Green chemistry doesn’t need a federal boost. No, really

Unless you are Rip Van Winkle and have slept through 2025, you’ve no doubt noticed the gusty policy winds blowing through Washington, DC. Under the second term of Donald Trump, the federal environmental agenda that once emphasized carbon cuts, renewables, and fossil fuel phasedowns has pivoted toward energy independence, economic growth, deregulation, and ramping up of domestic manufacturing. Meanwhile, in the realm of toxics and chemicals, federal policy is leaning less on new regulatory hooks and more on streamlining and stimulating the chemical industry.So what’s a modest green chemist supposed to do amid such policy turbulence?The answer: you pretty much do the same thing you always have. Because the case for green chemistry stands firmly—and, interestingly, without the need for grand federal regulatory incentives.Green chemistry is the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances. In short, it’s chemistry that prevents pollution at the molecular level rather than cleaning it up later.Basic business economics provide a powerful case for investments in green chemistry. Safer inputs into products mean fewer surprises and fewer lawsuits over toxic torts, product liability, and remediation. Green chemistry improves worker safety and reduces costs associated with training, specialized equipment, safety protocols, insurance, and workers’ compensation claims. It reduces costs for waste disposal, hazardous material handling, and regulatory reporting.If a manufacturing or industrial process uses hazardous solvents, it has a higher cost of training, as well as the need for more protective gear, more ventilation, and more waste