As we move into the reign of Joe Biden, I have been struck by the time, energy and money that it will take to repair the damage caused by the Trump administration. It’s a little bit like dumping pressure sensitive waste into a landfill and creating methane gas, 20 times more potent than CO2 emissions. Think about it: the cost of undoing the Trump damage and/or the cost of dispersing methane gas generated by waste in a landfill.  The comparison is rather appropriate, isn’t it?

But, think about it – all the positive environmental changes that had occurred over the last 20 years were attacked in the last four. There wasn’t a month that went by without a legal maneuver by the Trump administration to reduce clean air, transport tar sand oil, change the Affordable Clean Air Rule, reduce wildlife refuges, and so on. Think about the cost by private organizations and environmental groups to challenge these attempts. It has been outrageously expensive. Where would we be today if our time and money had been used in a more positive way?

I wanted to take a few minutes to reflect on some of this activity.  What jumps out, more than anything, is the waste of time and money to defeat actions that would have harmed us all. Just think if we’d been able to focus on positive change. 

Here’s a scorecard of sorts, not in any order of importance:
• Fuel economy standards – the Trump administration worked to block the penalties that automobile manufacturers would face for violating new standards.  In a suit filed by a number of environmental groups, a federal court reinstated the penalties.  The reinstatement forces the automobile industry to invest in fuel efficiency.  Obviously, we all benefit.  Plus, fuel efficiency supports new, clean energy technology like batteries.

• Oil and gas drilling in Utah – under Trump, our Interior Department was going to allow drilling for oil and gas in several National Parks in Utah.  After intense public and private opposition and the threat of legal action, the administration cancelled their proposed lease – sales drilling proposal.

• Drilling in National Wildlife Refuge – The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued the Trump administration from opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for oil and gas drilling.  As this goes to press, it appears that NRDC has been successful in preventing energy development in an area that is roughly 1.5 million acres of biologically sensitive coastal plain.  The region, by the way, is the largest wild land left in America and would have been destroyed by the extraction of fossil fuels.

• Pebble mine project – This saga has gone on for years. The project would have allowed drilling and excavation in a massive open pit mine for copper and gold. The “monster mine” would have destroyed thousands of acres of pristine hunting and fishing (the world’s most productive wild salmon fishery) regions in Alaska. Native Americans are dependent on salmon fishing for their livelihood in that area. Hundreds of miles of streams and wetlands would have been affected. The EPA, under Obama “warned that the mine posed catastrophic risk, based on a comprehensive three year, twice peer -reviewed scientific assessment.  It proposed tough restrictions to effectively block mega mines in the Bristol Bay watershed.

Enter Trump, who reversed EPA restrictions and the legal battle began again. David vs. Goliath! In my view, the Biden EPA administration will kill the project forever. Sadly, Pebble Mine has become a political football, and I believe I am correct that Biden, his new Interior Department, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the new EPA will close the prospects for excavating, forever.

• The Keystone XL Pipeline – another political football, tossed from administration to administration causing countless environmental groups, private citizens, and Native American groups to spend millions to stop the movement of tar sand oil from Alberta to Port Arthur, TX for refining. I wrote about the XL Pipeline about 10 years ago as this has been in the works for over 15 years, and because of numerous delays and legal setbacks nothing has happened. 

The pipeline is 1,200 miles long and the plan was to pump 800,000 plus barrels of crude per day through, now reflect on this, through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and from one end of Texas to the other. Think of the environmental impact, not of the income generated by the oil industry. The cost of the battle is now in the millions.

• The Dakota Pipeline – More of the same but different geography. The consequences of a ruptured pipe, let’s say somewhere in Western Illinois would be devastating. More time and money spent on litigation and argument.

• Ruling on the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule – During the last four years, the Trump administration attempted to ease emission standards for greenhouse gas generated by power plants. Interestingly, the ACE was created during the Obama administration and it was passed by Congress to give us “cleaner air.” Naturally, every environmental organization challenged the Trump
administration’s actions. 

Just recently, in January, a federal appeals court “vacated Trump’s rules to ease restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. The ruling will undo a major Trump administration environmental initiative that intended to give states and electric utilities more flexibility in how they reduced their emissions of heat trapping gases.” (Wall Street Journal) Keep in mind that power plant emissions represent the second largest source of CO2, the first being the transportation industry.

• Fracking in the US – Intense legal action in almost every state where fracking is occurring to ban this practice.  The evidence is mounting through research that fracking contaminates drinking water. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Sierra and other environmental organizations have mounted legal actions that resulted in over 600 resolutions against fracking in the US and Canada.

And, the beat goes on. 

Suffice it to say that environmental groups have been more than 80% successful in challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to deregulate or ease environmental policy. Trump will go down in history as being the worst environmental president. And what is even more fascinating is general opposition by industry as they want to support reducing pollution and tackling problems that cause
climate change. 

While there is definite pushback from lobby groups, fossil fuel for example, the politics of climate change are shifting. “Businesses are beginning to respond to investor and consumer demand to reduce pollution.”

Barron’s, the weekly financial newspaper, reports regularly on the top 100 most sustainable companies.

“Amid a pandemic, an economic crisis, and social unrest (and political instability) these 100 companies stepped up to take care of employees, customers and communities.” 

Our own Avery Dennison is in the top 100, along with many other household names.

Further, I am delighted to be able to report that our industry continues to make strides, in leaps and bounds, toward improvement.  We continue to look at schemes that make products from non-recyclables. Our paper industry leaders are now making cellulose polymers on a commercial basis. Our film industry continues to look at more sustainable products that incorporate secondary resins. The packaging industry is focused more and more on reduction and reuse metrics.

It is my belief that without this four-year interruption in environmental improvement, we would be continuing to climb, albeit slowly, toward an improved environment. Let us hope that the next four will allow us to refocus on the positive, not the negative.


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.