they have become as an organization. Admittedly, we at CE also use green or greener in the headlines of stories and chementators.
Overuse of a word or phrase ultimately leads to that word or phrase losing its meaning. Worse still is when the word or phrase, through continued use, misuse, or even abuse, ultimately causes readers or listeners to become skeptical of what they are reading or hearing.
Last May, a group of about seventy-five individuals from around the world — with expertise in either ionic liquids (ILs) toxicology, or both — gathered in Berlin for a two-day working meeting: Biodegradability and Toxicology of Ionic Liquids (BATIL; Berlin, Germany; May 6 – 8). The idea for the gathering was initially conceived back in 2000 when a group of scientists met in Crete for a NATO Advanced Research Workshop, which concluded that: (1) ILs are intrinsically interesting and (2) ILs are not necessarily green, but that the development of ILs should follow the principles of Green Chemistry from the beginning, explains Robin Rogers, chemistry professor at University of Alabama (Tuscaloosa), who opened the BATIL meeting. Rogers lamented that early articles — in both the literature and trade press — touted ILs as being green solvents because of their lack of vapor pressure at room temperature. "If ILs can be so different that they are either totally immiscible or totally miscible in water, how can they be totally green?" he asked. Rogers stressed that "it is very important to avoid over generalization." He compared the false logic to the following conclusions: Benzene is carcinogenic, therefore all solvents are carcinogenic; or, water is non-toxic, therefore all solvents are green.
Those working in the emerging field of biofuels, or the more mature petroleum and coal sectors would do well to take heed of the lessons learned and experiences discussed at the BATIL workshop. And tacking the word green onto a product, be it biodiesel, bioethanol or even coal, is something that should be done with caution, because sooner or later, such eco-friendly claims may turn out to be incorrect.
This month’s Newsfront on biofuels (pp. 21 – 22) points out that, at least in terms of "carbon footprint," biofuels may not be as green as we are led to believe. And although biofuels contain less sulfur than traditional fuels, their combustion products may actually be more harmful than those released from petroleum-derived gasoline. This may be the case for ethanol, for example, as shown by computer simulations ( CE, May 2007, p. 18) of the effects of using E85 as fuel.
The Energy Independence and Securities Act, which President Bush signed into law last December, includes a Renewable Fuels Standard calling for at least 36 million gallons of ethanol to be used in the U.S. by 2022. This is certainly a step towards energy independence (and good news for ethanol producers), but it seems to me that we should avoid equating ethanol (or any other biofuel for that matter) with the word green. Doing so is just plain unrealistic, and will only result in accusations of "greenwashing."
With the price of crude oil at record levels ($110/bbl on March 13), more expensive alternatives will increasingly make sense. But ultimately, the only truly green solution is to reduce consumption — the second law of thermodynamics says so.
Gerald Ondrey