I’ve got oil on the brain these days. It’s all I see in headlines or the daily newsletters that get delivered to my inbox at oh-dark-hundred. It feels callous that most of the commentary I’ve seen on the Iranian airstrikes has been focused on oil – and not the tragic loss of life occurring on both sides. 

I understand the concern; however, with one-fifth of the world’s oil blockaded behind the Strait of Hormuz, we’re potentially facing “the worst disruption to energy supplies since the oil shocks of the 1970s.”

It’s rather ironic that the potential oil crisis is coming just a month after the Environmental Protection Agency repealed the scientific determination that gives the government the authority to combat climate change, otherwise known as the “endangerment finding.” 

The endangerment finding was arguably the biggest US governmental response to air pollutants since the Clean Air Act of 1970. The Clean Air Act required the government to regulate air pollutants that harm human health but stopped short of regulating greenhouse gases. In 2009, the Obama Administration signed the endangerment finding, stating that six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, “threaten the public health and welfare of current and
future generations.” 

These gases are released by the combustion of fossil fuels such as when a car engine burns gasoline or a power plant burns coal. Repealing the endangerment finding allows the EPA to roll back pollution limits on the oil, gas, and coal industries. It could also hinder future administrations from reinstating any climate rules, as the justification for addressing greenhouse gas emissions has been dismantled. 

The scientific basis for this repeal is…nonexistent. Let’s attempt to ignore our partisan biases and look at the facts. Our president insists that climate change is a “hoax,” and “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world,” despite 97% scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is happening. I present to you some comments: 

American Chemical Society: “Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities.”

American Geophysical Union: “Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alternative explanation supported by convincing evidence.”

US National Academy of Sciences:  “Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions.” 

I could use up my entire word count pasting comments from every single reputable scientific community stating that 1) climate change is real, and 2) it is caused by human activity. To argue otherwise would be willful ignorance. 

Yet, Americans are still skeptical about human-induced climate change. According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, 25% of Americans say humans are contributing “not too much” or “not at all” to climate change. Republicans are far less likely to see a human impact – the survey says 44% of Republicans don’t believe humans are contributing to climate change.

This skepticism has played out in recent energy policy and investment decisions. All federal emissions standards for cars from 2012 onward, including fuel economy standards, were repealed. The US ceased all contributions to the Green Climate Fund, which assists developing nations with climate adaptation. We’ve subsidized coal-fired power plants to the tune of $175 million, required new renewable energy projects on federal land to match the energy output per acre of fossil fuels, and accelerated the expiring of wind and solar tax credits while keeping incentives for “enhanced oil recovery” and carbon capture used for drilling. 

I realize this isn’t a political commentary column, but I find it impossible to ignore the, frankly, asinine approach to climate change our government is taking. It’s antithetical to science, common sense, and the benefit of the American people! 

Where does this leave us as an industry? We need to ignore the changing whims of whatever administration is in power and remain committed to the big picture. If we set stricter requirements for ourselves than the law requires, we build a “policy-proof” business. Where regulation can’t move the needle, capitalism can. 

To do this, we must consider: 

1. Are we tracking carbon emissions at our facilities? You can’t manage what you don’t measure.
2. Do you have a plan to tackle scopes 1, 2, and 3 emissions?
3. Where does your energy come from? How will you reduce reliance on fossil fuels? Is it time for solar or a power purchase agreement?
4. Are you transparent? Are your customers able to see the steps you’re taking to reduce emissions, or are you relying on vague promises? 

The government has abdicated its role as the protector of our climate. That’s a tragedy, but it’s also an opportunity for leaders to step forward. Because at the end of the day, the government can repeal a finding, but it cannot repeal the realities of a warming planet – nor can it stop a customer from choosing a competitor whose values (and carbon math) are better than yours.

Ginnie Gandy leads the Release Liner division at Channeled Resources Group. She is passionate about the release liner, label, and packaging industries. Ginnie is also the  chair of  TLMI’s Label Leaders of Tomorrow group and is a regular presenter at industry events.