Petrochemicals and the Pandemic

An article published by Reuters yesterday on the effects of the pandemic on petrochemicals took me back half a century.

From the 1967 film "The Graduate" --

Mr. Maguire: I want to say one word to you, Benjamin. Just one word.

Benjamin Braddock: Yes, sir.

Mr. Maguire: Are you listening?

Benjamin Braddock: Yes, I am.

Mr. Maguire: Plastics.

**********

The processing of petroleum into plastics via polymer technology has fascinated me for decades, since I first learned of it as a college student in organic chemistry.

The environmental impact of our use of plastics - especially when they are disposable and not recycled or recyclable - was unknown to me then.

I was, however, keenly aware of the environmental consequences of petroleum combustion for energy.  And so, far more times than I can count, I expressed the opinion that future generations would take a very dim view of our burning up all the petroleum as fuel instead of saving it to make synthetic polymers.

Occasionally the subject came up in the context of my stitching up a patient.  "Is that catgut?" the patient might ask.  "It's nylon," would be my reply.  And then, if I thought the patient would like being distracted from what I was doing by some conversation, I would offer a brief overview of the origins of nylon in the pioneering polymer technology research done at DuPont, beginning in 1927, sometimes mentioning other familiar substances produced in the early years, including rayon and neoprene.

These days my thinking has been transformed by an awareness that we are dumping single-use plastics into our oceans and landfills far more than we are recycling them.

As our reliance on petroleum for energy declines, while the supply of oil and natural gas remains relatively abundant, the cost of producing virgin plastics will continue to compare favorably to that of recycled plastic.  Only a substantial increase in the monetary cost of extracting petroleum via offshore drilling and fracking will change this calculus.  We have shown that we care far too little about the effects of drilling and fracking on our oceans, the air quality near refineries, power plants, and petrochemical installations, or contamination of ground water.

This unfortunate tendency to focus on monetary rather than environmental cost will slow the replacement of plastics with biodegradable polymers, such as those made from hemp.

If you live in a region like mine, where fracking and the petrochemical industry are major economic players, discussion of these issues is viewed by policymakers and elected officials as unwelcome at best.  Expect to be branded a job-killing environmental extremist.

This kind of thinking is an unending source of frustration for me.  In recent years I have had some unsuccessful forays into politics, and in the occasional candidate forum I was asked my views on fracking.  Sometimes the question was extremely pointed: would I support a moratorium on fracking pending additional regulations requiring more transparency from the industry - related to their extraction processes, the danger to groundwater, and monitoring of the air and water quality near drilling sites and petrochemical plants?  Would I support more taxes on all this activity?  Would I support a permanent ban on fracking?

In southwestern Pennsylvania such questions are as challenging to a political candidate as any related to gun control or abortion.  Any answer risks alienating a sizable segment of the electorate.  A response that is non-committal or evasive, on the other hand, instantly labels one as a "typical politician" who won't reply to a direct question with a straight answer.

I do not expect to be seeking public office again, but my answers to these questions now are unchanged from what they were on the campaign trail: I support many proposals to reduce the environmental impact of our use of petroleum, including strict regulation of fracking and petrochemical plants, and I would not stop short of bans if the data tell us the environmental impact cannot be reduced to the point of no longer representing a significant threat to the planet and the living creatures inhabiting it.

To accompany such statements, I have also explained that we are often presented with a false choice between jobs and the environment, explaining how many ways there are to pursue economic growth and environmental protection simultaneously.

Today I would be dismissed by the right as a "green new-dealer."

It is exactly this kind of dismissive attitude that stands in the way of moving the nation and the planet in the right direction to protect the environment.

Oh, and one more thing: climate change is not a hoax.