CHEMICAL RECYCLING: A Dangerous Deception

Beyond Plastics and IPEN report on “Chemical Recycling: A Dangerous Deception”

Plastic has become an integral part of our lives. We see plastic in many of our daily items. As the use of plastics has been growing tremendously over the last few decades, so have the challenges to the environment and public health.

Public concern over plastics has been particularly heightened by the increasing presence of plastic waste and plastic raw materials (e.g., resin pellets) in the environment, particularly in waterways and the oceans, where it presents a serious danger to aquatic species and birds. This is a waste problem for which recycling is not a suitable response.

Lewis Freeman, former vice president of government affairs for the Society of the Plastics Industry (1979 to 2001) said “Despite knowing that plastic recycling couldn’t realistically manage a significant amount of plastic waste, companies spent millions of dollars convincing the public otherwise. More recently, the plastics industry has begun promoting what it calls advanced recycling.”

Advocates of chemical (so-called “advanced”) recycling claim it will create a circular economy for plastics without resorting to production cuts. Check out Beyond Plastics and IPEN’s publication titled “Chemical Recycling: A Dangerous Deception” which is an in-depth evaluation of the industry’s efforts to implement chemical recycling. The report which includes case studies of existing “advanced recycling” facilities presents a critical examination of the long history of failure of chemical recycling and the threats it poses to the environment, human health and environmental justice.

Plastics are inherently risky to recycle. Plastics are made with toxic chemicals and when recycled, these chemicals go into the recycled plastic or product. Toxic chemicals can also be created in recycled plastics from cross contamination and heating, resulting in ongoing and often increased chemical threats to our health and the environment.

Mechanical recycling involves a process of sorting, grinding, separating, washing, melting, and then cooling it back to granulated recycled plastic. Mechanical recycling has drawbacks, such as the degradation of material quality and its inability to handle certain plastics or contaminated plastics. At the same time, many plastic items include multiple types of polymers, multiple layers of plastic, or are contaminated with food and grime. That makes it hard to recycle them mechanically. Instead, these residual wastes are incinerated or sent to landfills. Moreover, the plastics that do get recycled are usually downcycled: they get turned into less valuable products.

Source: Bell, L. Chemical recycling: a dangerous deception. Beyond Plastics and International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), October 2023

Chemical recycling refers to a set of technologies and processes that attempt to melt and boil waste plastics down to gasses, chemicals, oils, tars, and waxes. It is rarely successful in turning old plastic into new plastic. Chemical recycling is not new or advanced, as it is based primarily on technologies such as pyrolysis and gasification that have struggled technically and commercially to process such wastes for decades. The majority of the output is not feedstock for new “circular” or “green” plastic but petrochemical fuels that will be burned, creating toxic emissions and emitting greenhouse gases. Every step of these technologies is expensive, polluting, and energy-intensive, from pretreatment and thermal processes to output cleanup.

Many chemical recycling companies use fossil fuel energy to turn petrochemical-based plastics back into fossil-derived fuels to burn, creating a polluting, carbon-intensive merry-go-round.

The key findings of the Beyond Plastics and IPEN report on chemical recycling are as follows:

  • Chemical recycling is a false solution to plastic pollution. Chemical recycling has failed for decades, continues to fail, and there is no evidence that it will contribute to resolving the plastics pollution crisis.
  • Chemical recycling is inefficient, energy-intensive, and contributes to climate change.
  • Chemical recycling creates large amounts of toxic waste. Regardless of what products facilities are attempting to create, chemical recycling — at best — produces small amounts of usable products from large amounts of plastic waste. Typically, most of the plastics going into chemical recycling facilities will become waste (often hazardous waste), be burned as fuel, or be landfilled.
  • Chemical recycling is dangerous and dirty. Chemical recycling facilities release toxic emissions, create hazardous waste, and are prone to fires and explosions.
  • Chemical recycling will not supplement conventional (mechanical) recycling. Proponents say chemical recycling is needed for mixed plastics that are difficult to recycle mechanically, but there is no evidence that chemical recycling can economically or effectively recycle mixed plastic waste. To the extent it works at all, chemical recycling uses the same kinds of plastics as conventional recycling. Thus, chemical recycling will likely compete with, not supplement, conventional recycling.
  • Burning plastic as fuel is dirty and unsustainable from start to finish. These operations can create unacceptable risks to nearby communities, posing threats to environmental justice. Weak regulations will increase these health and environmental risks. Using chemical recycling to turn plastic waste into fuel creates a toxic, dirty fuel that is harmful to human health and disastrous for the climate.
  • Making plastic into fuel to burn is not recycling. According to internationally accepted definitions, plastic to fuel is not recycling. It is a dirty and dangerous disposal method.
  • Eliminating or relaxing regulations puts health at risk. Chemical recycling facilities emit cancer-causing chemicals and substances that have been banned globally because they are among the most toxic chemicals known. Yet in the United States, many states eliminate or relax environmental and health rules to incentivize new plants, and the industry often evades federal clean air rules. Environmental justice communities that already face unequal health risks from toxic pollution will face the highest health risks from expansion of chemical recycling.
  • Public funds should support sustainable solutions, not chemical recycling. Government subsidies for chemical recycling are risky investments in a dirty, unproven technology. We need to support innovation for safe, clean materials to create sustainable alternatives that can replace plastics.
Source: Chemical Recycling: A Dangerous Deception (October 2023)

As of September 2023, 11 chemical recycling facilities have been built in the U.S., but case studies reveal widespread failures, environmental harm, and mismanagement. One key issue is that the processing of insignificant amounts of plastic waste, wherein it is deduced that even at full capacity, these 11 chemical recycling facilities would process less than 1.3% of the plastic waste generated annually in the USA.

Other findings reveal that low-quality fossil fuels are produced instead of recycled plastics, high costs are incurred, and significant risks to health and the environment, particularly for vulnerable communities. Industry secrecy obscures the true impact of these facilities, which often fail to meet promised capacities and face operational challenges, including hazardous waste generation, environmental violations, and frequent shutdowns. Examples include projects in Idaho, Oregon, North Carolina, Indiana, and New Hampshire, all of which have failed to deliver on claims of efficiency or sustainability, highlighting the technology’s unreliability and the need for better alternatives.

In Malaysia, the PETRONAS Chemicals Group Berhad (PCG) announced in 2023 the company will construct Asia’s largest advanced chemical recycling plant with a capacity of 33 kilo-tonnes per annum. The plant which will be located in Pengerang, Johor, is targeted to be operational by the first half of 2026. In its media release, PCG stated that as part of its New Plastics Economy agenda to support the transition towards a circular economy and contribute to a sustainable plastics ecosystem, the plant will unlock plastics waste chemical recycling capabilities through the conversion of end-of-life plastics into pyrolysis oil which can be used as chemical feedstock towards the production of sustainable plastics.

The words “circularity” and “sustainability” are used frequently by industries. A 2023 study assessing “circular” claims about plastic recycling found all criteria for circular plastics lacking, noting that “suggestions for circular economy initiatives targeting plastic may have limited effect and not lead to the intended impacts.

Important global legal instruments that govern plastic waste are the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. Another is the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Both these conventions deal with plastic waste as a subset of larger groups of hazardous wastes. A third legal instrument is currently under negotiation and may become a global plastics treaty.

As stressed by IPEN, there are many policy measures that may be taken at the global level and national level, but few will have an obvious and immediate impact on the volume and toxicity of plastic waste being created. The most direct impact would come from mandated reductions in plastic production i.e., turning off the tap. Equally important is minimizing and, where possible, eliminating hazardous substances in plastics, such as chemical additives.

The findings of IPEN and Beyond Plastic underscore the urgent need to halt the expansion of chemical recycling facilities and redirect resources toward genuinely sustainable and innovative solutions. By prioritising stringent regulations, eliminating public funding for ineffective technologies, and upholding environmental justice, we can work toward a future that reduces plastic pollution without compromising public health or ecological integrity.

REFERENCES:

Bell, L. Chemical recycling: a dangerous deception. Beyond Plastics and International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), October 2023

https://ipen.org/…/ipen_bp_chemical_recycling_report_11…

https://stoppoisonplastic.org/…/chemical-recycling…/