Green chemistry promises to make the global chemical industry more sustainable through redesigning chemical production. Nonetheless, many green chemists in the US have focused on persuading other chemists and industrial corporations to change through education and voluntary industry action. Green chemistry in the US may have stagnated relatively because of missing societal input and public scrutiny of chemistry choices. Using recent green chemistry policy experiments in California and the US, I explore how new epistemic political tensions over the roles of expertise, societal participation, and regulation may be creating new societal input and, perhaps, greater industry take-up. I consider whether the concept of socially robust knowledge can help illuminate California’s experiments more broadly, and find that this concept needs to be expanded to include the politics of expertise and institutional innovations for increasing information flows between experts and societal actors.
American Chemistry Council (ACC) (2006) California Policy Research Center report falls short. News release, 14March. Available at: http://www.americanchemistry.com
2.
AnastasP (1994) Benign by design chemistry. In: AnastasPFarrisC (eds) Benign by Design: Alternative Synthetic Design for Pollution Prevention. Washington DC: ACS (American Chemical Society), 2–22.
3.
AnastasPWarnerJ (1998) Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
4.
ClarkJ (2005) Green chemistry and environmentally friendly technologies. In: AlfonsoCAMCrespJG (eds) Green Separation Processes. New York: Wiley, 3–18.
5.
ColtonCSkinnerP (1996) The Road to Love Canal: Managing Industrial Waste before EPA. Austin: University of Texas Press.
FischerF (2000) Experts, Citizens and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
19.
FuntowiczSRavetzJ (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures25(7): 739–755.
20.
GuthJ (2011) California’s green chemistry initiative: Lessons learned at the roadblock. The Networker16(1) (January/February). Science and Environmental Health Network. Available at: http://www.sehn.org/Volume_16-1.html
21.
HessD (2007) Alternative Pathways in Science and Industry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
HogueC (2006) Report calls for tougher regulations, more state dollars for green chemistry. Chemical & Engineering News84(12) (20March).
IlesA (2004) Patching local and global knowledge together: Citizens inside the US chemical industry. In JasanoffSMartelloML (eds) Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 285–308.
25.
IlesA (2007) Identifying environmental health risks in consumer products: Non-governmental organizations and civic epistemology. Public Understanding of Science16(4): 371–392.
26.
JasanoffS (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the US. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
27.
JenckJFAgterbergFDroescherMJ (2004) Products and processes for a sustainable chemical industry: A review of achievements and prospects. Green Chemistry6: 544–556.
28.
KleinmanDL (2000) Democratizations of science and technology. In: KleinmanDL (ed.) Science, Technology & Democracy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 139–165.
29.
MarkovitzGRosnerD (2002) Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
30.
MartelloMLJasanoffS (2004) Introduction: Globalization and environmental governance. In: JasanoffSMartelloML (eds) Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–30.
31.
NowotnyHScottPGibbonsM (2001) Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Risk Policy Report (2006) California experts lay out plans to pursue green chemistry policies. 4July.
34.
SchragP (2006) California: America’s High Stakes Experiment. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
35.
ScloveR (1995) Democracy and Technology. London: Guilford Press.
36.
Warren Communications (2009) California looks to tech to empower market on green chemistry. Green Electronics Daily6February.
37.
WilsonM (2006) Green Chemistry in California: A Framework for Leadership in Chemicals Policy Innovation. Berkeley, CA: California Policy Research Centre. Available at: http://coeh.berkeley.edu/greenchemistry/
38.
WoodhouseEBreymanS (2005) Green chemistry as social movement?Science, Technology, & Human Values30(2): 199–222.
39.
WynneB (1996) Misunderstood misunderstandings: Social identities and public uptake of science. In IrwinAWynneB (eds) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19–46.
