Good morning, Albert. How is your week going?”

“Not good, Calvin, not good.”

“Oh, my goodness, what’s happening?”

“No one understands me. No one understands my disagreement with the theory of quantum mathematics. No one understands my theory of relativity or my equation E=MC2 and so many of my other ideas and theories. It depresses me because I know I can help to improve humanity’s understanding of why and how.”

“But, Albert, I have the same problem.”

“You, Calvin? Come on!”

“No, seriously. I work so hard to explain – to articulate – but no one listens. In my case, they understand, but they don’t listen. They just don’t do anything.”

“Calvin, like me, you can’t stop trying.  Stay the course and eventually, maybe years from now, your ideas and theories may gain acceptance.”

As you can imagine, this conversation took place some time ago. But it’s a great way to let you know that my basic themes of change, the drive to move sustainable packaging and all the initiatives that help us improve best practices, will continue over the next 12 months.

To be fair, I believe I am finally seeing and hearing more and more that “maybe we should consider this.”  That’s the first step. On the other hand, I am too often aware of green wash, and this is very frustrating. For example, a large company may make a change in one part of their system, where it is relatively easy and inexpensive, and not in other areas. Or, in one facility but not throughout their corporate footprint. Indeed, the basic problem of priority is present: cost to change vs. bottom line profitability.

The pressure sensitive adhesive supply chain has an enormous problem, which is only made worse because it is a relatively mature industry, started long before non-recyclability or by-product diversion were even considered. The converter and the packaging industries that use these non-recyclable materials have the same problem: industries that are mature require substantial capital investment to become more friendly, more sustainable.

In Europe, there is no choice: do it or pay an enormous penalty. In the US, there is a choice: spend the money to use friendlier materials that are still more expensive because we don’t have scale and/or install packaging equipment for by-product diversion or continue on the same path of carelessness.

The choice is yours!
This leads me to the theme of this column: climate change and what causes climate change.

In my last column I touched on an interview that Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes had with James Hansen, who had worked for years at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.  The interview focused on a study Hansen had done in 1988 on carbon and climate that predicted temperatures to the year of 2020. Hansen responded to Pelley’s questions of accuracy, saying, “Yeah, we’re seeing exactly what we expected.  But I expected that governments would be wise enough that they would begin to adopt policies to preserve the future for young people. But they haven’t done that yet.”

During the 60 Minutes interview on climate change, Pelley interviews fire fighters in Northern California, a variety of climatologists, along with Wade Crowfoot, head of California’s Natural Resource Agency. Crowfoot became somewhat famous for telling Donald Trump he was wrong in his belief that there is no scientific proof of climate change. Trump had said, “I don’t think science knows, actually.” Crowfoot responded, “With all due respect, you’re wrong and are on the wrong side of history.” 

Not only did Pelley interview Hansen, but he also talked with Michael Mann, a geophysicist who is the director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State. Mann responded to a Pelley question with, “People ask, are we dealing with a new normal? And the sobering answer is: that’s the best-case scenario. A new normal is the best-case scenario ‘cause that sorta means, well, we’ve got a new situation and we just have to learn how to deal with it. But it’s much worse than that. So, there are surprises in store and we’re seeing some of those surprises play out now.”

I believe all of you will acknowledge that this age of man, the Anthropocene epoch, has brought change, much good, to be sure. But along with the good has been an unwillingness to deal with the bad. Plastics are good, for example. But, we also know that plastics cause pollution that ultimately causes climate change. We need tons of energy, particularly with a population of 7.5 billion. But we need clean energy, which costs more than fossil energy, which generates CO2, which causes climate change. We have an absolute conundrum. If anything, then, we’re in the age of the conundrum.

The solution to climate change, without a doubt in my mind, is financial penalty. Stop emitting CO2 or pay a tax. And, the more you emit, the more you pay. 

As Hansen and Mann say, the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement “are wishful thinking agreements. Everyone, every country, wants to do better. But that won’t work. What we need is to have an increasing price on fossil fuels and do it in a way that the public will accept.” 

I agree, and am reminded of my mentor Lester Brown’s theory of eco-economy. Have the tobacco industry pay for the cost of health care caused by smoking! Why not have the emitters of CO2 pay for the problems caused by climate change? This would mean utilities, automobile manufacturers, and any industry associated with carbon dioxide emissions would pay a “climate change” tax. 

What about the packaging industry being held accountable for non-recyclable by-product that is landfilled and generates methane gas, 20 times more toxic than CO2? The list goes on and the beat has a common theme: you are responsible for what you make and what you throw away. This idea, EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility), isn’t new, and later this year I will devote a column to the topic.

In the meantime, I’d like to conclude by sharing some insights from a wonderful article by Elizabeth Kolbert on the demise of insects that appeared in the May 2020 issue of National Geographic. It is titled, “Where Have All the Insects Gone?” Kolbert contends that bugs are disappearing at alarming rates and this could be disastrous for the planet. 

You’re probably thinking, has he gone mad? First Einstein, then climate change, and now bugs. Is he serious? I am totally serious. The connection: loss of bugs means reduced pollination, reduced seed dispersal and reduced decomposition. Bugs – insects – are crucial to our life cycle. As they disappear so also does the natural cycle of life, of nature.  While Kolbert’s article looks at the decline of insects globally, she was particularly concerned with cause. She met with David Wagner, an entomologist at the University of Connecticut, and asked what he thought was driving the decline. On some level, he said, the answer is obvious: “We’d expect things to be declining with seven billion people on the planet.”

In the process of feeding, clothing, housing, and transporting themselves, people are altering the planet in fundamental ways – mowing down forests, plowing up grasslands, planting monocultures, pouring pollutants into the air. Every one of these is a stressor for insects and other animals. Populations of just about all animal groups are dropping.

“We know we are in a biodiversity crisis,” Wagner said.

My message to you as we begin 2021 is to look no further than our own backyard. Develop habits that prolong life and reduce climate change. Spend extra money to buy friendlier materials and install packaging equipment to reduce disposal. Require your vendors to produce their products by following best practices and sustainable manufacturing tenets. If everyone does their part, we can make a difference.

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].