As a chemical engineer and an environmentalist, I have always been curious about working in policy to effect change. This past year, I went on a journey to understand how chemical engineers can meaningfully engage in environmental policy. As part of this journey, I attended a federal policy bootcamp in Washington, DC, a state policy bootcamp in Sacramento, CA, and the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations at the United Nations (UN) in Geneva, Switzerland. This column reflects on these experiences and discusses how chemical engineers can get involved in policy.
Federal policy
The first stop on my policy journey was Washington, DC, in March 2025. Our bootcamp was centered around Capitol Hill, where congressional staff manage everything from drafting legislation to policy research. Some congressional staff are chemical engineers who work in Congress through science fellowships, becoming key technical knowledge sources for legislators. They interact with other congressional staff to create bipartisan solutions to pressing environmental challenges. They also field perspectives from STEM professionals in non-governmental organizations (NGOs), thinktanks, federal agencies, and even academics, to craft and revise a bill.
After experiencing “the Hill,” I recognized two main avenues for engaging in federal policy. The first avenue is more evident: working directly in DC, either in Congress as a legislative staffer, or with an NGO or federal agency to provide information to Congress. However, due to the current volatility around environmental issues, I felt disenchanted with pursuing a career directly in federal policy as a means of making an impact.
Fortunately, I recognized an alternative path: being a science advocate. In Congress, legislative staff urged us as scientists to reach out to them with our own ideas and priorities. This option allows chemical engineers to stay within their current career roles while also engaging in policy.
State policy
Comparatively, environmental policy in California inspires more optimism. Due to California’s strong economy (the fourth largest in the world), it has more freedom from federal actions compared to other states in this current administration. Although California is impacted by the withdrawal of federal funding, it persists in making environmental legislation to protect Californians.
One example is Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), California’s plastic recycling bill, which is undergoing revisions to improve implementation. In May, I attended an SB 54 public Advisory Board Meeting at the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). In the meeting, I felt I was truly able to have a voice and talk to people directly involved in the legislation. Board members from industry, CalRecycle, and nonprofits discussed details of the bill for six hours, editing text where necessary. After the session, I provided my own perspectives to board members and obtained contacts for further collaboration on SB 54. It was inspiring to see how my technical perspective was helpful in this space, and that many board members appreciated my expertise. This experience reinvigorated me to consider a career in policy.
International policy
Attending the Global Plastics Treaty in Geneva was a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Being at the UN inspired hope that this meeting might result in a groundbreaking treaty to reduce the proliferation of plastics in the environment. However, after the opening session, I realized that this would not be the case.
Instead of collaboration and harmony, there was a split between two groups: the “high-ambition countries” (HACs), who want a strong treaty that stops plastic production at the source with mandatory provisions; and the “like-minded countries” (LMCs), who want a weaker treaty with voluntary provisions that focus on plastic waste management. Although the HAC members outnumber the LMC members, the treaty text must be agreed upon by all countries in attendance, causing agonizing gridlock. Over the following eleven days, only minimal progress was made.
As a result of funding cuts by the U.S., there was increased pressure to have the treaty finalized in that session. Further, the U.S.’s position had shifted dramatically from the last session, where instead of supporting a reduction of plastic production, the delegates called for no bans on production, reflecting how U.S. involvement in international policy has changed.
Final thoughts on ChE policy engagement
Based on my experiences, I believe there is a huge need for more chemical engineers to provide perspectives and technical expertise in policy spaces. Regardless of career stage, I encourage chemical engineers to engage in policy issues that they’re passionate about. Here are a few ways ChEs can engage in policy, even if not on Capitol Hill:
- Attend public hearings for issues you care about within local and state government.
- Submit public comments to federal agencies on proposed regulations.
- Reach out to a congressional staffer from your state and offer your own thoughts on an issue that is important to you. Policymakers are hungry for the views of scientists.
- Review the AIChE Public Affairs and Information Committee (PAIC) toolkit for individual advocacy: https://tinyurl.com/AIChE-PAIC.
This article originally appeared in the ChE in Context column in the November 2025 issue of CEP. Members have access online to complete issues, including a vast, searchable archive of back-issues found at www.aiche.org/cep.
