Safer Jobs And A Sustainable Economy Through Green Chemistry
and Safer Alternatives to Toxic Chemicals In California:
A Constituency Analysis
A Project of Clean Water Fund and the
Lowell Center for Sustainable Production
Appendices
March 2007
Appendix A: Twelve Principles of Green Chemistry
(Anastas, P. T., Warner, J. C. Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press:
New York, 1998, p.30.)
1. Prevention. It is better to prevent waste than to treat or clean up waste after it has been
created.
2. Atom Economy. Synthetic methods should be designed to maximize the incorporation of
all materials used in the process into the final product.
3. Less Hazardous Chemical Syntheses. Wherever practicable, synthetic methods should
be designed to use and generate substances that possess little or no toxicity to human
health and the environment.
4. Designing Safer Chemicals. Chemical products should be designed to affect their
desired function while minimizing their toxicity.
5. Safer Solvents and Auxiliaries. The use of auxiliary substances (e.g., solvents,
separation agents, etc.) should be made unnecessary wherever possible and innocuous
when used.
6. Design for Energy Efficiency. Energy requirements of chemical processes should be
recognized for their environmental and economic impacts and should be minimized. If
possible, synthetic methods should be conducted at ambient temperature and pressure.
7. Use of Renewable Feedstocks. A raw material or feedstock should be renewable rather
than depleting whenever technically and economically practicable.
8. Reduce Derivatives. Unnecessary derivatization (use of blocking groups, protection/
deprotection, temporary modification of physical/chemical processes) should be
minimized or avoided if possible, because such steps require additional reagents and can
generate waste.
9. Catalysis. Catalytic reagents (as selective as possible) are superior to stoichiometric
reagents.
10. Design for Degradation. Chemical products should be designed so that at the end of
their function they break down into innocuous degradation products and do not persist in
the environment.
11. Real-time analysis for Pollution Prevention. Analytical methodologies need to be
further developed to allow for real-time, in-process monitoring and control prior to the
formation of hazardous substances.
12. Inherently Safer Chemistry for Accident Prevention. Substances and the form of a
substance used in a chemical process should be chosen to minimize the potential for
chemical accidents, including releases, explosions, and fires.
Appendix B: List of Interviewees by Category
Academia
Chemical End-user Businesses
David Hammond
University of California, Berkeley
Macy Allatt
Timbuk2
Peter Sinsheimer
Pollution, Prevention and Education Center
Occidental College
Michael Brown
Patagonia
Michael P. Wilson
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
Margaret Bruce
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Sean Cady
Levi Strauss & Company
Business and Industry
Chemical Producers and related
businesses
Paris Dieker
Hewlett-Packard Company
Carl Casale
Monsanto
Andrea Freedman
Method Products, Inc.
Keith Gillard
BASF Ventures
Gil Friend
Natural Logic
Jim Lauria
Team Chemistry
(Industry Consultant)
Lynn Garske
Kaiser Permanente
Monica Morse
Cargill Ventures
Allen Noe
Croplife America
Donna Seid
Applied Biosystems
Isi Sidisisi
Croplife America
John Ulrich
California Chemical Industries Council
Lauren Heine
Blue Green Institute
(Industry Consultant)
Jill Kauffman-Johnson
California Environmental Associates
(Industry Consultant)
Michael Kirschner
Design Chain Associates
(Industry Consultant)
Mary Ellen Lejowski
Catholic Healthcare West
Adam Lowry
Method Products, Inc.
Jeff Mendehlson
New Leaf Paper
Federal Government
Sarah Diefendorf
Environmental Finance Center/
U.S. EPA Region 9
Debbie Rafael
San Francisco Department of the
Environment
Finance and Investment
Kirsten Snow Spaulding
California Deputy State Treasurer
Clifford Adams
New Resource Bank
Non-Governmental Organizations
Larry Fahn
As You Sow Foundation
Jose Bravo
Just Transition Alliance
Tim Little
Rose Foundation for Communities and the
Environment
Charlotte Brody
Commonweal
Peter Liu
New Resource Bank
Lisa Seitz Gruwell
Skyline Public Works
Greg Nelson
Green Technology Ventures
Martha Guzman
California Rural Legal Assistance
Foundation
Rafael Reyes
As You Sow Foundation
Rose Kapoloczynski
Progressive Strategy Partners
Marin Rosen
Jennifer Altman Foundation
Anne Katten
California Rural Legal Assistance
Foundation
Labor
Dave Campbell
United Steelworkers
Amanda Hawes
Work Safe
Marguerite Young
Service Employees International Union
Kathleen Podrasky
Pacific Industrial and Business Association
Political
Bruce Jennings
California State Senate
Environmental Quality Committee
David Roe
Attorney at Law
Local and State Government
Water Agencies
Pamela Evans
Alameda County Green Business Program
Ann Heil
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
Paul Martyn
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
Chuck Weir
East Bay Discharger Authority
Walter Wadlow
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Greg Zlotnick
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Appendix C: Drivers of Change, Barriers, Suggested Incentives
The following are lists of industry drivers, barriers to change, and suggested incentives various
stakeholders cited during our interviews. They are the opinions of individual constituents, not
necessarily of the report’s authors. It must be noted that these are only compilations of what we
were told. They do not explore the nuances between similar or related items or areas of
disagreement between stakeholders about their individual importance. Further details can be
found within the report itself.
Drivers of Change
• Company or industry image
• Worker safety/health issues
• Demand for green products
• Competitive advantage/competition
• “Greed” (money)
• Society’s expectations
• Branding and product differentiation
• Successful precedents
• Liability
• Global supply and demand for products
• Feedstock availability
• Pressure from end-users for safer chemicals
• Change of consciousness of employees within an industry or company
• Desire to do the right thing
Barriers
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of information on health, safety, and alternative chemicals
Lack of green chemists or research and development initiatives that could be transferred
to business and industry
Lack of public demand for safer chemicals and products
Lack of startups to drive innovation in the market and the control of the market by large,
entrenched companies (though large companies could also serve as positive catalysts for
change)
The vast number of chemicals throughout the economy
Industry resistance to change
Outsourcing to other countries, which reduces investment in green products
Limited instate manufacturing or chemical production
Cost of redesigning products and processes and retrofitting facilities
Job loss due to eradication of specific chemicals in processes or products
Perceived risks in using alternative chemicals that can impact quality of end product
Large capital investment with a long payback period
Extensive research and development, which delays bringing product to the market
Limited supply of greener materials
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lengthy contracts with suppliers, that make it difficult for companies to switch to those
providing alternatives that meet green chemistry principles
Lack of a concrete crisis to drive change; message not compelling to the general public
Lack of political will
Unsubstantiated arguments that change will lead to economic decline
Complex regulations that stifle innovation or impose unnecessary burdens on companies.
Ineffectual regulations and lack of enforcement
Suggested Incentives
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Government subsidies for green chemistry indicatives
State and local purchasing policies that support green products
Public and private investment/financing in research and development
Green chemistry seal or other labeling format
Creation of a legitimate public disclosure framework that informs end-users and
consumers while protecting proprietary information.
Funding for small companies to transition to safer products and processes, similar to the
funding mechanisms created for the dry cleaning industry to exit the use of
perchloroethylene.
Facilitate community visioning to identify the economic development or industries they
want to create.
Streamlined permitting processes
Appendix D: Suggested Regulatory/Legislative Changes
All of the specific ideas for policy changes that were recommended by interviewees are listed
below. This list is for informational purposes only; CWF does not necessarily oppose or support
these policy suggestions.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pass legislative policy to require medical surveillance of workers and revise standards
(according to Occupational Health and Safety Administration).
Pass legislation to ensure that life cycle analysis and cost benefit analysis of chemicals
include externalities (impacts on human health and the environment).
Campaign for legislation to focus on liability and information on toxics, especially
regarding worker protection.
Legislate requirements for a gradual shift/substitution of renewable feedstocks (bio-based
inputs) for petroleum-based feedstocks in chemicals and chemical products that starts
with an easy, low goal (e.g. 5% by 2020), but should make sure this substitution is indeed
cost-effective before requiring it.
Establish real-time monitoring, with sensors on outfalls or in production lines, sending
data directly to state and federal regulators, to reduce the burden on business for
reporting.
Campaign for legislative change to require better testing of products before they are used
by the public.
Standardize testing requirements to reduce the burden on business and innovation.
Extend testing of product safety throughout product lifecycle, including impacts on water
quality so that externalities would be seen as a cost to business.
Require stringent testing to ensure toxic chemicals do not come to market.
Add new chemicals to prop 65 list through Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment
Allow sanitation districts to ban consumer products in the same way that the air resources
board can.
Raise the mill fee on toxic chemicals and earmark revenues to developing alternatives
Enforce agricultural chemical use better at the county level because permit conditions are
complex and this local governmental activity is subsidized by state.
Streamline regulatory process for farmers using green practices and products.
Create a public disclosure framework.
Urge government bodies to implement green chemistry in their construction projects –
esp. redevelopment agencies and public housing
Appendix E: Advisory Committee Recommendations
CWF asked the interviewees for their ideas about specific people or qualities of people to sit on a
committee that would advise Clean Water Fund on this campaign and provide a public face to
the message that California can benefit economically from promoting safer chemicals use.
At least one interviewee recommended the below people for the Advisory Committee:
• Aimee Christenson, Google.org
• Priya Mathur, CALPERs Trustee
• Fred Buenrostro, CEO of CALPERs
• Rich Liroff, Founder and Director of the Investor Environmental Health Network
(IEHN).
• Paul Collier, former San Francisco Chronicle reporter
• Joan Denton, Director of the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment
• Gina Solomon M.D., Senior Scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council
Interviewees also described the general types of individuals and the qualities they would
recommend including in the advisory committee:
• A business person, preferably from a company that is working to exit the use of e toxic
chemicals and replace them with alternatives based on green chemistry principles. This
persons should additionally be familiar with supply chain. function in a large company
and/or is a high level executive and “good actor”
• Representatives from the health impacted community (for example, someone
representing the American Cancer Society).
• A leading green architect.
• A chemist, preferably an academic chemist.
• Policy specialists.
• People with financial realism and knowledge of chemistry.
• An agricultural representative with an interest in promoting bio-based feedstocks.
The interviewers also formed their own opinions regarding which of the interviewees should be
considered for a position on the Advisory Committee. The interviewees recommended include:
• Adam Lowry, Founder of Method and chemist
• Peter Liu, Founder and Director of New Resource Bank – clear thinker from macromarket and economic perspective
• Paris Dieker, Program Manager of Corporate Environmental Strategies of Hewlett
Packard– logical, measured, likable, focus on practical issues of getting implemented
• Sara Diefendorf, Executive Director, Environmental Finance Center for EPA Region 9
• Martha Guzman or Anne Katten, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
• Jim Lauria, President and Founder, Team Chemistry LLC
• Anne Heil, Senior Engineer, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
• Jose Bravo, Director, Just Transition Alliance
• Jill Kaufman Johnson, Principle, California Environmental Associates
•
•
Deborah O. Rafael, Toxic Materials Reduction, City of San Francisco Environment
Department
Lynn Garske, Environmental Stewardship Project Manager, Kaiser Permanente
Appendix F: The Role of the European Union as a Key Export Market for US Products
(May 2006)
This document provides a summary of publicly available data from the Office of Trade and
Industry Information (OTII), Manufacturing and Services, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce export data base (www.ese.export.gov). The analysis includes
exports to the 25 European Union countries and includes states that are in the top tier of export
states to the European Union as well as other states that have expressed an interest in the
implications of the European Union’s Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals
(REACH) proposal. The analysis also contains information on each state’s exports to other
world markets. The importance of some markets, such as Asian ones, is also shown by the data.
Please note that this overview provides just a snapshot of exports to the European Union and the
data do not provide detailed information on which products were sent, whether they simply
passed through the European Union en route to another destination, etc.
US Exports to the European Union
Total Percentage of Exports to the European Union – 20.6%
2005 Exports of TOTAL to European Union 25 (EU 25)
Total Exports to the European Union 25 from US States - numbers are in thousands ($
USD)
State
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
U.S. Total
167,944,820 162,341,206 146,678,919 154,104,410 172,554,801 186,342,309
California
26,219,095 23,270,456 19,042,510 19,870,198 22,806,740 23,206,475
Texas
10,675,515 11,053,653 9,775,805 10,105,383 12,288,459 13,029,284
New York
11,011,897 11,116,354 9,657,673 11,204,380 11,257,527 12,895,656
Massachusetts 7,694,672 7,178,840 6,546,763 6,960,691 9,110,238
9,386,461
Illinois
6,910,840 6,704,409 6,144,485 6,273,054 7,376,230
8,479,591
Puerto Rico
5,125,054 5,981,213 5,085,018 6,463,755 7,309,258
7,110,786
New Jersey
5,929,357 5,991,831 5,220,161 5,315,242 6,243,833
6,823,383
Washington
11,215,292 8,859,361 8,080,210 7,889,993 6,838,350
6,422,094
Ohio
4,666,716 5,354,514 4,742,073 4,838,870 5,364,371
5,749,548
Indiana
3,029,302 3,308,393 3,314,377 3,958,995 4,630,960
5,288,471
Pennsylvania
4,425,941 4,748,181 3,816,183 3,804,405 4,304,107
5,287,893
South
5,157,991
2,556,232 3,852,957 3,475,860 4,884,611 5,423,576
Carolina
Georgia
3,699,154 3,467,650 3,702,016 4,257,078 5,278,421
5,067,337
Minnesota
3,114,049 3,215,178 3,263,503 4,070,006 4,650,861
4,893,427
Florida
3,558,968 3,539,359 3,310,160 3,571,663 4,123,683
4,691,224
Michigan
4,871,316 4,417,643 4,381,625 3,985,385 4,290,021
4,548,824
Connecticut
2,978,130 3,454,318 3,362,676 3,309,086 3,572,342
4,366,611
North
4,148,291 3,805,838 3,036,886 3,113,970 3,846,707
4,272,585
Carolina
Massachusetts
Total Percent of State Exports to European Union – 42.6%
Massachusetts World Exports - numbers are in thousands ($ USD)
Partner
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
World Total
20,514,409 17,490,110 16,707,593 18,662,575 21,837,411 22,042,806
Netherlands
1,264,891
820,166 1,053,972 1,759,138 2,515,115 3,001,519
Canada
3,588,709 2,844,492 2,709,904 2,641,461 2,898,538 2,925,738
Germany
1,366,195 1,400,731 1,198,456 1,599,264 2,515,864 2,151,074
Japan
2,183,801 1,964,127 1,598,694 1,635,760 1,814,711 1,898,495
United Kingdom 1,932,923 1,850,996 1,578,943 1,430,033 1,502,565 1,627,949
China
502,044
425,350
384,382
571,802
874,856
882,790
France
1,024,164
864,767
921,502
619,258
859,252
804,830
Taiwan
1,053,202
512,576
511,931
528,255
951,150
797,372
South Korea
Mexico
Malaysia
Singapore
Hong Kong
Ireland
Philippines
Italy
Belgium
Brazil
Switzerland
Australia
India
Thailand
Spain
Israel
Sweden
746,777
701,409
402,701
702,614
483,620
663,972
433,935
416,498
302,939
293,312
167,208
256,463
96,550
118,760
183,200
264,541
192,843
491,004
570,929
285,406
494,831
423,732
699,547
426,175
380,692
415,508
293,509
123,368
237,576
85,875
83,779
123,434
232,865
170,905
471,232
564,380
530,780
512,648
382,009
422,334
500,746
344,402
275,985
257,189
193,759
250,848
94,386
81,887
115,335
156,352
117,382
558,335
711,767
928,233
576,354
496,807
381,621
820,760
319,702
265,272
205,511
362,223
253,761
93,917
111,145
135,254
132,465
123,242
645,921
755,791
647,796
774,027
522,995
442,311
616,519
314,402
335,345
239,776
277,124
248,700
147,722
150,068
150,759
141,786
150,475
2005 Exports from Massachusetts to European Union 25 (EU 25)
2005 Exports from Massachusetts to European Union 25 (EU 25)
Product
Chemical Manufactures
Computers & Electronic Prod.
Misc. Manufactures
Machinery Manufactures
All Others
Grand Total
Value ($)
3,902,300,744
2,093,134,285
1,120,899,263
760,449,932
1,509,677,044
9,386,461,268
Percent
41.6 %
22.3 %
11.9 %
8.1 %
16.1 %
100 %
794,279
780,361
617,425
528,638
506,354
447,037
442,257
370,968
335,436
283,292
269,009
258,761
205,962
187,978
164,371
135,311
133,171
Massachusetts Exports to the EU 25 - numbers are in thousands ($ USD)
Item
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
7,694,669 7,178,840 6,546,763 6,960,691 9,110,238 9,386,461
803,113 804,295 1,411,476 2,018,221 3,733,438 3,902,301
Total
325 Chemical Manufactures
334 Computers & Electronic
4,050,905 3,459,471 2,556,080 2,248,623 2,170,488 2,093,134
Prod.
339 Misc. Manufactures
506,029 557,331 542,028 824,197 1,022,559 1,120,899
333 Machinery Manufactures
872,863 842,465 600,322 536,143 749,041 760,450
114 Fishing, Hunting, &
95,345
92,269 122,046 136,857 165,588 192,763
Trapping
336 Transportation Equipment
87,907 104,163
95,070 164,444 170,928 171,588
335 Elec. Eq., Appliances &
231,330 214,876 208,221 166,367 178,096 164,044
Parts
332 Fabricated Metal Products
176,829 211,306 291,814 173,290 164,749 161,205
326 Plastic & Rubber Products
147,404 161,619 151,310 140,859 134,749 159,991
331 Primary Metal Manufactures 127,652 118,625 109,201
89,503 163,784 142,799
990 Spec. Classification
159,527 168,099 102,171
99,618 113,358
96,481
Provisions
311 Processed Foods
61,228
63,061
61,158
61,872
70,100
86,651
322 Paper Products
126,403
86,885
80,974
82,048
77,506
63,770
313 Fabric Mill Products
43,343
47,194
43,135
47,015
42,321
51,953
511 Publishing Industries
8,069
0
0
33
10,302
44,709
327 Non-Metallic Mineral Mfgs.
44,410
55,649
40,277
39,203
41,785
40,805
323 Printing & Related Products
32,154
64,800
41,966
30,992
30,282
29,782
920 Used Merchandise
44,213
43,670
20,925
47,837
17,554
29,284
910 Waste & Scrap
18,072
34,451
28,735
14,417
14,900
28,724
316 Leather & Related Products
15,946
14,588
10,535
11,389
8,497
14,160
314 Non-Apparel Textile
5,522
4,200
5,378
4,815
5,763
6,411
Products
321 Wood Products
10,708
6,882
6,142
8,247
7,081
5,660
337 Furniture & Related
12,460
9,998
6,733
4,552
5,863
4,749
Products
111 Crop Production
3,427
3,448
3,035
2,208
2,515
4,184
315 Apparel Manufactures
6,018
4,979
3,558
3,214
4,137
3,085
Connecticut
Total Percent of State Exports to European Union – 45.1%
Connecticut World Exports - Numbers are in thousands ($ USD)
Partner
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
World Total
8,046,838 8,610,434 8,313,390 8,136,443 8,559,237 9,687,292
Canada
1,831,214 1,728,784 1,492,389 1,352,298 1,472,483 1,680,077
France
1,112,346 1,416,299 1,178,377 1,095,723 1,181,671 1,602,191
Germany
561,249 675,360 654,071 760,141 762,243 832,233
United Kingdom
471,153 462,404 499,904 512,756 547,772 696,946
Mexico
404,928 326,556 401,963 478,003 586,306 559,773
Japan
508,289 616,576 606,505 639,021 501,516 436,807
Netherlands
139,898 143,110 163,566 198,610 270,110 364,540
China
77,184 119,468 119,186 157,423 204,501 337,202
Belgium
96,574 159,179 212,760 162,617 227,903 262,851
Singapore
198,465 413,533 407,276 436,965 340,949 246,579
South Korea
158,355 190,876 300,262 282,906 195,728 170,912
Switzerland
191,157 180,590 175,104 149,240 227,259 160,657
Norway
17,722 20,171
18,810
33,148
48,835 153,445
Italy
144,268 165,418 153,633 143,669 123,534 150,015
Hong Kong
99,970
79,610
80,067 125,966 148,007 146,578
Ireland
154,353 109,088
95,789 110,201
94,402 140,923
Brazil
96,026 105,303
62,612
68,704
98,056 130,915
Australia
99,202 210,145 207,315 140,152 138,791 120,565
Malaysia
99,176
94,540
96,288 104,502 115,407 114,754
Taiwan
374,700 233,628 118,801
95,684 121,961
98,414
Turkey
292,748 75,183 229,776
67,847
51,001
89,190
Israel
135,220
71,550
59,812
53,874
53,483
82,635
Spain
60,769
81,802
73,502
96,366
54,368
80,097
Dominican Republic 86,110
93,750
83,646
69,723
75,543
77,257
Thailand
22,682
29,568
16,344
38,185
51,141
69,526
2005 Exports from Connecticut to European Union 25 (EU 25)
2005 Exports from Connecticut to European Union 25 (EU 25)
Product
Value ($) Percent
Transportation Equipment
2,574,381,345
59 %
Machinery Manufactures
390,646,460 8.9 %
Misc. Manufactures
357,373,292 8.2 %
Computers & Electronic Prod.
310,609,962 7.1 %
All Others
733,600,164 16.8 %
Grand Total
4,366,611,223 100 %
Connecticut Exports to the EU 25 - numbers are in thousands ($ USD)
Item
Total
336 Transportation Equipment
333 Machinery Manufactures
339 Misc. Manufactures
334 Computers & Electronic
Prod.
325 Chemical Manufactures
332 Fabricated Metal Products
335 Elec. Eq., Appliances &
Parts
212 Mining
331 Primary Metal Manufactures
990 Spec. Classification
Provisions
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2,978,130 3,454,318 3,362,676 3,309,086 3,572,342 4,366,611
1,604,907 2,039,591 2,075,409 1,817,703 1,821,378 2,574,381
341,161 302,417 219,773 255,498 403,933 390,646
119,337 189,177 163,216 205,197 318,191 357,373
359,946
335,659
330,363
330,723
302,172
310,610
94,497
100,754
100,929
111,107
134,803
109,834
280,719
109,027
170,169
120,193
109,771
109,182
68,696
63,959
68,385
68,113
137,763
89,754
11,522
44,219
5,174
54,909
2,166
32,452
1,087
39,178
807
40,033
80,164
71,517
35,400
57,683
59,484
62,713
84,513
69,158
326 Plastic & Rubber Products
322 Paper Products
327 Non-Metallic Mineral Mfgs.
920 Used Merchandise
910 Waste & Scrap
313 Fabric Mill Products
314 Non-Apparel Textile
Products
311 Processed Foods
111 Crop Production
337 Furniture & Related
Products
323 Printing & Related Products
316 Leather & Related Products
511 Publishing Industries
315 Apparel Manufactures
112 Animal Production
56,570
13,969
31,073
2,276
27,743
21,097
59,634
14,010
20,338
21,196
5,658
22,257
57,932
26,869
14,353
7,284
4,655
18,042
45,442
18,784
13,223
5,745
5,247
10,540
53,651
26,473
20,635
7,565
9,684
12,753
55,992
31,524
26,105
20,339
15,834
11,851
2,867
3,158
3,710
4,018
8,389
11,513
5,650
355
7,170
1,858
6,287
2,321
5,759
2,726
6,097
3,152
6,411
6,067
5,707
6,625
9,372
5,217
7,952
5,448
3,861
657
323
1,020
1,759
4,806
1,962
0
1,233
1,568
4,246
1,583
0
801
147
8,100
2,610
0
975
208
8,578
2,470
808
1,024
1,006
4,203
2,881
1,510
1,250
838
Michigan
Total Percentage of Exports to European Union – 12.1%
Michigan World Exports - numbers are in thousands ($ USD)
Partner
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
World Total
33,845,301 32,365,840 33,775,232 32,941,109 35,625,008 37,584,052
Canada
20,022,262 17,561,828 19,801,302 19,799,054 21,485,812 22,633,157
Mexico
3,970,824 4,790,885 4,238,982 4,006,426 4,173,116 4,193,399
Japan
1,120,579 1,204,048 1,115,717 1,099,943 1,068,787 1,070,898
Germany
984,576
928,175
989,266
973,432 1,009,571 1,056,962
United Kingdom
1,275,892 945,807
778,451
706,106
660,286
715,931
China
211,629 251,283
284,754
366,702
607,157
697,860
Austria
607,119 647,726
664,950
378,179
351,945
591,512
France
349,121 370,864
335,244
380,320
615,462
478,730
South Korea
281,985
398,793
456,618
363,914
365,046
464,907
Belgium
544,046
489,992
461,654
424,398
429,093
442,777
Brazil
372,907 356,544
281,651
243,925
323,624
404,462
Saudi Arabia
215,692
410,365
384,067
324,418
306,119
396,193
Netherlands
338,382
340,117
300,902
278,222
337,172
385,685
Australia
582,564 437,255
552,883
524,481
466,800
369,631
Venezuela
Italy
Taiwan
United Arab Emirates
Argentina
Sweden
Spain
Singapore
Thailand
Hong Kong
Kuwait
340,236
132,139
173,182
33,562
197,842
146,433
206,258
108,207
109,183
142,264
132,718
437,033
166,593
158,443
38,210
126,213
126,044
143,092
115,011
165,303
146,831
164,541
221,964
241,590
221,441
62,132
81,118
158,967
156,095
104,105
158,046
143,312
143,072
93,713
199,432
233,087
122,945
94,464
185,195
154,541
96,774
138,737
125,389
189,501
2005 Exports from Michigan to European Union 25 (EU 25)
2005 Exports from Michigan to European Union 25 (EU 25)
Product
Transportation Equipment
Chemical Manufactures
Machinery Manufactures
Computers & Electronic Prod.
All Others
Grand Total
Value ($)
1,813,037,183
817,793,159
470,248,842
331,984,240
1,115,760,642
4,548,824,066
Percent
39.9 %
18 %
10.3 %
7.3 %
24.5 %
100 %
178,156
233,972
237,421
133,018
129,038
190,225
155,500
111,808
132,176
156,517
200,733
357,334
281,439
235,104
178,085
151,408
147,066
145,487
133,776
132,005
131,251
127,909
Michigan Exports to the EU 25 - numbers are in thousands ($ USD)
Item
Total
336 Transportation Equipment
325 Chemical Manufactures
333 Machinery Manufactures
334 Computers & Electronic
Prod.
332 Fabricated Metal Products
327 Non-Metallic Mineral Mfgs.
331 Primary Metal Manufactures
335 Elec. Eq., Appliances &
Parts
339 Misc. Manufactures
326 Plastic & Rubber Products
212 Mining
322 Paper Products
321 Wood Products
311 Processed Foods
337 Furniture & Related
Products
313 Fabric Mill Products
990 Spec. Classification
Provisions
111 Crop Production
323 Printing & Related Products
910 Waste & Scrap
113 Forestry & Logging
920 Used Merchandise
324 Petroleum & Coal Products
314 Non-Apparel Textile
Products
315 Apparel Manufactures
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
4,871,313 4,417,643 4,381,625 3,985,385 4,290,021 4,548,824
2,414,622 2,012,720 2,118,064 1,637,049 1,787,509 1,813,037
667,732 633,489 710,854 703,003 683,847 817,793
627,705 590,236 515,994 487,211 469,935 470,249
343,401
339,752
289,304
280,750
353,296
331,984
136,904
57,194
88,066
135,440
119,485
77,617
141,944
90,160
61,556
162,154
138,917
67,011
164,068
173,722
111,596
196,176
183,692
172,817
115,050
123,651
120,297
118,091
113,437
135,401
56,520
161,876
1,390
42,962
19,532
20,389
61,405
141,734
1,467
27,346
18,259
24,178
71,342
94,102
16,166
22,167
20,285
21,825
76,942
78,944
23,328
43,576
25,226
20,653
87,505
80,920
29,502
35,219
26,562
23,556
109,250
87,659
42,388
34,015
26,015
23,392
36,159
28,552
26,174
23,441
24,428
22,607
2,541
3,190
3,270
2,942
31,144
21,091
29,240
23,092
21,989
26,896
21,701
20,224
17,682
10,539
1,544
3,243
5,623
1,282
18,697
9,656
648
8,157
7,672
960
11,432
8,567
1,027
3,984
3,285
1,142
24,393
10,258
3,123
5,352
19,848
2,449
19,301
9,828
4,453
5,017
15,121
4,490
11,571
8,757
6,809
3,676
3,031
2,565
1,785
1,781
2,633
1,178
2,357
1,998
2,016
2,848
1,305
1,214
877
1,005
California
Total Percentage of Exports to European Union – 19.9%
California World Exports - numbers are in thousands ($ USD)
Partner
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
World Total
119,640,424 106,776,963 92,214,292 93,994,882 109,967,840 116,818,585
Mexico
17,515,500 16,343,059 16,076,279 14,871,836 17,239,379 17,702,502
Japan
16,444,070 14,635,142 11,105,481 11,754,708 13,323,182 13,497,848
Canada
14,075,923 11,815,998 10,075,349 11,231,567 12,111,166 13,212,516
China
3,546,021 4,676,056 4,482,407 5,465,042 6,841,775 7,850,001
South Korea
6,917,400 5,034,854 4,711,814 4,833,318 5,912,142 6,344,767
Taiwan
7,362,505 5,664,474 5,391,410 4,443,027 5,362,409 5,383,280
United Kingdom
5,984,509 5,588,784 4,347,289 4,359,964 5,206,036 5,029,139
Hong Kong
4,148,008 3,933,958 3,684,088 4,178,866 5,117,384 4,900,793
Germany
5,263,094 4,657,435 3,480,146 3,559,740 3,682,868 4,266,112
Singapore
5,011,090 4,226,820 3,298,386 3,370,805 4,161,436 3,780,622
Netherlands
4,958,719 4,318,232 3,577,232 3,412,235 3,813,879 3,622,356
France
2,942,798 2,241,986 1,885,360 1,915,067 2,955,119 2,691,906
Australia
2,442,013 2,084,531 1,910,109 1,899,408 2,243,208 2,465,535
Malaysia
2,978,396 2,554,181 1,998,620 1,730,759 2,002,389 1,942,191
Belgium
1,087,032 1,131,685 1,244,893 1,425,117 1,713,690 1,758,906
Thailand
2,022,350 1,790,070 1,242,209 1,215,577 1,503,720 1,692,360
Israel
1,073,846
812,228
740,539
752,890
992,543 1,448,223
Italy
1,534,282 1,393,875 1,095,319 1,355,091 1,229,585 1,439,575
Brazil
1,298,763 1,183,971
782,573
819,928 1,203,135 1,417,592
India
596,344
635,820
674,262
850,404 1,026,057 1,341,482
Philippines
1,930,558 2,011,345 1,100,604 1,008,095 1,036,449 1,147,417
United Arab
225,784
262,778
279,727
398,495 1,141,035
212,892
Emirates
Ireland
1,231,039 1,030,395
956,597 1,125,130
901,898
998,188
Switzerland
960,041
844,796
708,945
602,460
830,423
982,398
Spain
814,508
719,772
557,476
686,766
901,065
974,941
2005 Exports from California to European Union 25 (EU 25)
2005 Exports from California to European Union 25 (EU 25)
Product
Computers & Electronic Prod.
Transportation Equipment
Chemical Manufactures
Machinery Manufactures
All Others
Grand Total
Value ($)
Percent
8,634,910,319 37.2 %
3,215,498,438 13.9 %
2,206,818,474 9.5 %
2,096,254,601
9%
7,052,992,718 30.4 %
23,206,474,550 100 %
California Exports to the EU 25 - numbers are in thousands ($ USD)
Item
Total
334 Computers &
Electronic Prod.
336 Transportation
Equipment
325 Chemical
Manufactures
333 Machinery
Manufactures
339 Misc. Manufactures
111 Crop Production
335 Elec. Eq., Appliances
& Parts
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
26,218,968 23,270,456 19,042,510 19,870,198 22,806,740 23,206,475
14,110,537 11,692,901 8,854,562 8,327,940 8,332,007 8,634,910
2,390,714 2,109,445 1,507,763 2,233,299 4,071,667 3,215,498
1,427,627 1,536,250 1,708,911 1,989,707 2,104,392 2,206,818
3,014,638 2,460,680 1,690,572 1,610,138 1,763,372 2,096,255
1,236,557 1,421,041 1,449,464 1,596,316 1,851,041 1,910,687
596,325
617,202
703,137
941,201 1,132,766 1,555,387
878,833
808,166
738,629
623,670
717,339
763,152
332 Fabricated Metal
Products
990 Spec. Classification
Provisions
311 Processed Foods
312 Beverage & Tobacco
Products
326 Plastic & Rubber
Products
315 Apparel
Manufactures
331 Primary Metal
Manufactures
920 Used Merchandise
323 Printing & Related
Products
910 Waste & Scrap
324 Petroleum & Coal
Products
327 Non-Metallic
Mineral Mfgs.
511 Publishing Industries
316 Leather & Related
Products
322 Paper Products
212 Mining
337 Furniture & Related
Products
321 Wood Products
318,651
371,829
281,690
370,694
390,897
446,864
472,259
432,843
426,784
413,214
347,861
361,261
301,412
317,342
303,593
353,354
343,312
337,147
288,906
319,162
306,092
353,337
488,209
318,917
163,256
171,078
167,248
159,553
197,430
203,426
66,598
79,979
77,245
87,633
135,786
200,303
164,217
151,416
201,481
202,257
194,510
188,607
125,663
116,402
92,757
92,677
124,557
133,590
120,273
94,177
63,646
63,891
124,239
109,107
48,846
56,238
43,114
39,533
76,961
81,245
53,526
68,503
68,747
56,835
58,497
80,586
135,780
135,191
129,168
78,330
89,557
70,408
19,868
0
0
1,897
19,234
58,054
27,262
34,932
32,402
37,591
39,328
44,033
56,544
25,590
82,504
57,353
39,942
45,406
40,238
87,395
50,506
25,038
41,558
29,903
61,616
29,368
29,399
22,522
27,741
27,965
44,562
39,455
25,275
22,163
26,933
22,607
New York
Total Percentage of Exports to the European Union – 25.6
New York World Exports - numbers are in thousands ($ USD)
Partner
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
World Total
42,845,957 42,172,062 36,976,801 39,180,708 44,400,729 50,492,176
Canada
11,229,879 9,760,126 9,221,335 9,041,414 10,081,374 10,738,380
Israel
1,857,906 2,021,065 2,139,947 2,371,652 3,734,432 4,378,659
United Kingdom
3,747,252 3,130,817 2,369,074 3,283,052 2,844,872 2,893,961
Japan
3,487,837 3,613,297 2,823,218 2,625,127 2,424,523 2,523,643
Mexico
Germany
Switzerland
Hong Kong
China
Belgium
South Korea
France
Netherlands
India
Taiwan
Italy
United Arab Emirates
Spain
Ireland
Australia
Thailand
Singapore
Saudi Arabia
Brazil
Dominican Republic
1,773,821
1,795,887
3,945,129
1,409,317
777,819
1,275,812
902,918
1,417,023
717,850
518,525
641,249
658,660
163,634
352,503
337,114
583,400
294,891
546,376
302,637
693,290
164,931
1,851,822
1,801,361
4,058,050
1,373,231
1,036,173
1,355,253
880,165
1,481,162
938,508
525,810
562,062
676,886
289,550
711,204
241,538
403,112
274,575
473,633
329,557
532,265
228,614
1,897,734
1,499,607
1,319,403
1,291,072
1,118,132
1,366,922
1,038,137
1,317,359
867,027
547,562
551,567
796,304
285,999
460,324
253,227
365,497
260,067
458,208
313,236
530,835
250,265
1,704,740
1,723,245
1,770,253
1,377,640
1,445,174
1,669,393
1,056,106
1,261,289
832,606
660,547
621,805
735,533
227,727
412,966
446,030
392,417
292,484
424,141
347,535
395,872
315,944
2005 Exports from New York to European Union 25 (EU 25)
2,167,983
1,792,077
1,484,315
1,803,717
1,877,184
1,820,480
1,167,628
1,232,943
918,658
812,349
767,245
721,413
536,944
433,867
394,860
518,107
378,223
518,034
466,849
405,505
322,149
2,309,790
2,221,926
2,214,172
2,176,171
2,065,969
2,024,140
1,423,988
1,407,138
1,374,901
1,038,946
991,173
741,258
653,117
609,243
601,670
571,679
542,496
498,389
494,811
444,937
359,911
2005 Exports from New York to European Union 25 (EU 25)
Product
Misc. Manufactures
Computers & Electronic Prod.
Transportation Equipment
Used Merchandise
All Others
Grand Total
Value ($)
2,395,689,787
2,081,482,295
1,868,835,334
1,836,516,651
4,713,132,178
12,895,656,245
Percent
18.6 %
16.1 %
14.5 %
14.2 %
36.5 %
100 %
New York Exports to EU 25 - numbers are in thousands ($ USD)
Item
Total
339 Misc. Manufactures
334 Computers &
Electronic Prod.
336 Transportation
Equipment
920 Used Merchandise
325 Chemical
Manufactures
333 Machinery
Manufactures
335 Elec. Eq., Appliances
& Parts
326 Plastic & Rubber
Products
331 Primary Metal
Manufactures
990 Spec. Classification
Provisions
332 Fabricated Metal
Products
323 Printing & Related
Products
311 Processed Foods
111 Crop Production
327 Non-Metallic Mineral
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
11,011,666 11,116,354 9,657,673 11,204,380 11,257,527 12,895,656
1,521,365 1,747,296 1,600,397 1,727,762 1,897,513 2,395,690
1,912,003 1,983,605 1,833,670 1,940,810 2,050,601 2,081,482
1,299,560 1,350,363 1,200,683 1,361,584 1,471,810 1,868,835
1,065,293 1,344,807 1,025,713
988,340 1,371,938 1,836,517
1,557,336 1,488,191 1,269,800 1,537,703 1,410,917 1,492,302
1,344,242 1,173,316
934,910 1,061,316 1,160,734 1,256,858
317,598
321,106
303,353
324,951
298,532
279,253
258,872
217,866
210,296
214,591
258,393
248,428
655,073
226,114
205,595 1,035,706
282,257
218,910
210,936
314,004
206,086
165,994
147,416
202,255
146,743
146,350
166,966
184,782
170,631
196,525
164,319
146,833
120,391
115,936
94,376
127,362
61,154
13,916
119,029
89,574
29,789
140,280
119,521
38,532
89,894
67,929
29,269
96,240
84,203
74,535
108,198
91,793
87,044
75,104
Mfgs.
322 Paper Products
910 Waste & Scrap
321 Wood Products
315 Apparel Manufactures
316 Leather & Related
Products
337 Furniture & Related
Products
313 Fabric Mill Products
112 Animal Production
314 Non-Apparel Textile
Products
113 Forestry & Logging
60,582
37,639
39,075
30,335
60,170
99,252
46,612
39,287
39,574
44,276
43,953
37,482
50,449
35,356
53,286
32,263
59,388
42,270
42,171
34,849
68,726
64,526
43,099
41,419
20,863
26,954
21,155
20,772
27,271
34,611
31,655
16,458
22,376
26,863
29,891
33,381
36,759
18,519
35,046
18,251
30,740
16,887
30,350
18,755
32,481
16,267
31,621
26,554
13,418
17,971
21,799
24,877
24,025
25,973
7,869
8,744
9,063
21,172
23,275
24,291
North Carolina
Total Percentage Exports to European Union – 22.0%
North Carolina World Exports - numbers are in thousands ($ USD)
Partner
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
World Total
17,945,940 16,798,898 14,718,505 16,198,733 18,114,767 19,463,349
Canada
4,940,651 4,085,719 3,738,607 3,896,286 4,485,467 5,038,309
Japan
1,540,405 1,372,342 1,417,248 1,590,777 1,461,869 1,555,369
Mexico
1,975,080 1,625,574 1,329,553 1,463,759 1,582,139 1,495,603
United Kingdom
1,199,646
969,634
735,008
687,303
812,116
930,629
China
350,032 393,859
365,820
649,263
648,447
774,499
Germany
767,135
683,405
604,549
610,771
643,148
685,393
Honduras
284,478 427,782
575,344
695,859
670,863
678,154
France
434,985 347,778
251,849
360,475
554,069
603,776
Italy
260,279
244,335
208,390
229,500
503,723
555,971
South Korea
416,427
423,067
369,241
393,353
404,239
442,283
Netherlands
453,515
415,822
298,928
328,735
344,161
392,616
Belgium
374,193
487,914
321,983
299,793
308,085
364,606
Hong Kong
384,352
753,387
420,417
424,133
416,094
334,741
Brazil
278,735 285,242
167,071
235,086
314,796
315,267
Singapore
194,243
180,085
131,567
173,634
170,074
311,674
Australia
247,041 222,539
215,904
262,362
276,425
306,707
Costa Rica
299,010 319,457
327,984
320,314
316,298
289,642
El Salvador
187,253
247,988
278,231
315,496
300,720
287,899
Taiwan
Dominican Republic
India
Saudi Arabia
Iraq
Malaysia
Denmark
267,419
190,510
73,037
233,837
0
162,041
80,546
305,322
205,369
75,965
227,254
0
193,862
93,704
274,881
232,165
71,320
160,706
0
184,667
80,252
287,641
278,713
81,567
193,653
2,573
211,156
113,461
382,821
306,281
159,048
300,749
20,131
224,307
164,066
273,229
267,280
219,829
186,011
183,263
182,297
160,022
2005 Exports from North Carolina to European Union 25 (EU 25)
2005 Exports from North Carolina to European Union 25 (EU 25)
Product
Chemical Manufactures
Computers & Electronic Prod.
Machinery Manufactures
Transportation Equipment
All Others
Grand Total
Value ($)
1,071,312,279
534,594,499
480,986,658
445,267,224
1,740,423,893
4,272,584,553
Percent
25.1 %
12.5 %
11.3 %
10.4 %
40.7 %
100 %
North Carolina Exports to EU 25 - numbers are in thousands ($ USD)
Item
Total
325 Chemical Manufactures
334 Computers & Electronic
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
4,148,291 3,805,838 3,036,886 3,113,970 3,846,707 4,272,585
512,274 562,306 441,428 520,448 838,413 1,071,312
853,868 600,833 535,176 589,039 609,888 534,594
Prod.
333 Machinery Manufactures
336 Transportation Equipment
111 Crop Production
322 Paper Products
331 Primary Metal Manufactures
339 Misc. Manufactures
326 Plastic & Rubber Products
335 Elec. Eq., Appliances &
Parts
332 Fabricated Metal Products
327 Non-Metallic Mineral Mfgs.
313 Fabric Mill Products
321 Wood Products
315 Apparel Manufactures
337 Furniture & Related
Products
212 Mining
314 Non-Apparel Textile
Products
990 Spec. Classification
Provisions
311 Processed Foods
323 Printing & Related Products
910 Waste & Scrap
113 Forestry & Logging
316 Leather & Related Products
312 Beverage & Tobacco
Products
476,940
119,126
365,827
268,664
117,386
161,630
139,895
462,570
216,373
399,274
206,162
138,998
170,682
136,341
414,474
176,302
285,990
179,242
98,444
155,374
140,371
371,814
219,871
201,407
191,331
91,993
171,092
148,031
460,142
361,851
253,990
226,219
162,798
172,496
165,434
480,987
445,267
270,833
252,942
210,893
199,923
183,286
94,216
122,702
103,611
114,247
99,567
112,363
81,409
432,321
196,221
75,852
24,032
77,735
275,078
177,133
55,675
26,092
71,193
71,756
131,744
63,954
27,811
75,194
78,537
99,660
54,726
35,003
98,603
70,241
74,053
70,245
29,469
93,019
86,794
80,037
72,894
40,592
21,305
19,733
24,697
36,481
31,045
33,293
23,435
40,930
20,461
35,322
42,048
25,445
25,151
20,468
14,701
10,463
10,702
20,400
29,119
17,097
24,277
25,424
14,589
11,713
20,422
4,898
5,838
5,308
7,265
19,678
9,188
4,894
5,301
6,713
13,009
8,311
3,813
4,130
2,398
7,813
8,666
2,908
3,285
2,487
12,952
8,105
8,841
10,387
5,208
11,157
8,497
7,081
6,289
4,161
80,470
30,755
18,398
15,159
4,219
3,848
Texas
Total Percentage Exports to European Union – 10.1%
Texas World Exports - numbers are in thousands ($ USD)
Partner
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
World Total
103,865,689 94,995,266 95,396,197 98,846,083 117,244,970 128,761,036
Mexico
47,761,022 41,647,797 41,647,027 41,561,359 45,707,391 50,136,776
Canada
11,131,269 10,554,752 9,915,987 10,808,651 12,398,683 14,664,626
China
1,452,319 1,577,843 2,064,267 3,059,559 4,455,739 4,901,323
South Korea
2,116,499 1,765,710 2,031,995 2,777,313 5,022,075 4,622,776
Taiwan
Singapore
Japan
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Brazil
Belgium
United Arab Emirates
Malaysia
Germany
Venezuela
Philippines
Colombia
France
Saudi Arabia
Australia
Chile
Hong Kong
India
Israel
Argentina
4,064,623
2,390,047
4,205,567
1,956,948
2,428,875
1,912,903
1,300,857
313,988
1,363,117
1,469,957
1,353,600
1,979,541
726,858
1,045,579
817,875
798,451
422,124
1,179,911
339,204
460,188
675,631
2,641,475
2,152,655
2,981,881
1,989,051
2,467,777
2,240,212
1,246,915
493,867
1,080,149
1,855,830
1,389,195
1,711,024
673,774
1,013,757
893,942
739,870
447,408
885,738
364,704
419,768
614,368
3,665,185
2,286,232
2,880,508
1,717,982
2,080,903
1,958,764
1,391,199
600,172
1,586,235
1,608,491
870,457
2,115,921
690,137
929,345
931,301
713,046
355,041
832,804
408,154
599,767
317,478
2005 Exports from Texas to European Union 25 (EU 25)
2,765,451
2,288,961
2,707,902
1,733,003
2,129,828
1,633,846
1,631,453
521,599
2,127,047
1,582,675
783,120
2,258,004
817,883
905,465
897,095
749,232
332,641
803,238
568,779
497,458
450,540
4,001,901
3,409,586
2,608,728
2,472,025
2,283,516
1,737,317
2,023,304
729,841
2,552,313
1,592,676
1,150,314
1,678,058
1,144,419
1,162,053
967,844
935,103
698,529
892,797
783,666
1,057,670
613,072
3,459,091
3,260,401
2,741,095
2,652,595
2,522,924
2,271,335
2,176,633
1,955,924
1,755,129
1,716,444
1,593,524
1,526,590
1,374,031
1,266,720
1,155,690
1,110,885
1,082,873
1,039,737
967,982
838,713
821,891
2005 Exports from Texas to European Union 25 (EU 25)
Product
Chemical Manufactures
Computers & Electronic Prod.
Machinery Manufactures
Transportation Equipment
All Others
Grand Total
Value ($)
Percent
3,705,703,523 28.4 %
3,366,743,191 25.8 %
1,722,153,630 13.2 %
1,484,221,745 11.4 %
2,750,462,337 21.1 %
13,029,284,426 100 %
Texas Exports to EU 25 - numbers are in thousands ($ USD)
Item
Total
325 Chemical
Manufactures
334 Computers &
Electronic Prod.
333 Machinery
Manufactures
336 Transportation
Equipment
324 Petroleum & Coal
Products
335 Elec. Eq., Appliances
& Parts
339 Misc. Manufactures
332 Fabricated Metal
Products
311 Processed Foods
331 Primary Metal
Manufactures
990 Spec. Classification
Provisions
316 Leather & Related
Products
326 Plastic & Rubber
Products
111 Crop Production
322 Paper Products
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
10,675,501 11,053,653 9,775,805 10,105,383 12,288,459 13,029,284
2,670,985 2,442,342 2,677,620 2,839,747 3,613,695 3,705,704
3,085,772 3,437,461 2,633,919 2,667,913 2,958,198 3,366,743
1,612,518 1,691,388 1,448,503 1,368,504 1,573,462 1,722,154
1,125,834 1,165,696
983,216 1,166,942 1,535,595 1,484,222
424,802
514,626
323,154
251,516
920,267
873,400
264,572
286,593
248,485
282,030
318,727
333,626
338,758
370,323
444,621
441,197
244,420
331,061
251,142
149,950
153,483
151,481
208,128
213,472
130,697
152,487
140,889
128,724
143,426
164,883
80,258
133,556
115,174
155,783
105,130
148,419
125,565
122,161
99,757
103,275
106,147
114,676
38,973
47,052
42,540
60,676
60,142
88,802
87,964
108,488
80,016
62,999
68,429
76,947
111,276
84,087
59,793
53,912
66,186
81,982
80,609
114,674
79,664
108,999
73,562
72,353
327 Non-Metallic Mineral
Mfgs.
212 Mining
323 Printing & Related
Products
112 Animal Production
910 Waste & Scrap
920 Used Merchandise
314 Non-Apparel Textile
Products
337 Furniture & Related
Products
321 Wood Products
315 Apparel Manufactures
41,897
40,403
34,656
40,515
41,351
52,359
38,906
16,306
17,423
18,722
45,955
37,047
16,247
23,209
18,143
33,809
32,769
30,869
9,631
15,374
22,480
3,403
27,584
114,090
4,062
23,799
36,235
6,860
25,928
11,262
10,072
32,840
12,056
22,062
20,496
20,302
13,123
16,035
14,563
16,840
16,563
15,928
10,587
14,169
9,825
10,681
7,723
12,316
6,054
50,342
7,041
34,851
6,793
43,458
8,431
22,656
10,732
15,607
11,069
11,014
Washington
Total Percentage Exports to European Union – 16.9%
Washington World Exports - numbers are in thousands ($ USD)
Partner
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
World Total
32,214,701 34,928,533 34,626,549 34,172,826 33,792,504 37,948,361
Japan
4,594,778 3,383,788 4,349,284 5,428,494 6,311,668 6,369,979
Canada
2,875,863 2,737,288 2,944,195 3,313,881 4,041,144 5,202,160
China
1,900,659 2,928,721 3,830,513 3,211,196 3,094,408 5,085,632
Taiwan
1,451,804 1,594,183 1,047,312 1,958,436 2,138,095 3,117,939
Ireland
490,404
613,160
620,874
842,690 1,500,003 1,845,635
South Korea
1,743,433 2,131,280 2,056,226 1,673,219 2,061,066 1,793,995
United Arab Emirates
251,194
271,169
946,608
679,002
113,229 1,519,993
Singapore
609,767 2,990,909 2,306,416 2,086,965 1,482,276 1,237,425
France
1,003,112 1,252,884 1,953,233
684,058 1,266,014
977,981
Australia
510,984 575,735 2,627,030 1,966,879 1,066,759
963,108
Mexico
467,200
861,510
431,938
607,417
850,994
959,177
United Kingdom
3,266,713 2,737,334 1,229,801 1,461,635 1,089,822
886,902
Netherlands
1,317,391
707,488
765,748 1,739,189
951,953
649,081
Germany
2,057,142 1,843,346 1,007,318
785,635
465,319
551,956
Spain
1,062,668
385,245
230,816
176,107
431,804
453,381
India
230,618
315,995
259,091
228,712
306,941
424,547
Kenya
2,956
399,207
99,622
53,823
197,442
415,943
Philippines
185,180
249,266
246,070
366,530
510,188
376,638
Hong Kong
Chile
New Zealand
Indonesia
Luxembourg
Russian Federation
Italy
412,047
153,766
261,522
88,893
1,497
275,256
119,590
506,224
322,229
351,153
167,859
24,640
28,982
467,065
134,506
151,644
113,372
189,269
260,545
188,227
187,927
2,167
67,502
59,841
79,885
131,717 1,027,127 1,100,920
345,266
59,256
136,348
185,688
314,743
159,488
373,155
356,155
342,904
335,306
300,126
282,695
260,131
234,563
2005 Exports from Washington to European Union 25 (EU 25)
2005 Exports from Washington to European Union 25 (EU 25)
Product
Transportation Equipment
Computers & Electronic Prod.
Machinery Manufactures
Crop Production
All Others
Grand Total
Value ($) Percent
4,176,593,318
65 %
928,070,936 14.5 %
349,727,480 5.4 %
133,278,612 2.1 %
834,423,948
13 %
6,422,094,294 100 %
Washington Exports to EU 25 - numbers are in thousands ($ USD)
Item
Total
336 Transportation Equipment
334 Computers & Electronic
Prod.
333 Machinery Manufactures
111 Crop Production
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
11,214,075 8,859,361 8,080,210 7,889,993 6,838,350 6,422,094
9,167,352 6,751,845 6,268,735 5,997,423 4,803,392 4,176,593
811,024
890,042
784,593
848,517
861,982
928,071
346,637
65,878
376,679
94,084
270,456
96,714
240,458
101,821
253,900
109,298
349,727
133,279
335 Elec. Eq., Appliances &
Parts
311 Processed Foods
331 Primary Metal
Manufactures
114 Fishing, Hunting, &
Trapping
325 Chemical Manufactures
339 Misc. Manufactures
332 Fabricated Metal Products
321 Wood Products
990 Spec. Classification
Provisions
322 Paper Products
326 Plastic & Rubber Products
324 Petroleum & Coal Products
327 Non-Metallic Mineral
Mfgs.
112 Animal Production
910 Waste & Scrap
920 Used Merchandise
323 Printing & Related
Products
314 Non-Apparel Textile
Products
315 Apparel Manufactures
113 Forestry & Logging
511 Publishing Industries
97,356
80,625
92,264
101,449
133,953
128,430
80,466
104,003
97,920
102,496
117,174
115,245
60,605
62,665
42,694
62,454
81,327
106,523
72,917
106,190
61,498
78,628
115,315
105,885
92,741
136,161
22,369
56,809
57,395
86,974
33,776
47,567
66,741
59,642
23,005
35,849
68,459
55,921
29,782
40,759
65,499
69,544
38,623
35,510
92,769
64,800
37,254
32,720
49,108
41,128
49,937
36,298
38,937
29,063
47,408
8,053
17,131
48,389
10,348
17,770
35,392
18,145
25,725
35,508
11,289
11,525
22,948
17,284
11,713
22,070
18,172
14,316
7,924
4,016
4,233
8,663
9,111
12,467
8,554
1,870
13,151
12,979
2,527
2,514
10,389
3,593
2,942
11,890
4,784
22,054
14,731
5,627
7,983
12,353
7,325
6,847
17,479
5,651
8,687
3,578
4,049
5,734
3,012
5,467
2,109
3,259
6,592
4,798
4,020
12,554
674
3,157
2,994
0
2,975
4,930
0
2,375
2,290
174
3,923
1,600
1,322
3,869
3,223
2,662
New Jersey
Total Percentage Exports to European Union – 32.3%
New Jersey World Exports – Numbers are in thousands ($USD)
Partner
World Total
Canada
United Kingdom
Germany
Japan
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
18,637,554 18,945,751 17,001,514 16,817,673 19,192,131 21,080,305
4,193,937 3,914,239 3,705,283 3,756,529 4,164,207 4,770,917
1,772,795 1,638,621 1,335,543 1,406,993 1,771,690 1,765,940
748,711 1,036,482
910,548 1,021,799 1,057,728 1,294,359
1,413,975 1,469,510
930,410
936,084 1,149,429 1,253,540
Mexico
1,076,730 1,106,648
France
533,528
657,632
Italy
885,399
545,990
South Korea
416,128
725,731
China
258,835
397,738
Netherlands
824,005
610,954
Taiwan
446,565
530,958
Belgium
398,538
600,598
Partner
2000
2001
Hong Kong
322,745
417,833
Switzerland
300,483
435,405
Australia
505,952
272,025
Saudi Arabia
285,343
238,783
Singapore
272,631
311,904
Turkey
48,678
147,440
Brazil
337,280
286,009
Spain
125,929
108,501
Israel
958,570
948,628
India
72,775
116,093
Finland
31,783
51,670
Poland
28,974
59,103
United Arab Emirates
45,455
70,385
861,716
621,994
456,483
680,242
423,443
482,469
720,519
539,854
2002
306,231
462,306
274,339
236,776
258,063
163,533
247,890
123,451
886,982
148,749
61,461
91,978
81,526
830,801 1,139,694 1,196,974
602,466
744,251
816,868
470,389
604,244
795,446
562,194
657,640
670,114
502,168
578,506
598,410
462,997
507,051
587,639
335,906
470,977
507,743
556,897
573,349
485,394
2003
2004
2005
365,006
428,775
450,162
275,503
401,531
417,576
306,812
310,600
354,417
253,849
297,680
321,983
275,375
309,676
321,497
253,122
275,671
314,582
232,610
249,843
307,439
129,329
284,439
217,248
938,468
429,711
215,222
129,272
217,921
187,289
96,226
180,428
175,299
73,448
81,138
139,610
97,046
112,338
139,422
2005 Exports from New Jersey to European Union 25 (EU 25)
Product
Chemical Manufactures
Computers & Electronic Prod.
Transportation Equipment
Value ($)
Percent
1,709,519,255
25.1 %
1,037,893,118
15.2 %
847,154,820
12.4 %
Primary Metal Manufactures
All Others
Grand Total
779,579,991
2,449,235,990
6,823,383,174
11.4 %
35.9 %
100 %
New Jersey Exports to EU 25 - numbers are in thousands ($ USD)
Item
Total
325 Chemical Manufactures
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
5,929,258 5,991,831 5,220,161 5,315,242 6,243,833 6,823,383
2,077,505 1,551,329 1,416,553 1,529,285 1,552,851 1,709,519
334 Computers & Electronic Prod.
897,212 1,263,022 1,019,581
987,004 1,121,741 1,037,893
336 Transportation Equipment
331 Primary Metal Manufactures
910 Waste & Scrap
339 Misc. Manufactures
333 Machinery Manufactures
323 Printing & Related Products
405,024
435,091
649,989
274,268
316,365
143,640
369,286
565,267
537,276
278,683
367,401
211,409
299,918
445,464
501,197
300,795
261,622
204,459
322,202
446,103
525,482
312,096
252,294
182,299
485,629
526,808
790,044
357,536
264,710
233,196
847,155
779,580
739,483
314,703
304,904
221,409
335 Elec. Eq., Appliances & Parts
147,644
167,702
147,632
156,621
153,314
145,498
920 Used Merchandise
326 Plastic & Rubber Products
332 Fabricated Metal Products
311 Processed Foods
327 Non-Metallic Mineral Mfgs.
56,077
83,944
88,600
30,728
56,645
78,638
94,421
91,155
52,652
97,675
69,070
69,423
76,398
71,215
63,969
65,911
86,822
78,073
73,787
60,301
94,663
104,091
90,393
72,003
51,567
138,794
122,654
92,034
71,911
65,750
990 Spec. Classification Provisions
57,495
44,293
75,683
54,467
39,909
42,464
322 Paper Products
315 Apparel Manufactures
324 Petroleum & Coal Products
113 Forestry & Logging
316 Leather & Related Products
111 Crop Production
321 Wood Products
38,116
19,617
17,337
12,696
16,465
4,995
10,568
31,699
26,029
51,043
14,588
24,145
5,881
11,369
32,244
18,395
48,593
19,896
10,055
8,756
11,715
31,800
16,126
45,028
18,456
6,634
5,268
8,120
29,542
14,931
171,842
19,194
12,599
12,553
8,600
34,942
30,114
27,997
27,357
12,831
9,790
9,216
9,237
13,697
6,696
10,942
6,399
8,901
19,275
17,053
12,752
10,493
8,779
7,703
6,975
6,730
9,229
7,588
6,035
5,330
337 Furniture & Related Products
313 Fabric Mill Products
314 Non-Apparel Textile Products
Appendix G: State Legislative and Executive Branch Initiatives on Chemicals
Lowell Center for Sustainable Production
Draft, December 2006
This briefing paper provides an overview of state level efforts on integrated chemicals policy.
For the purposes of this analysis, we define chemicals policy as risk management efforts
involving industrial chemicals. Several states have initiated policies with regards to restrictions
on pesticide use. While we view these as integral to a more comprehensive and integrated
approach to chemicals management, pesticides and industrial chemicals have not traditionally
been addressed under the same policy regimes. Further, biomonitoring efforts are mentioned
where they are connected to state chemicals policy efforts.
We present the state level chemicals policy activities by region and state. When innovative
local policies exist, we present these as well. The state level chemicals policy efforts taken to
date can be categorized in the following way:
•
•
•
•
Right to know initiatives: labeling (such as California Proposition 65), toxics use data
collection, biomonitoring
Chemical restrictions: PBTs, mercury, PBDEs 1, PERC
Procurement policies (local and state)
Toxics Use Reduction/Safer alternatives reviews
We realize that this list is only a partial list of activities happening at the state and local level.
They are representative however of some of the innovations moving forward and provide
material for a productive discussion on how to enhance collaboration between states in this
emerging area. We ask that state agency authorities provide us with additional legislative and
executive branch policies to add to this list. Please send these to Yve Torrie at
yve_torrie@uml.edu.
1
Seven states have legislation restricting the Decabromodiphenyl ether pending and several have passed restrictions
on the penta and octa congeners
All States
In May 2005, The Center for International Environmental Law conducted a survey of state-level
POPs legislation, which is presented below.
(Source: http://www.ciel.org/Publications/States_POPs_May05.pdf)
•
•
Legislators in Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, and New York have all enacted PBDE laws.
PBDE legislation has also been introduced in Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota,
Montana, Oregon, and Washington in 2005.
Northeast Region
The Northeast Waste Management Officials Association (NEWMOA) initiated in 2003 a dialogue
on integrated chemicals policy in the Northeast. This project has resulted in several dialogues
of agency experts and other stakeholders in the Northeast on integrated chemicals policy,
pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment, etc.
Connecticut
Mercury
• Connecticut passed fairly comprehensive mercury legislation in 2002, with the goal of
phasing out anthropogenic discharge of mercury. The bill includes bans on mercury
thermometers and novelty products containing mercury, labeling, and take-back.
Maine
Green Chemistry
•
Maine Gov. John Baldacci (D) issued an executive order Feb. 22, 2006, which outlines
the need for readily available information on safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals in
consumer products and pesticide exposures in the home; names lead, mercury,
brominated flame retardants, and pesticides as priority issues for the state of Maine;
renews the commitment for environmentally preferably preferable purchasing; and
enacts a Task Force to Promote Safer Chemicals in Consumer Products.
Mercury
Maine has passed numerous mercury legislations including:
• 2003 ban on mercury thermometers and thermostats, required notification before
offering a mercury product for sale, prohibition of use of mercury products in schools,
prohibition of sale of mercury automobile switches, and required establishment by auto
manufacturers of a statewide system to collect and recycle mercury switches, an
important legislation because it shifts responsibility to producers.
• In 2005, Maine passed a law that aims to stop mercury emissions during the recycling or
disposal for automobiles by requiring scrap recycling facilities to remove mercury
containing components of the automobile before crushing, flattening, or baled for
recycling.
Brominated Flame Retardants
• In April, 2004, Maine signed into law the most far-reaching protections from PBDEs in
the nation. The law bans the sale in Maine of products containing the penta- and octaBDEs as of January 1, 2006 - products containing BFRs must be registered with the
state and specify which flame retardants are in the product and the amounts thereof,
information that must be updated every 3 years. The legislation also requires that
products must be labeled as containing BFRs and give a synopsis of the health hazards
they pose, much like cigarette packages contain a warning. Maine has gone further than
other states with the ban on deca-it’s action is to ban deca by 2008 if safer alternatives
are available. Tetrabromobisphenol-A or hexabromocyclododecane or any other
brominated flame retardant is banned as of January 1, 2010.
Dioxin
• Dioxin has also become an important issue in Maine due in part to the paper industry. In
1997, the state banned the discharge of dioxin in waste water after 2002 from paper
mills, and the must be able to prove that they are not the source for elevated dioxin
levels found in fish in downstream waters. A fish downstream from a paper mill must
contain the same amount of dioxin as a fish upstream.
• Additionally, An Act to Reduce the Release of Dioxin into the Environment from
Consumer Products, was passed in 2001 to limit the release of dioxin to the environment
through backyard burning of construction materials, plastics, rubbers, and styrofoams.
New Hampshire
Mercury
• New Hampshire passed a law in 2000 banning the sale of mercury thermometers and
novelty items containing mercury.
Dioxin
•
The Department of Environmental Services has launched a New Hampshire Dioxin
Reduction Strategy, focusing on medical waste incinerators and household trash and
wood burning. A ban on backyard trash burning was effective as of 2003.
Rhode Island
Mercury
•
Rhode Island has prohibited landfill mercury disposal, and bans sale of mercury
thermometers and mercury-containing novelty products. The 2001 law also contains
phase-out, labeling, disclosure, and notification elements.
Massachusetts
Toxics Use Reduction Act
• The Toxics Use Reduction Act of 1989 is considered one of the foremost chemicals
policy efforts in the United States. The Act requires manufacturing companies using
some 900 toxics above a threshold to file a report describing their use of the toxic, and to
develop Toxics Use Reduction plans. Companies are not required to implement the
plans. The Act was recently amended to lower reporting thresholds for high priority
chemicals, and allow those who have undertaken extensive toxics use reduction efforts
and are using lower priority chemicals to prioritize energy and water use reduction
projects.
Mercury
• An Act Relative to Mercury Management, to curb mercury pollution in Massachusetts,
was signed into law July 2006. It is among the strongest of an increasing number of
state laws across the country that will dramatically reduce emissions resulting from the
use of mercury-containing products. It will phase out the use of certain mercurycontaining products that have safer alternatives, will require manufacturers to set up
collection programs to keep discarded products out of the waste stream, and will require
collection systems for fluorescent lamps.
Bills under Discussion
• An Act for a Healthy Massachusetts: Safer Alternatives to Toxic Chemicals (the “Safer
Alternatives Bill”) promotes safer alternatives to toxic chemicals. This follows on from
the 5 chemicals study requested by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in July 2005.
The Toxics Use reduction Institute was requested to perform an assessment for 5
chemicals: lead, formaldehyde, perchloroethylene, hexavelent chromium, and di(2ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP). For each chemical, the Institute was charged with
identifying significant uses in manufacturing, consumer products, and other applications;
reviewing health and environmental effects; and evaluating possible alternatives. The
study was completed in June 2006.
• An Act to Reduce Asthma by Using Safer Alternatives to Cleaning Products, will reduce
asthma and other health threats from emissions of toxic chemicals from cleaning
products used in schools, hospitals and other health care facilities, day care centers,
public buildings, and public housing.
• An Executive Order is being crafted to propose routes of action 1) requiring safer
cleaning products in all public buildings, and 2) calling for economic development
through "green chemistry" and other clean-technologies (or encouraging the purchasing
of safer products for state agencies and offices), to Governor Patrick when his
administration takes office in January 2007.
New York
Brominated Flame Retardants
•
On August 17, 2004, New York state law took effect that will phase out two flame
retardants, penta-BDE and octa-BDE, by 2006. A bill for a deca-BDE ban will be
reintroduced in the 2007 legislative session.
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
• Erie County of New York has passed a county-wide Environmentally Preferable
Purchasing resolution favoring PBT-free and lower-PBT containing products over their
PBT containing competitors where available. In cases where alternatives are not
available, county departments are required to include a provision in their purchasing
contracts encouraging manufacturers to recycle PBT containing goods.
Bills being Reintroduced
• A bill for a lindane ban will be reintroduced at the 2007 legislative session.
• In December 2006 Executive Orders for the incoming Spitzer administration in NY are
being prepared around green chemistry / pollution prevention, phase out of PBTs; green
procurement, and others.
New Jersey
Pollution Prevention
• The New Jersey Pollution Prevention Act (1991) requires industry to draft plans that
identify areas or procedures that could reduce or prevent the creation of environmental
pollution. For the purposes of this legislation, pollution prevention is defined as activity
that “involves reducing or eliminating the need for hazardous substances per unit of
product, or reducing or eliminating the generation of hazardous substances where they
are generated within a process.” Designed to show businesses that pollution prevention
requirements are an opportunity to cut costs and increase profits, the Act does not
require businesses to implement their plans, only to write them. This act has similarities
to the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act.
Right to Know
• The New Jersey Worker and Community Right to Know Act of 1983 mandates that
public and private employers make available hazard information for all pure substances
to which workers or communities could potentially be exposed. Businesses must report
all dangerous substances to the state of New Jersey annually, and provide information
about the substances that facilitates their tracking in the environment as well as within
the workplace. Some 1,700 fact sheets on substances have been drafted and made
available to the public.
Best Practice Standards
• The Best Practice Standards at TCPA/DPCC Chemical Sector Facilities, signed in
November 2005 include the first mandatory requirements for chemical security adopted
by any state in the nation since September 11th.
Maryland
Mercury
• Senate Bill 772 prohibits mercury thermostats and initiated collection and recycling
activities
• HB 52 would prohibit the sale of children’s products containing phthalates or bisphenol-a
and requiring the use of the least toxic alternatives.
Great Lakes Region
Michigan
Green Chemistry
• Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) issued an executive directive October 17, 2006
calling for state agencies to determine new ways to provide incentives to industry and
academia to pursue green chemistry programs. The directive also calls on the state's
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to create a Green Chemistry Support
Roundtable to determine how best to promote green chemistry. The roundtable will
consist of public health professionals, industry representatives, environmentalists, local
government leaders and members of the general public.
Brominated Flame Retardants
• On January 3, 2005, Michigan passed Bill No. 4406 stating that beginning in June 1,
2006, a person shall not manufacture, process, or distribute a product or material that
contains more than 1/10 of 1% of penta-BDE.
Mercury
• Michigan has been active around mercury issues, including a 2002 ban on the sale and
use of mercury thermometers and in January 2003, Senate Bill No. 94 prohibiting the
use of mercury containing products in hospitals. If no medically acceptable, mercuryfree alternative exists, the hospital may use the compound, substance, equipment,
supply, or product that contains the lowest mercury content available on the market.
Additionally, similar municipal mercury ordinances exist in the townships of Livonia and
Ann Arbor.
Minnesota
Mercury
• Minnesota passed a mercury products bill in 2001 that requires products containing
mercury to be labeled as such, as well as inform the buyer that the product cannot be
disposed of through municipal waste, and must be recycled. In March 2004, Bill H.F.
2602 requires the Office of Environmental Assistance to implement a program to
remove, collect, recycle, and appropriately dispose of mercury switches in mo tor
vehicles before the vehicles are crushed or shredded.
Arctic Region
The Arctic Council
The Arctic Council is composed of the 8 nations whose boundaries make up the arctic region:
Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden and the United
States. The Council, including indigenous peoples of the arctic region, convenes to discuss
common concerns that face the arctic environment, and is born from a 1991 agreement
between the arctic states known as the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, which made
sustainable development of the region its priority. An important piece of the Council’s mission is
the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) which seeks to monitor the extent of
industrial pollution in the arctic, measures that include heavy metals, POPs, and pesticides.
While the Program has assessed that the arctic is a relatively pristine environment compared to
other more industrialized areas of the world, it has also noted that worrisome compounds, such
as brominated flame retardants (BFRs), are beginning to be seen in the environmental samples.
The Council, as part of the AMAP program, is beginning to draft recommendations related to the
finding of BFRs and other questionable substances designed to broaden discussion.
Alaska
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
•
The state of Alaska has been very active in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent
Organic Pollutants, particularly the First Nations, motivated primarily by the issue of
subsistence food contamination and abandoned military sites with heavy POPs
contamination. First Nations tend to be particularly concerned due to the high fat content
of the traditional diet, resulting in elevated POPs exposure. Fifty tribes have passed
resolutions in support of ratifying the Stockholm Convention, as did the Alaska
Federation of Natives, representing over 5000 people.
Right to Know
• HB19 is a pesticide Right to Know legislation that would authorize the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to impose a fee to chemical
manufacturers to register their chemicals with the state; would mandate that any person
who applies pesticides in public areas be required to become certified in proper
application techniques; and requires the DEC to establish procedure for on-site
notification of pesticide use.
First nations
Pesticides
• The Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska passed a resolution in
2005 opposing aerial pesticide spraying on public or private lands. The Council urges
the state of Alaska to use mechanical, rather than chemical, approaches to managing
forested lands and makes additional demands related to areas where subsistence
activities take place, including permitting and distances between chemical applications
and drinking water sources.
West Coast Region
California
Biomonitoring
• SB 1379 is California 's Environmental Contaminant Biomonitoring Program, passed in
February 2006, requiring the Division of Environmental and Occupational Disease
Control to establish the Healthy Californians Biomonitoring Program to monitor the
presence and concentration of designated chemicals, as defined, in Californians. This
bill requires the establishment of an advisory panel and the Healthy Californians
Biomonitoring Fund. The bill requires that public access to information is provided.
Hazardous Chemicals: Testing Methods
• In February 2005 The Hazardous Chemicals: Testing Methods bill was passed allowing
government authorities to require each manufacturer of a high production volume
chemical or a reportable chemical to provide test methods, including chemical
biomarkers of exposure, the octanol water partition coefficient, and the bioconcentration
factor, for that chemical.
Right to Know
• In 1986, California passed the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (“Prop
65”), which prohibits businesses from discharging chemicals with carcinogenic or
reproductive toxicity effects into sources of drinking water. The Governor is required to
maintain a list of chemicals covered by the Act. Businesses must also provide clear
warning to individuals exposed to these chemicals by activities of the business. The Act
is enforced only by citizen suits. As of 2003, fines of $2,500 per day per violation are
penalties for noncompliance.
Mercury
• The California Department of Toxic Substances Control is working on regulating mercury
as a hazardous substance throughout its lifecycle, banning it from landfills, and requiring
extended producer responsibility. California’s Mercury Reduction Act of 2001 mandates
the replacement of mercury switches in vehicles and appliances, but the Department of
Toxic Substances Control is working with the Public Utilities Commission to extend
efforts to get mercury out of the water, including by restricting dental use of mercury. In
2004, Governor Schwarzenegger signed a bill that restricts the mercury content of
vaccines to pregnant women and babies.
Brominated Flame Retardants
• In February 2003, California enacted PBDE legislation. The bill requires the California
EPA to adopt regulations which require a PBDE manufacturer to mark any product
containing polybrominated biphenyl ether (PBDE) with a clear and adequate warning,
and instructions with respect to the products’ processing, distribution in commerce, use,
or disposal of the product by March 1, 2005. The bill prohibits any person from
manufacturing, processing, or distributing in commerce any product containing more
than 0.1% penta-BDE or octa-BDE (the law has no effect on deca-BDE) by January 1,
2006.
Pesticides
• In September of 2004, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed The
Pesticide Drift Exposure Response Act (SB391) designed to better provide for victims of
pesticide exposure through improved response to incidents of pesticide drift, and aid for
medical bills following such an exposure. The bill was widely supported by farmworkers, environmental health activists and rural community groups who saw the need
to protect those who are inadvertently poisoned by pesticides that have moved outside
of the area for which they were intended.
Lindane
• In 2000, California enacted a statewide ban on the sale and use of lindane in lice and
scabies preparations, taking effect on January 1, 2002. In March 2005 the last lindane
product registered for sale in the state of California was voluntarily withdrawn by the
manufacturer. Once the registration withdrawal is fully implemented, a process that
takes about 18 months, there will be no lindane pesticides that can be legally sold in
California.
Bills under Discussion
• One or more green chemistry bills will be pursued and possibly modeled after the
European Union's (EU) Registration, Evaluation, & Authorization of Chemicals (REACH)
program to foster a more environmentally friendly chemicals policy.
• In August of 2004, California’s AB 2012, a bill that would require cosmetics companies to
disclose any chemical ingredients in their products that may cause cancer or
reproductive harm, passed a senate vote before the end of the legislative session.
• AB 319, bill banning the use of phthalates and bisphenol-a in children’s toys was
defeated in January 2006.
California Regional
SCAQMD
• The South Coast Air Quality Management District (covering four counties) primarily
monitors the air for smog-causing pollution such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide and ozone.
In addition to making air analyses available on the internet for real time data, the District
also publishes a bi-monthly newsletter for community information. While smog is the
central focus of the program, the use of perchloroethylene in drycleaning has been
banned by 2020. As of 2003, no new business can use perchloroethylene in their
facilities, and by November 2007, all perchlorethylene equipment must be equipped with
primary and secondary pollution controls.
Dioxin
• There have been several local initiatives in Northern California on PBT reduction,
particularly in the Bay Area, focusing on elimination of dioxin and mercury. These
initiatives were kindled initially by public opposition to large medical waste incinerators.
The City of Palo Alto, Marin County, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG),
and Alameda County have all passed resolutions on reducing production and use of
dioxin, mercury, or PBTs in general. ABAG is strategizing ways to implement PBT
reduction through purchasing pools. The California Department of Toxic Substance
Control’s Pollution Prevention Program is an assistance agency that aids local pollution
prevention initiatives across the state. Through networking and coordinating between
•
state and federal agencies, educational materials, and general support, the Department
is able to reach noticeable reductions in the creation of toxic wastes.
In 1999, the city of Oakland passed a resolution that declares dioxin a priority chemical
and aims to eliminate emissions wherever possible. In addition, the city would work with
area governments to convene a regional task force to learn the location of dioxin
emissions, and to discover in what quantities they are being released i. Additionally, the
cities of San Francisco and Berkley have passed similar resolutions with the goal of
eliminating dioxin..
Precautionary Principle and Precautionary Purchasing
• In March 2003, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted the San Francisco
precautionary principle ordinance. It states in part, “Where there are reasonable grounds
for concern, the precautionary approach to decision-making is meant to help reduce
harm by triggering a process to select the least potential threat to human health and the
City’s natural systems.” Another central goal is the inclusion of citizens as equal partners
in decisions affecting their environment. In June 2005 the City of San Francisco
established a comprehensive city-wide environmentally preferable purchasing program.
This law puts the precautionary principle into action by requiring that the City of San
Francisco use safer alternatives when purchasing commodities for the City.
• The Berkeley Precautionary Principle Resolution passed on October 14, 2003. The
Resolution mandates a precautionary principle ordinance and an Environmentally
Preferable Purchasing Program to be developed for the City of Berkeley within one year.
An Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy was adopted on October 19, 2004.
The Berkeley Precautionary Principle Ordinance passed on March 7, 2006 making
Berkeley the second city in the nation (after San Francisco) to create such a policy.
Phthalates and Bisphenol-A
• The city of San Francisco unanimously passed a ban on phthalates and bisphenol-a in
children’s products effective December 2006. This ban is currently being challenged in
the courts.
Oregon
PBTs
• An executive order in the state of Oregon introduced in 1999 calls for the reduction of
PBTs by using various approaches to determine the sources of PBTs in an attempt to
eliminate their release by 2020. The state will continue to look to national and
international approaches to PBT elimination for examples of successful policy
measures. As an aide to these goals, Oregon will use education, technology,
government resources, regulation and financial incentives to maximize their overall
strategy. In 2004, an Executive Order made the implementation of a plan to quantify
and address the impacts of PBTs a priority by July of 2005.
Mercury
• Oregon Executive Order 99-13, 1999, requires the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality to begin a process to phase out mercury, as well as other persistent
bioaccumulative toxins, from the state by 2020. The Oregon Mercury Reduction Act of
2001 (HB 3007) prohibits contractors from installing mercury-containing thermostats
after January 1, 2006.
Toxics Use Reduction
• In 1989, Oregon passed a Toxics Use Reduction Act which required companies to make
toxics use inventories and reduction plans, but contained no enforcement elements. This
act was recently “streamlined” to remove reporting requirements.
Oregon regional
•
In 1996, the city of Eugene passed a toxics right-to-know law, requiring that companies
keep materials accounting of toxic chemicals and submit their accounting to the city,
which posts them on a web site. Companies also have to pay a fee, based on amounts
of chemicals produced.
Washington
PBT’s
• In 1998, DoE announced a PBT Strategy aimed at eliminating PBT pollution. Funding
was designated for 9 PBTs in the program in 2001. In addition, the program included 13
other substances from the “PBT Working List” of chemicals on which to focus in future
action plans. Under a 2004 Executive Order, the Washington Department of General
Administration’s Office of State Procurement is required to make available for purchase
and use by all state agencies equipment, supplies, and other products that do not
contain persistent, toxic chemicals unless there is no feasible alternative. If a non-PBT
product is not available, preference is to be given to the purchase of products containing
the least amount of PBTs.
• The state’s PBT-free purchasing policy has trickled down to the local level in
Washington’s largest city, Seattle.
PBDE’s
• In 2004, Washington’s governor issued an executive order for the DoE to devise a
phase-out plan for PBDEs as part of the state’s PBT Strategy, and asked state agencies
to make changes to their purchasing practices so as to favor products that do not
contain PBDEs. DoE released details of the plan in August of 2004, which
recommended penta and octa-BDEs be banned for use outright by 2006 if U.S. EPA
fails to take action; and a ban on new consumer electronics containing a third flame
retardant, deca-BDE, by 2008.
Mercury
• The state legislature in 2003 passed the Mercury Education and Reduction Act requiring
labeling of mercury-containing fluorescent lamps sold in the state, and banning the sale
and use of a host of mercury-containing products, including automotive switches,
thermometers (except by prescription), blood pressure devices, and novelty products.
• The final Mercury Chemical Action Plan (MCAP) was unveiled in early 2003 with dual
goals to virtually eliminate the use and release of human-caused mercury in
Washington, and to minimize human exposure to mercury.
• The state’s Mercury Chemical Action Plan, notes that many of the mercury-reduction
efforts in Washington have taken place at the local level, with at least six counties and
the cities of Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma, and Vancouver having already conducted local
mercury-reduction programs.
Precautionary Principle
• In 2005, the City of Seattle, WA added a section to its Comprehensive Environmental
Plan in support of the precautionary principle, stating in part “where threats of serious or
irreversible harm to people or nature exist, anticipatory action will be taken to prevent
damages to human and environmental health…”
Hawaii
Brominated Flame Retardants
• In June of 2004, Hawaii became the latest state to take action on BFRs, this time, the
state implemented the strictest legislation seen yet and banned PBDEs as an entire
class of chemicals, which included deca-BDE. The ban will take effect in 2008.
Appendix H: Clean Tech: An Agenda for a Healthy Economy Resource List
Product and Materials Recycling
• Final Report, Recycling Economic Information Study. Prepared for the Northeast Recycling Council by
R. W. Beck, Inc., June, 2000, http://www.nerc.org/documents/rei_report.html
• Chelsea Center for Recycling and Economic Development, www.chelseacenter.org. Massachusetts
Directory of Recycled Product Manufacturers, 2003, http://www.chelseacenter.org/Publications1.asp
• The Importance of the Recycling Industry in Massachusetts. Chelsea Center for Recycling and Economic
Development. http://www.chelseacenter.org/ResourcesLinks0.asp
• Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, recycled product manufacturer update, 2006/7
• Northeast Recycling Council, Environmental Benefits Calculator
• Incentives for Industry: Stimulating Waste Reduction, Pollution Prevention, and increased Secondary
Materials Use in Washington Industry, report to WA Department of Ecology, Cascadia Consulting
Group, Tellus Institute, and Resources for the Future, June 2005.
• Achieving the Beyond Waste Vision: A Framework for Moving Forward, report to Washington
Department of Ecology, Cascadia Consulting Group and Ross & Associates, March 2003.
• Resource Conservation Benefits Associated with Solid Waste Management Programs, report to U.S.
EPA, Tellus Institute, 2005.
• Waste Reduction Program Assessment and Analysis for Massachusetts, report to MA Department of
Environmental Protection, Tellus Institute, December 2002.
• The Remanufacturing Industry: Anatomy of a Sleeping Giant, Robert Lund and William Hauser, Boston
University, June 2003.
Clean Energy and Climate Change Mitigation
• Redefining Progress, Smarter, Cleaner, Stronger in Massachusetts: Secure Jobs, A Clean Environment,
and Less Foreign Oil. October 2004
• Apollo Alliance, New Energy for America; The Apollo Jobs Report: Good Jobs & Energy Independence.
January, 2004. http://www.apolloalliance.org/jobs/index.cfm
• Mass. Technology Collaborative report on Massachusetts clean energy sector soon to be released
• Harnessing San Francisco’s Clean Tech Future, Clean Edge, 2004
http://www.cleanedge.com/story.php?nID=3316
• Clean Edge, Various reports on clean energy technologies and trends,
http://www.cleanedge.com/reports.php
• Levy, David L. and David Terkla. 2006. Massachusetts Clean Energy Cluster. UMASS Boston. To be
published in MassBenchmarks
• New MTC research on Clean Energy Cluster
• Economic Benefits and Feasibility of Strategies to Reduce Petroleum Consumption in California,
Tellus Institute, 2006
• MIT report on clean energy research opportunities, Boston Globe, May 3, 2006
• Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, DC
• Clean Energy: Jobs for America's Future, report for the World Wildlife Fund, Tellus Institute, October
2001.
• Turning the Corner on Global Warming Emissions: An Analysis of Ten Strategies for California,
Oregon, and Washington, report to West Coast Governors' Global Warming Initiative (WCGWI), Tellus
Institute, 2004.
• The Path to Carbon Dioxide-Free Power: Switching to Clean Energy in the Utility Sector, for World
Wildlife Fund, Tellus Institute, 2003.
• Carbon Abatement with Economic Growth: A National Strategy, Tellus Institute, 2002.
•
•
•
•
•
Clean Electricity Options for the Pacific Northwest: An Assessment of Efficiency and Renewable
Potentials through the Year 2020, report to the Northwest Energy Coalition, Tellus Institute, October,
2002.
Rajan, Sudhir Chella and John Stutz (2006). Economic Benefits and Feasibility of Strategies to
Reduce Petroleum Consumption in California. Tellus Institute. [see uploaded files for "Rajan and
Stutz"]
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: A Growing Opportunity for Massachusetts. Massachusetts
Technology Collaborative. http://www.masstech.org/renewableenergy/reports/clusterreport11405.pdf
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Senate Bill No. 2593: An Act to Promote Electric Generation
via Renewable Resources. 2006. http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st02/st02593.htm
Woolfe, Tim. 2002. Green Power and Energy Efficiency Opportunities for Municipalities in
Massachusetts. Synapse Energy Economics. http://www.synapseenergy.com/Downloads/SynapseReport.2002-05.Mass-Energy.MA-Muni-Green-Power.01-25
Drinking Water Infrastructure and Water Protection
• EPA websites on water security: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo/ma.htm
• Water Infrastructure Network: http://win-water.org/
• The Value of Water in a Changing Economy, report for the American Water Works Association
Research Foundation, Stratus Consulting and Tellus Institute, 2004.
• Protecting Drinking Water with the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. U.S. EPA, Office of Water.
www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/cwsrf8.pdf
• McNabb, John. 2005. Funding Shortfalls Threaten Drinking Water Quality. Clean Water Action/
Clean Water Fund. http://www.cleanwateraction.org/ma/DrinkingWaterFundingReport.pdf
• Drinking Water: Spending Constraints Could Affect States' Ability to Implement Increasing Program
Requirements. 2000. U.S. General Accounting Office.
http://searching.gao.gov/query.html?qt=+GAO%2FRCED-00-199&charset=iso-88591&ql=&x=15&y=11
• The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis. 2002. U.S. EPA.
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/gapreport.pdf. Fact sheet at:
http://env1.kangwon.ac.kr/sdwr%202003/literature%20survey/International%20Web%20Sites/EPAOST/www.epa.gov/owm/featinfo.htm
Less Toxic, Safer Materials, Products and Processes and Benefits
• Rand Corporation, “Next Generation Environmental Technologies,” Robert Lempert, Parry Norling,
Christopher Pernin, Susan Resetar, Sergei Mahnovski, 2003
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1682/
• UMass Green Chemistry Program: http://www.greenchemistry.uml.edu//
• Toxics Use Reduction Institute: www.turi.org (Five Chemicals Alternatives Assessment Study, case
studies, companies that use listed chemicals)
• The Costs and Benefits of Green Affordable Housing, September, 2005, New Ecology, Inc and Tellus
Institute
• Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, http://www.chemicalspolicy.org/
• “Surviving REACH," http://www.chemsec.org/documents/Surviving_REACH.pdf
• The True Costs of REACH," http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/TrueCostsREACH.pdf
Ackerman, Frank and Rachel Massey, Global Development and Environment Institute Tufts
University. 2004
• “Building a Healthy Economy: Chemicals Risk Management as a Driver of Development” Rachel
Massey Global Development and Environment Institute Tufts University
www.chinacp.com/eng/cppub/swedish/Swedish_CP_Report_2_05.pdf
•
•
•
Five Chemicals Alternatives Assessment Study. 2006. Toxics Use Reduction Institute at the UMASS
Lowell. http://www.turi.org/content/content/view/full/2739/
Ackerman, Frank and Rachel Massey. 2005. French Industry and Sustainable Chemistry: The
Benefits of Clean Development. Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University.
http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/pubs/rp/sustainablechemistryfrance.pdf
Toffel, Michael W. and Julian D. Marshall. 2004. Improving Environmental Performance Assessment: A
Comparative Analysis of Weightin Methods Used to Evaluate Chemical Release Inventories. Journal of
Industrial Ecology. http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/1088198041269445
General Clean Tech, Jobs and Environment
• Jobs and Environment Initiative, Management Information Services, Inc., http://misinet.com/publications.html
• Bezdek, Roger and Robert Wendling. 2005. Job Creation and Environmental Protection. Nature.
http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2005/050331/full/nj7033-678b.html
• Bezdek, Roger and Robert Wendling. 2004. Jobs Creation in the Environmental Industry in
Minnesota and the U.S. Management Information Services, Inc. www.misi-net.com/publications/mnenvironmental.pdf
• Jobs Creation in the Environmental Industry in the U.S. and Nine States: Arizona, California,
Connecticut, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin: Synthesis of
Findings and Policy Recommendations. 2006. Management Information Services, Inc.
http://www.misi-net.com/publications.html
• UMass Environmental Business and Technology Center
http://www.management.umb.edu/businesscenter/ebtc.php
• Burtis, Patrick R. 2006. Creating Cleantech Clusters: 2006 Update. Cleantech Venture Network and
Environmental Entrepreneurs. http://www.pewclimate.org/document.cfm?documentID=577
• Robert Lempert, Parry Norling, Christopher Pernin, Susan Resetar, Sergei Mahnovski. 2003. Next
Generation Environmental Technologies. Rand Corporation.
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1682/
• “The Massachusetts Environmental Industry” and its available as a PDF at:
http://www.massbenchmarks.org/publications/studies/pdf/enviroindustry00.pdf.
Massachusetts Economy
• Mass Department of Economic Development , “Toward a New Prosperity: Building Regional
Competitiveness across the Commonwealth.”
• Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, John Adams Innovation Institute, 2006 Index of the
Massachusetts Innovation Economy. http://www.mtpc.org/institute/the_index.htm
• Batelle, MassInsight Corporation. “Choosing to Lead: The Race for National R&D Leadership and New
Economy Jobs. The Massachusetts Technology Road Map Part I, Case Statement” 2005.
www.massinsight.com/docs/Choosing_to_Lead_Part1.pdf
• Global Massachusetts 2015: Executing a Talent and Innovation Sector-Based Strategic Plan. Mass
Insight Corporation.
http://www.massinsight.com/docs/Global%20Massachusetts%202015_brochure.pdf
• Regional Competitiveness Councils and Planning Agencies reports for various MA regions.
http://rcc.massmeansbusiness.com/Default.aspx
• MassBenchmarks, massbenchmarks.org
• MassInc, “Reconnecting Massachusetts Gateway Cities: Lessons Learned and an Agenda for Renewal”
• Exports: Massachusetts Alliance for International Business
• Measuring Up? The Cost of Doing Business in Massachusetts. 2006. Global Insight for Pioneer
Institute. www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/06_costofdoingbusiness.pdf
•
•
•
MassInc., “Getting the Job Done: Advancing the New Skills Agenda.” Mount Auburn Associates.
http://www.massinc.org/about/nsne_campaign/job_done_report.html
The Boston Economy: Moving Forward. 2005. City of Boston and Boston Redevelopment Authority.
www.cityofboston.gov/bra/PDF/ResearchPublications//Rpt604.pdf
Choosing to Lead: The Race for National R&D Leadership & New Economy Jobs. Strategic
University-Industry Alliance Opportunities 2004. Mass Insight Corporation and Battelle.
www.massinsight.com/docs/Strategic_Alliances.pdf
Investing
• Clean Tech Venture Network, www.cleantech.com
• Investors Circle, investorscircle.net
• Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Entrepreneurs. Creating the California CleanTech
Cluster: How Innovation and Investment Can Promote Job Growth and a Healthy Environment.
September, 2004, http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/cleantech/contents.asp
• Accelerating Corporate Investment in Clean Technologies Through Enhanced Managerial Accounting
Systems, Allen White, Tellus Institute, 2003.
• Stuart, Candace. 2006. California, Massachusetts Show Healthy Mix. Cleantech capital alert.
www.cleantech.com/documents/CleantechCapitalAlert_20060726.pdf
• Cleantech Venture Investing: Patterns and Performance, Nicholas Parker, Diana proper de Callejon,
March, 2005
Sustainable Design
• Centre for Sustainable Design, UK, www.cfsd.org.uk
• GreenBlue: related to McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry, http://www.greenblue.org/
Sustainable Business
• Harvard University ‘Turning the Ship’ dialogues, http://www.turningtheship.com/
• Greening Your Products: Good for the Environment, Good for Your Bottom Line, report to the U.S.
EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Tellus Institute, 2002.
Green Building Materials
• The Costs and Benefits of Green Affordable Housing, New Ecology Inc. and Tellus Institute, September
2005
• Green Roundtable: www.greenroundtable.org
• Green Building Products: Positioning Southwestern Pennsylvania as the U.S. Manufacturing Center.
2006. Green Building Alliance. www.gbapgh.org/GreenBuildingProducts.pdf
• Leading by Example: An Action Plan for Green Buildings in Massachusetts State Construction Projects.
2006. Final Report of the Massachusetts Sustainable Design Roundtable.
http://www.mass.gov/cam/dlforms/Sustainable_Design_RoundtableRpt_2006.pdf
Health Impacts
• Costs of Preventable Childhood Illness: The Price We Pay for Pollution, Rachel Massey, MSc, MPA
and Frank Ackerman, PhD September, 2003, Tufts University,
ase.tufts.edu/gdae/publications/articles_reports/Childhood_Illness.PDF
• Dr. Phil Landrigan of Mount Sinai Medical School in New York, on the national costs of childhood
diseases attributable to contaminants (see http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/110p721728landrigan/EHP110p721PDF.PDF, published in Environmental Health Perspectives in 2002)
• Kate Davies, Antioch University, Seattle, “Economic Costs of Diseases and Disabilities Attributable
to Environmental Contaminants in Washington State,” www.iceh.org