Pure and Applied Chemistry

Pure Appl. Chem., 2011, Vol. 83, No. 7, pp. 1351-1360

http://dx.doi.org/10.1351/PAC-CON-10-10-03

Published online 2011-06-10

We need to talk: The case for a multidisciplinary approach to designing green policy

References

• 1. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review 2009, Report No. DOE/EIA-0384(2009), E 3.1/2:2009, 325 (2010), available at <http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS62045>.
• 2. The average is CAFE, which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation defines as follows: “Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is the sales weighted average fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer’s fleet of passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lbs. or less, manufactured for sale in the United States, for any given model year. Fuel economy is defined as the average mileage traveled by an automobile per gallon of gasoline (or equivalent amount of other fuel) consumed as measured in accordance with the testing and evaluation protocol set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).”.
• 3. From the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Domestic Passenger Car Fleet Average Characteristics available at <http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/CAFE/ HistoricalCarFleet.htm>.
• 4. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Automotive Fuel Economy Program/Annual Update Calendar Year 2004, DOT HS 809 512, p. 22 (2004), available at <http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Vehicle%20Safety/CAFE/2004_Fuel_ Economy_Program.pdf>.
• 5. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Information Management. Highway Statistics Summary to 1995 2 (2003), available at <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/summary95/mv200.pdf>.
• 6. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, U.S. Department of Transportation. Traffic Safety Facts 2008: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System 15 (2008) available at <http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811170.pdf>. Note that while both FHA and NHTSA are part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the two data sets for vehicle registrations do not appear to have employed identical methodology. Where there are data for identical years, the FHA numbers are slightly less than the corresponding NHTSA numbers.
• 7. W. S. Jevons. The Coal Question—An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal-Mines, MacMillan, London (1866).
• 8. J. Rubin. Why Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller, p. 87, Random House Canada, Toronto (2009).
• 9. L. G. Brookes. Atom 269, 73 (1979).
• 10. J. D. Khazzoom. Energy J. 1, 21 (1980).
• 11. J. Bartlett. Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, 17^th ed., p. 651, Little, Brown, New York (2002).
• 12. Morris v. Bramson, 1 Hayward’s P.C. 181 (K.B.); G 311; 1 CPC 30; 1 WPC 50; Bull NP 76 (1776) was the first case which held that an improvement to a prior invention was itself capable of patent protection. It appears that this change came as the result of a letter from the jury to Lord Mansfield in the course of the trial 1 CPC 34 – 1 Hayward’s P.C. 187 “Lord Mansfield in summing up the case to the jury, stated, that he had received a letter from one of the jury, which he had mentioned to all the Judges, to the effect that if the objection to the patent on the grounds of the invention being only an addition to an old machine were to prevail, that objection would go to repeal almost every patent that was ever granted.” This view of the law was accepted as correct in the subsequent litigation over James Watt’s external condenser patent – Boulton and Watt v. Bull, 1 Hayward’s P.C. 369 (C.P.); (1796) 1 Hayward’s P.C. 395 (LC) (1795) and Hornblower v. Boulton and Watt, 1 Hayward’s P.C. 397 (KB) (1799). The Watt cases made clear that the monopoly extended only to the improvement, and not to the whole machine.
• 13. J. C. McCormac. Structural Steel Design, 4^th ed., p. 6, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey (2008).
• 14. “The Bessemer Process: The Production of Cheap Steel in America”, The New York Times (9 August 1868) available at <http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res= 9C05E3DD1330EE34BC4153DFBE668383679FDE>.
• 15. U. Wengenroth. Enterprise and Technology: The German and British Steel Industries 1865-1895, p. 18, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1994).
• 16. T. H. Flood. The Chautauquan: A Monthly Magazine Devoted to the Promotion of True Culture Organ of the Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle Volume IX AT.T.L., p. 90, Flood Publishing House, Washington, DC (1911).
• 17. See, for example, a 22 June 2010 speech by Malcolm Turnbull, the Federal Member for Wentworth in Australia’s Parliament. He was the Minister for Environment and Water Resources in the previous Liberal government. He also mentions consideration by Britain’s House of Lords of the work of Brookes and Khazzoom. Disappointingly, he refers to reducing emissions intensity, which appears to be a throwback to the “answer to pollution is dilution” thinking prior to the 1980s available at <http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr220610.pdf>.
• 18. H. D. Saunders. Energy J. 13, 131 (1992).
• 19. U.S. Government Accountability Office, GA 1.13:GAO-09-656 at p. 6 and footnote 25 at p. 23 (2009), available at <http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS118425>.
• 20. R. Scheifler, R. C. Schwartz, G. Echevarria, A. de Vaufleury, P. M. Badot, J. L. Morel. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37, 81 (2003). (http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es025677w)
• 21. The Damage by Fumes Arbitration Act, 1921 S.O., c. 85 (1921). The Act was amended from time to time until its repeal in 1970 – S.O., c.103 (1970). The statute provided that where damage had been occasioned by sulfur fumes to crops, trees, or other vegetation directly or indirectly, such damage may be determined by the arbitrator so appointed, who shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the amount of such damage and to make an award. The statute further provided that the remedies provided for in the Act were in lieu of all other remedies, and actions, including actions for an injunction, were prohibited. Actions pending at the time the statute came into force were stayed. There was no appeal provided and judicial review of the arbitrator’s decisions was prohibited. Thus, any landowner adversely affected by sulfur fumes from industrial activity was required to suffer the result, and was limited to whatever award the arbitrator might make for damage to vegetation on the property.
• 22. G. D. Senior, W. J. Trahar, L. K. Smith, P. J. Guy. CA Patent 2116322, Filed 25 August 1992, Issued 18 March 1993.
• 23. B. H. Morrison. CA Patent 1091035, Filed 03 May 1977, Issued 09 December 1980. “Slimes from electrolytic copper refinery are first treated by leaching them with dilute sulphuric acid under an oxygen partial pressure of up to 50 psi and an elevated temperature, until copper and tellurium present in the slimes are substantially dissolved, and effecting a liquid-solid separation of the leached slurry so produced to separate the leach liquor from the leach slimes. The leach liquor is then treated with metallic copper to cement the tellurium as copper telluride. The latter is separated from the remaining solution which is suitable for the production of copper sulphate. The leach slimes containing mainly selenium, lead, silver, gold and other impurities are dried, mixed with a binder and pelletized and the pellets are then roasted to remove selenium as selenium dioxide. (The patent notes that an adequate flue system for removing about 300 pounds of Se0₂ per hour was employed in the example described—see page 8, lines 23–27.) Finally, the roasted pellets are smelted to remove the remaining impurities (the patent does not say what became of them) leaving a doré metal containing essentially silver and gold.”.
• 24. K. Laudrum. Canadian Plant (September 2008).
• 25. City of Kingston, Ontario, Report to Council, Report No. 07-025 at 19 (2007), available at <http://www.cityofkingston.ca/pdf/council/agenda/2007/A06_Rpt14.pdf>.
• 26. K. Sanderson. Nature 444, 673 (2006). (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/444673a)
• 27. A description of the system, and access to the collected data available at <http://www.ec.gc.ca/inrp-npri/default.asp?lang=en>.
• 28. Environment Canada web site: <http://www.ec.gc.ca/inrp-npri/default.asp?lang=En&n= EEA9E6B0-1#ghg>.
• 29. ref. [10], p. 169.
• 30. The early 20^th century English barrister F. E. Smith had a quick but often cruel wit. He was arguing a complex case when the judge interrupted: “I have listened to you for an hour, and I’m none the wiser.” He responded: “None the wiser, perhaps, my lord. But certainly better informed.” E. C. Gerhart. Quote it Completely, p. 224, William S. Hein, Buffalo, NY (1998).