Editorial: New obstacles, and new allies, for sustainability

Uncertainty has roiled academic research in the US since the Donald J. Trump administration assumed office and cut federal spending. Less publicized, perhaps because the issue hasn’t boiled into a crisis, is how the administration’s policies will affect another important area of research: industrial sustainability. According to the American Chemistry Council, a trade group, US chemical companies spent $12.7 billion on R&D in 2023, much of it connected to sustainability. They are developing production processes that reduce their carbon emissions. They are rolling out new technologies to recycle plastics. They are finding alternatives to molecules known to harm health and the environment. Such endeavors don’t seem to be a high priority for the Trump administration. He pulled out of the Paris Agreement for climate change on the day he took office. He also signed an executive order, entitled “Unleashing American Energy,” that reduced the regulatory burden for fossil fuel development, ended the electric vehicle mandate, and paused spending required by the Inflation Reduction Act, which under the Joe Biden administration had spurred investments in batteries and hydrogen. Trump even ended the government procurement of paper straws. An administration that doesn’t care about sustainability could quell a lot of R&D at chemical companies. Why bear the cost of developing an ethylene cracker that runs on renewable electricity instead of fossil fuels if the government isn’t limiting greenhouse gas emissions? Why find a substitute for a chemical that the Environmental Protection Agency isn’t going to phase out? Why develop a technology to boost plastics recycling rates if the government is disinclined to reward you for it? As with the NIH and NSF, grant money could be on the line. Last year, the Biden administration’s Department of Energy awarded $6 billion for decarbonization projects. The recipients included Eastman Chemical, Dow, and ExxonMobil for projects in polymer recycling, carbonate solvents, and hydrogen production, respectively. If the administration pulls funding, companies will need to reevaluate whether to proceed with the investments, possibly seeking state help if the federal government won’t deliver. The administration does appear to support carbon capture and storage, which the energy and chemical industries back as an affordable route to decarbonization. Recently, the fertilizer maker CF Industries Holdings said it was confident that it would receive tax breaks for a low-carbon ammonia project in Louisiana. If the US government doesn’t back other sustainability investments, other countries might be happy to step in to draw such R&D away from the US. The European Union, for example, has mandates in place for decarbonization and plastics sustainability and offers incentives for R&D. European institutions are already trying to draw scientific talent away from the US. Even if the Trump administration is apathetic about the environmental dividends of sustainability research, it should be receptive to the idea that the US could miss out on the money to be made selling sustainable technologies. Or it might care about losing manufacturing jobs the R&D creates, even if it doesn’t support what the jobs are meant to accomplish. The administration needs to hear this message from trade groups it interacts with and from business leaders it listens to. If it doesn’t, it could instead hear about start-ups closing up shop and chemical companies sending out pink slips to research scientists and manufacturing employees alike.