Letters from the Earth has been around for over 20 years. My first column was written in 2003 at the suggestion of then editor, Jack Kenny. I’m now into my third editor, and I worry that the content of the columns has caused issues with the publisher. There is a tone of irreverence, drawing not just on industry, and industry pitfalls, but on geo-politics, environmental ills, and, of all things, religious sources. Those sources frequently gave me starting points for our industry’s environmental issues.   

There were certainly plenty 25 years ago, and there are still plenty today. I will acknowledge that our industry has made strides toward environmental change and improvement. This gives me optimism and hope for continuing focus on the same in the future. I am very fond of Richard Rohr’s Center for Action and Contemplation. His daily meditations are illuminating. One of his colleagues, Brian McLaren, is particularly interesting because he writes about balance and harmony, which I believe is important not only in our industry but in all walks of life. My purpose, my objective, has always been to try to use these references of stories and information to draw analogies to situations in our industry (without bio-chemistry we lose balance, hence without a hybrid approach we lose opportunity). In other words, how do we improve? How do we change? Is profit more important than carbon footprint?  

Sometimes I have wandered a bit, or stretched a point too long. I will admit this. But always my objective has been to make us a better industry. I have focused on sustainability and the need for our industry to make changes that reduce waste. This has been my mantra for all these years. And, one other: the conflict between making money and doing the right thing, which most times costs money and reduces profit. This last thought is huge: profit versus spending money to add capability to eliminate waste to landfill or incineration.

Interestingly, the brand owner looks at us as a means to an end. That label better sell more product. My own thinking is while the label is a tiny bit of the cost, it has the biggest carbon footprint because of the high percentage of waste. Stan Avery wouldn’t have tolerated that. Today, he wouldn’t be associated with an industry that generates such large volumes of by-product. Stan was around in the late 30s, early 40s and certainly when WWII ended, which is a good segue to my next thought: political, of course.

In September of this year, the United Nations met for its 80th anniversary. Secretary General Antonio Guterres opened the meeting and reminded everyone of the reason for the formation of the United Nations. The UN was created to prevent another war like WWII. To establish “cooperation over chaos, law over lawlessness, peace over conflict.” (Does this sound familiar: Democracy
over authoritarianism).

Guterres continued, warning of reckless disruption and consumption, “when the principles of the United Nations . . . are under siege. Will we choose a world of raw power – or a world of laws? A world that is a scramble for self-interest – or a world where nations come together? A world where might makes right – or a world of rights for all?”

Guterres continued, urging member states to choose “peace rooted in international law, human dignity, and human rights, climate justice, to put technology at the service of humanity, and to strengthen the United Nations for the 21st century.”

His remarks were brilliant. Here’s a man who wants to heal, to listen and to be conciliatory. This is what we need in our industry today if we want improvement, leaders who listen and
support cooperation.

Instead, our president began his address complaining that the teleprompter didn’t work and the escalator stopped when he and his wife stepped onto it. Later, both the issue with the teleprompter and the issue with the escalator were found to have been caused by his own staff. Trump’s speech went on to depict a fantasyland where he alone has saved the world, stopped eight wars, and created an environment that has never been cleaner. Need I say more?

In my view, Paul Engler has a much more realistic view when he says:

“Our Earth, once assumed infinite in its bounty, now groans under the weight of extractive systems that, for the first time in history, hit their limits of total expansion. Climate change is just the tip of the iceberg. We are entering the sixth mass extinction. Ecosystems are collapsing. The coral reefs are dying, the forests are being cut, and over the last 80 years half of bird, and over half of fish populations, have been wiped out. The canary in the coal mine is indeed dying. A third of the planet may soon experience drought annually. And still, the dominant culture accelerates forward – driven by a propaganda machine of individualism and consumerism.”

This view of our world is not fantasy. It speaks volumes about the need for our industry to do its part to improve, to reduce by-products that contribute to climate change, e.g., methane from landfills. While through the years I have been ambivalent about the China story, I can emphatically state that China has taken the lead in the transition to “clean” energy. See the chart on page 32.

This Bloomberg NEF data was on the front page of the September 22 issue of the The Wall Street Journal. And the WSJ  doesn’t lie, right? The antithesis of their efforts to develop clean energy is their unquenchable appetite for raw materials. Just recently (October 27) the WSJ reported a disastrous chemical spill that contaminated an entire village in an African town. This was a disaster for the community and our planet, and hence my ambivalence.

Bill Gates sent a message ahead of COP30, which started the week of November 3. He postured about measuring carbon but says our focus should be quality of life, food stability, and reliable “renewable” (my word) energy.  

“Our ultimate goal should be improving human welfare and making sure people everywhere live healthy and productive lives in a warming climate,” he said.

To be honest, right now our planet has maxed out its resources. We have too many people – many living in poverty. Climate change is the tip of the iceberg. Over-population is the tipping point. We must get control of unbridled population growth.

Part, surely only part, of the climate issue is the use of synthetics. Over the years I have written about this and many of you have responded with zealous arguments about the virtues of the different chemistries that we use in our industry. 

My argument hasn’t changed: if we create a synthetic, it must have an end of life that does not increase carbon. That’s the key. You don’t make it unless it provides a suitable end of life. Frankly, that’s the whole concept of EPR; make it so it is recyclable in the first place.

So, now we’ve reached the end of the trail.  

Whether it’s geo-politics, recycling, energy, industry commitment, or climate change, there is only one conclusion that will guide us forward, and that’s love. This isn’t the romantic in me. It’s just that I know to solve problems we have to do it together, and love is the instrument that touches all. Think about what you can do to make change that will leave less. Thank you Jack, Steve, and Greg. It’s been a good ride.

The Final Letter from the Earth

Calvin Frost is chairman of Channeled Resources Group, headquartered in Chicago, the parent company of Maratech International and GMC Coating. His email address is cfrost@channeledresources.com.