Last month, I wrote about the inevitability of sustainability conflicting with politics. I gave several examples and finished by commenting on a move by the current administration to suspend environmental reviews to help “jump-start” the economy. I mentioned a methane study by the Environmental Defense Fund (EFD) in New Mexico and the Northeastern part of Texas, the Persian Region, where over 100,000 oil and gas walls potentially leak out methane caused by loose fittings and/or faulty equipment. EDF found leaks, and the conclusion of the study was a toxic hurricane contributing to climate change. I wrote, “We’re at war.”

But that’s not the only war. There’s more. And it’s my belief we need to do something about it. Let me explain. 

Scientists estimate we have dumped upwards of more than 500 billion – that’s right, billion – tons of carbon into the atmosphere over the last 150 years. It would seem to me if this is reasonably accurate, no wonder our global temperature has risen. Whether it’s one degree Celsius, or two, is a debate. But it’s almost academic.  The point is the increase in global temperature has caused more extreme weather such as hurricanes, fires, flooding, not to mention infectious disease. 

One of the solutions to slow climate change has been to focus on clean energy, non-fossil energy like wind and solar. However, Bloomberg Energy estimates that by 2050, those two, along with nuclear, will only be able to supply half of global energy demand. And, note, it is far easier to substitute clean energy in mature economies than in underdeveloped countries, an obvious conundrum to making changes globally. 

In conclusion, the bad news from the Bloomberg study says we’re only going to get halfway to meeting our global clean energy goals. Therefore, the only solution is to reduce energy demand/consumption. Frankly, I don’t think this is realistic. Do you? 

If fossil energy is a chief culprit to causing climate change and we can only reduce demand by a half by 2050, what is the answer? It is government intervention with mandates that reduce fossil usage. Of course, we in America don’t want government intervention. Even Europe is reluctant to let their government mandate fossil fuel usage. The dilemma is people in the Western Hemisphere don’t want to reduce energy usage. Pollsters have asked “would you reduce usage” and/or “would you pay an energy tax of $10-50 per month.” The answers to these and other questions about energy, were a resounding “no.”  The conundrum again.

People want to be sustainable but won’t spend the money to make changes in their business or lifestyle. Leigh Phillips says, “Households need clean energy to be cheaper than fossil fuel, not fossil fuels to be more expensive than clean energy.” 

As further testimony to the conundrum, I have found in my efforts to eliminate non-recyclables from the waste stream to be very difficult. Again and again I hear, “Oh, I want to be green, I want to be sustainable, but not if it’s going to cost more money. Our company can’t afford to do that.” 

What these folks don’t realize is at some point they will have to make the changes to comply with regulation, and trust me, it will be at far greater cost. We’re at war.

The results of the research by the pollsters were absolutely correct. People will not, in general – as there is always the anomaly – make the kind of sacrifices that are necessary to fight climate change. As Kevin Drum points out in his article, “In it to Win,” in the January-February 2020 issue of Mother Jones, people “can’t find the collective will to stop” their current habits. They won’t change. “Over and over human civilizations have destroyed their environments because no one – no ruler, corporation or government – was willing to give up their piece of the pie.  “We have overfished, overgrazed, overforested, overmined, overpolluted and overconsumed. We have destroyed our lifeblood rather than make even modest changes to our lifestyles.”

And even if we could get the wealthy Western countries to accept serious change that’s not where the growth in greenhouse gas is happening. And this part is critical. It’s happening in China, in India and in Africa. As Drum notes:

“Most people in these countries have living standards that are a fraction of ours, and they justifiably ask why they should cut back on energy consumption and consign themselves to poverty while those of us in affluent countries – which caused most of the problems in the first place – are still driving SUVs and running air conditioners all summer.”

Don’t you see, this is the conundrum that we face when we try to address global climate change issues. Again, Kevin Drum makes a valid point:

“Clearly the West is not going to collectively agree to live like Chinese farmers.  Just as clearly, Chinese farmers aren’t willing to keep living in shacks while we sit around watching football on 60" TV screens in our climate-controlled houses as we lecture them about climate change.”

Just as Blomberg Energy said earlier that wind and solar energy will only get us halfway to “clean energy,” I also believe that even if we had an American government commitment that would help us achieve US goals, it still is not enough. Climate change is global and therefore solutions must be global. We are at war and the war is not just in the West, it is a global war. So, what do we do?

First, we must figure out how to produce more clean energy that is cheaper than fossil fuel. We are not going to win the war by asking people to do things they don’t like to do such as walk, reduce energy consumption, eat more friendly agrarian products that require less energy and water. People don’t like to do these “healthy” things. What people do like to do is spend money, and Drum believes this is the way to cheaper renewable energy success. Drum says develop a program that attacks climate change while still allowing people to use lots of energy.

Let me leave you with one more thought. The International Energy Fund spends about $22 billion a year on clean energy innovation. The US share of that is $7 billion. That’s about 0.03% of our economy. (Trump, by the way, proposed cutting that in half.)

If you agree with me that climate change is one of our most pressing global issues, that financial commitment is totally unacceptable. We’re talking about the future of our planet, our very existence and someone wants to reduce R&D spending on renewable energy! Are you serious? As a comparison, during WWII, America spent 30% of its economy on the war effort. The result: we won the war.

In my next column, War – Part III, I will specifically detail how more money spent on developing renewable energy technologies will enable us to win the war against climate change. The analogy to our business should be obvious. If we don’t correct, improve and focus on eliminating our by-product, our industry is at risk. 

We have the technology; we have the solutions. The conundrum is no one is willing to make the commitment to change. So, the waste is landfilled and it adds to the methane and CO2 that creates greenhouse gas that effects climate change.

Yes, we are at war, here in our own plants as well as our global environment. Stay tuned for War – Part III, which will describe the steps we need to take to reduce climate change and reduce waste to landfill in our industry.

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
cfrost@channeledresources.com.