Dear Bill Gates,

Merry Christmas and here’s hoping you have many more.

I just finished reading your interview with James Bennett in The Atlantic. Pretty lofty comments and at times a bit casual (and cavalier), at least that was my take.  To be fair, I agree with most everything you said, but your approach and solution to reduced CO2 seemed almost simplistic. I have found that it is not. The power of first world countries versus second world economies, political environmentalists, left and right, globally, proven technology versus unproven, and most assuredly, the investment environment of fossil versus renewable, make it extremely difficult. No, it is not simple, unless you ascribe to the thinking of Calvin and Hobbes. Calvin’s answer is, “We’re the problem!”

Fortunately, you’re in a position to say and do anything you want.  And, you do, and thank goodness you and your wife are using your resources in a positive way.  Amen.

But, I have a Christmas wish. I now realize I won’t make it on my own. I need a champion like you, who realizes we have a global need and challenge to reduce CO2. I need Santa Claus, aka, Bill Gates. I need $10 million to complete my project.

Let me explain…
In the late 60’s, I went from the fiberglass industry to the recycling industry. In the mid 70’s I started our company which eventually became a leader in “the recycling of non-recyclables.” Part of the solution was putting non-recyclables into “renewable” energy applications.  I began to focus on this solution as a very viable part of our business model.  Those materials that couldn’t be reprocessed for reuse went into energy. It fascinated me. All those materials that had been created to be impervious to water and warmth and cold and sun would have a useful end of life by becoming feedstock for energy, renewable energy.  What a great story, right?  Well, to be honest, this part of our business has never been successful. I made some mistakes, took some wrong turns, chased some wrong partners, and so on. In the process, I blew a lot of money. I think I lost sight of reality – the fact that America doesn’t even have an energy policy, much less a renewable energy policy. If oil is cheap, we move to oil. If gas is cheap, we move to gas. The hell with what manufacturing these feedstocks does to the environment. Move over baby, I’ve got cheap energy – and that means profiit!

I didn’t think about any of that. I was on a trip to save our industry, to make an incredibly complex supply chain friendly, to make it more sustainable with renewable energy as the solution. And, I really did this (altruistically) to improve our industry. Sure, I wanted to make money in the process, but I wanted our industry to change more than anything else. If it was, and is, to be competitive, we must have renewable adhesive technologies.  We must utilize compostable adhesives.  We must recycle silicone-coated liner. And, above all, we must divert non-recyclable manufacturing byproduct into renewable energy.

I am convinced that all I need is a $10 million Christmas gift from you for the final push.  Yup, we’re that close.  That cash will bring us to success. Let me tell you the story. I’ll try to be brief and keep sarcasm and cynicism to a minimum. First, you need to understand the industry that generates these materials: Major corporations – household names to you – generate non-recyclable materials in huge volume all over America, indeed, all over the world.  These materials include:

Coated Mill Wrappers
Plastic Coated Cups
Poly Coated Cups
Pressure Sensitive Labelstock
Coated Tube & Core Stock
Waxed Cup Cuttings
Poly Laminated Scrap & Cuttings
Book/Binding Waste
Waxed Corrugated & Cuttings
Poly Coated Diaper Stock
Wet Strength Scrap & Cuttings
Poly Coated Slab Scrap
Carbon Forms
Most Nonwovens
Paper Based Flexible Packaging Waste
Film, Foil, Poly-Laminated, Flexible Packaging Waste

These materials are coated, treated, and laminated papers and films that are not recyclable. Examples include a pressure sensitive label that has a non-recyclable adhesive that may go on a cosmetic container or a beverage bottle. The volumes are huge. Just think about it, and also think about what the traditional PSA label does to the recycling process. It ain’t pretty! Another example of a non-recyclable is a flexible packaging substrate, a multi-layered material like a candy bar wrapper or something you may buy in the grocery store for food packaging. Let me know if you want me to send some physical examples.  Another example you’ll recognize immediately is Scotch Tape. We all use this daily. But, what we forget is that it’s not very friendly. It’s not recyclable. It’s a piece of film with some glue (remember that as you wrap your family Christmas presents. In my case, I’ll take the $10 million by wire. No byproduct issues.)

I trust you get the picture. The point I’m trying to make is that as good as these materials are for our well-being and efficiency and cost, if they generate CO2, they’re a problem. They create the very thing that you discuss in The Atlantic interview and interfere with achieving “our” energy miracle. I’m with you!

Here’s what I’d do with that $10 million: I would finish my development project, using non-recyclables to create renewable energy and in this process reduce CO2 substantially.

Every manufacturer of non-recyclables, every customer downstream of non-recyclables, currently has the cost of transporting these materials to landfills or incineration. My solution doesn’t eliminate that cost, it merely changes the destination of a non-recyclable from a landfill to a useful renewable application. At the present time, this doesn’t make too much sense in the US because we have so much cheap fossil fuel (and cheap landfills for that matter). Europe is so far ahead of us with legislation that it probably works there (note the article in The Wall Street Journal on energy feedstocks in the October 19 issue).  The difference between the German view and my concept is that my idea is “renewable,” theirs is not.

Let me cut to the chase: after you have the feedstocks, they need to be processed into a fuel pellet.  Note in the illustration below they are quite small.  The ingredients in the pellet mentioned above are metered together in a “recipe” in large volumes.  There is a science to this and certainly the materials are evaluated on a regular basis.  This is to make sure there are no organics (these go to composting) or chlorinated materials which would cause unacceptable emissions.  After the pellet has been manufactured it is sent to “gasification” and a syngas is created that is every bit as intense and clean as natural gas. The finished gas has equal caloric value but obviously is not fossil, but renewable. Voila! Non-recyclables to pellets to gas. Sounds pretty simple, right?

Sorry, not right. Every step is a legislative nightmare.  There are no tax incentives, no lobby support in Washington, and as has been my situation, I find myself trying to get from second base to third without the resources.  We’ve made pellets successfully.  We have gasified those pellets successfully. We have a determination by specific authorities here and in Europe that our feedstocks are considered “non” waste which is imperative in qualifying the energy as renewable. We have all of that, but what we don’t have is the cash to bring the pieces together, creating an entity that makes sense for everyone. I believe my project will help you realize your manifesto of reducing CO2.

I know solar and wind make sense in achieving your goal. But I promise you, taking non-recyclables and converting them into renewable energy harnesses a problem and creates another viable renewable.

We have a common goal, reduce greenhouse gas. I pray the meeting in Paris will bring more than past meetings. Regardless, I want action now. I don’t want another Paris. I don’t want venture capital money.  Those guys are like vultures and to be honest, they don’t know anything. They take, they don’t give. My wish for this Christmas is for Bill Gates to say, “Hey, this is interesting, give me specific details.”  Now wouldn’t that be fun? And, a very merry Christmas, indeed.

P.S.  As Mark Shapiro says in a very interesting, short column in the November/December issue of Mother Jones, the oil industry is “over a barrel.”  While oil is going to be here for a long while “the barrel it is over is increasingly hard to ignore.”  The price of oil versus the cost to find and manufacture. Go renewables! And, Merry Christmas to all.

Another 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 [email protected].