Many of you may remember a quote from Neil Armstrong, the first person to walk on the moon: “We seek to understand where we have been…to know where we are going.”  I was reminded of this when reading Debbie Oliver’s (current president of the Garden Club of America) introductory column in the Fall 2021 issue of The Bulletin. I think it’s a fitting way to begin our quest for a better, more sustainable industry and wiser environment here in the beginning of 2022.

And, what better way than to start with the flavor of the month, COP26, which was just completed in Glasgow, Scotland in November. Much was said, commitments made, and climatologists and politicians all had their day in court. I’ll give you a brief summary and my opinion shortly.

But first, a mea culpa for an error in an earlier column. I referred to Richard Rohr, Father Richard, or as I call him, RR, as a Jesuit. To be honest, I think I had my mind on Gerard Manley Hopkins, who was a Jesuit and didn’t quite make the distinction with Father Richard, who is a Franciscan. Just out of curiosity, I did look up the two – Jesuit and Franciscan. Franciscans follow the order of Saint Frances of Assisi. They have pledged a life of austerity and poverty and follow the life and ministry of Jesus.  The order was founded in Rome in the 1200s. Jesuits are members of the Society of Jesus, and their order was started by St. Ignatius Loyola and several others in 1534 and are focused on missionary work, along with thought and education in the Catholic Church. Pretty interesting, actually, if you’re into church history. 

Nevertheless, apologies to all, to Father Richard, of course, and particularly to all our Franciscan readers.

Now, on to COP26!
COP26 was the 2021 United Nations climate change conference. For almost 30 years, the United Nations has brought together almost every country on earth for global climate summits called COPs. COP stands for Conference of the Parties. I look at it this way: when the United Nations started to discuss climate change, there was a modest following. Look at it today. The analogy, of course, is sustainability: years ago a fringe group, almost considered radicals, started the sustainability movement. Look at it today! The most recent climate change meeting, in November 2021, was the 26th annual summit, hence the name COP26. The UK served as president. Prior to the actual meeting the UK worked with every participating nation trying to reach agreements before the actual meeting on how to tackle climate change. Really, their effort was to create compromise for thousands of delegates meeting for almost two weeks on a variety of climate change issues.

COP26 was a follow-up to COP21 in Paris.  Paris marked the first time when all nations reached a unanimous decision: “Every country agreed to work together to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, and aim for 1.5 degrees Celsius, to adapt to the impacts of a changing climate and to make money available to deliver on these aims.” 

The Paris Agreement or Accord was born.  (Remember, Trump was in power during the Paris meetings and he refused to be part of the global community.  It was only in 2021 that President Biden agreed to join the Paris Agreement, almost five years after the original agreement. Fortunately, many of our individual states recognized the importance of commitment to reduce emissions and didn’t wait for a potential change in leadership in Washington. These states moved forward on their own. I see the same activity with EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) legislation, but that’s for a future column. 

Under the Paris Agreement, countries committed to develop national plans setting out how much they would reduce their emissions. These commitments are called Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs. And, all countries agreed to share their plans every five years, and in this case, in Glasgow, at COP26.

The Glasgow Conference was intended to be the moment of truth:  what had been achieved by member countries to limit global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

So as momentous as Paris was, Glasgow was even more important in achieving change by 2030. Specifically, COP26 laid out the following goals:

1) Secure global net zero by mid-century and keep 1.5 degrees within reach. Countries were asked to identify reduction targets by 2030 and to achieve these goals the world needs to:

• Accelerate the phase-out of coal
• Curtail deforestation
• Switch to electric vehicles
• Encourage investment in renewables

2) Adapt to protect communities and natural habitats

• Protect and restore ecosystems
• Create defenses, working systems and resilient infrastructures and agriculture to avoid loss of homes, livelihoods and even lives

3) Mobilize finance

• International financial institutions must play a part in “unleashing the trillions in private and public sector finance required to secure global net zero”

4) Work together to deliver

• We must work together to affect climate change

COP26 was, above all, the meeting place to finalize the actions and specific requirements of the Paris Accord. It provided a vehicle “to accelerate action to tackle the climate crisis through collaboration between governments, businesses, and civil society.”Just imagine being part of a discussion on a major issue like climate change with almost 200 other diverse, cultural and political entities. Think about it: large and small geographies, developing and developed economies, the haves and have nots, and so on. How in the world could COP26 finish with any kind of success? The answer, of course, is a mixture of success and failure. Here’s a scorecard of both:

• For the first time ever, COP26 mentioned the role of fossil fuels
• Agreement was reached that called for “phasing out coal and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies (hmmm, the cynic in me wonders about this!)
• Agreement to come to COP27 in Egypt next year with an updated plan on how to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 (the Paris Accord had agreed to update plans by 2030. Glasgow accelerated this to 2025).
• More discussion on financial obligations by “rich” countries to finance $100 billion a year to developing countries to help reach low-carbon status. This was a Paris Accord commitment that has never been achieved. At Glasgow, it was agreed to double the financial commitment, which is commendable, of course, but the $100 billion, and now $200 billion, is way off track.  As Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, said, “It is inexcusable that developed countries failed to meet their commitment to deliver $100 billion annually, starting in 2020, even as they provide hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies for fossil fuels!”

Obviously, there were hundreds of other iterations, actions and motions. Suffice it to say, there was good news and bad news. We can argue the pros and cons of Glasgow. The bottom line, from my point of view, is an agreement to continue to meet and work for actions that will mitigate carbon emissions. It is my fervent wish that our industry plays its part in the same process with ongoing focus on waste reduction and the use of cleaner and more forgiving ingredients. For example, soy-based adhesives that are natural based, not fossil based.  You’ll read more about this during 2022.

My next column will review environmental achievements in 2021 and challenges for continuing improvement in 2022. What does our industry need to do to make a positive contribution to reducing emission as laid out by COP26? How can we do our part? In March,

I will discuss the incongruity of the language and rules as outlined in Paris and Glasgow that allow for troublesome feedstocks for solid
fuel boilers.


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].