environmental justice
Chemical recycling has an economic and environmental injustice problem: Report
“It wouldn’t even make a dent in the amount of plastic pollution out there.”
PITTSBURGH — Chemical recycling projects are unlikely to generate local economic benefits or help reduce global plastic pollution, according to a new report.
The report, published by the progressive think tank Ohio River Valley Institute, investigated the technological and economic challenges associated with chemical recycling, with a focus on the Ohio River Valley, which spans western Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia.
“There’s a tendency to co-locate these facilities where there’s already a petrochemical cluster of some sort, which means communities already burdened by petrochemical industries, such as Ohio River Valley, become even more polluted,” Kathy Hipple, one of the report’s authors, told EHN.
Chemical recycling, sometimes referred to as advanced or molecular recycling, refers to processes that use heat, chemicals or both to break down plastic waste into component parts for reuse as plastic feedstocks or as fuel. These processes are different from conventional or mechanical plastic recycling, which breaks down plastic waste physically but not at a molecular level.
Only 5% to 6% of plastic waste gets recycled in the U.S., and the proponents of chemical recycling say the industry could help change that.
“We’re not going to create circularity for plastics with one single solution,” Chris Layton, director of sustainability for specialty plastics at Eastman Chemical Company, told EHN. “We’re going to have to eliminate some plastics we really don't need, figure out ways to reduce and reuse and maximize what we can do for mechanical and advanced recycling.”
But environmental and health advocates say the process is still inefficient, energy intensive and emits hazardous chemicals into the air and water. As much as 80% of plastic waste put into chemical recycling processes is lost as hazardous emissions, according to a report by the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN) and Beyond Plastics.
The Ohio River Valley Institute’s report concluded that chemical recycling only converts 15%-20% of plastic waste into recycled plastic products (the rest become emissions, fuel or hazardous waste), that none of the chemical recycling plants currently operating in the U.S. are commercially successful, that chemical recycling is technically and financially risky and that the chemical recycling process is toxic and poses health and safety risks to workers and communities — particularly those that are already overburdened by pollution from the petrochemical industry.
“Going into writing this report, I thought maybe chemical recycling was a good solution to the global plastic pollution problem,” Hipple said. “Unfortunately, it turns out that chemical recycling is not the solution — it wouldn’t even make a dent in the amount of plastic pollution out there.”
There are 10 functional chemical recycling facilities in the U.S., according to the report, two of which are in the Ohio River Valley (Alterra and Purecycle, both of which are in Ohio). Most are still operating in pilot phases, according to the report, processing only small amounts of plastic, because chemical recycling is expensive and it’s still cheaper to buy virgin plastic and fossil fuels.
“Unfortunately, it turns out that chemical recycling is not the solution — it wouldn’t even make a dent in the amount of plastic pollution out there.” - Kathy Hipple, report author
As an example of the industry’s financial challenges, Hipple noted that Shell, which operates a large petrochemical plant in the Ohio River Valley, recently conceded that it would abandon its pledge to turn more than 1 million tons into oil per year by 2025 because the plan is “unfeasible.”
“If a company like Shell is backing away from its pledge to increase advanced recycling when they have some of the biggest capital expenditure budgets in the world, that really demonstrates that this technology is immature and there’s no business case for doing this at the moment,” Hipple said.
Despite these challenges, at least nine chemical recycling plants have been proposed throughout the Ohio River Valley, including now-canceled or on-hold projects in Youngstown, Ohio and Point Township, Pennsylvania. Other plants proposed in the region have faced stark community opposition.
Environmental justice concerns
At the national level, 70% of constructed chemical recycling plants are located
in low-income areas and 60% in neighborhoods of color, according to Beyond Plastics, prompting concerns about environmental injustice.
The new report adds to these concerns, as it found that six of the nine chemical recycling facilities proposed in the region would be located in environmental justice communities with a higher percentage of low-income households than the state average. Three would be located in neighborhoods predominantly populated by people of color.
“These communities are already overburdened by pollution and the emissions from chemical recycling facilities are highly polluting and highly toxic,” Hipple said.
Credit: "Chemical Recycling: A False Promise for the Ohio River Valley"
A database compiled in March revealed that more than 16,000 chemicals are used in plastics production, with thousands of them being toxic even in very small quantities. Many of these chemicals are released into air or water during the chemical recycling process.
“These industries often promise jobs and economic growth that never materialize for local communities,” Hipple said. “It isn’t fair that these communities wind up bearing the environmental and health costs.”
Op-ed: Farmers of color need climate action now. The farm bill is our best hope.
Farmers of color who are leading the charge for regenerative farming, as they have done for generations, need our support now more than ever.
As summer heats up, we all find ourselves wondering, how hot will this one be?
Several of the last summers have been the hottest summers on record. For farmers, who depend on clement weather for their livelihoods and to feed our communities, a sudden heatwave or an erratic downpour amplified by climate change can cause real harm to livelihoods. Often, it’s not easy to ‘bounce back’ or finance repairs to damaged farms.
Last summer, Ashanti, a farmer in upstate New York, experienced severe flooding from a nearby stream that immersed half of her growing field in water. She managed to salvage some of her crop by using a high tunnel (a plastic-covered structure that extends the growing season), but the flooding delayed her farmer’s market sales and food pantry deliveries, causing Ashanti to lose income needed for daily business expenses. While some towns are now implementing early response systems for extreme weather, none were in place to mitigate the damage to Ashanti’s farm.
For most farmers, climate change is not a future problem, but a daily challenge. This is especially true for Black farmers like Ashanti, as well as Indigenous and other farmers of color who are particularly vulnerable due to well documented discrimination by the USDA and by banking institutions. When climate disasters hit, these systemic challenges have prevented many such farmers from receiving loans to pay for repairs to damaged farms, or from owning land, as opposed to leasing it.
As advocates for farmers with the HEAL Food Alliance and Northeast Farmers of Color Land Trust, we’ve seen firsthand how farmers of color struggle to deal with climate challenges amid a systemic lack of resources and the impacts of structural racism. Our organizations have worked with dozens of farmers who steward their land, but lack access to the capital they need to adapt to climate change or to secure the long term land tenure stability that makes investment in climate adaptations more feasible. Community leaders have warned of this need for years, but opportunities for federal action have been limited – until now.
Amid growing opposition to clean energy and climate resilience investments, an unexpected avenue for climate justice has emerged – the Farm Bill, an over $400 billion legislative package that funds key federal programs and shapes our country’s food and agricultural policy. This year, Congress has the opportunity to make a historic investment in regenerative farming practices that would meaningfully reduce emissions that come from agriculture and provide real relief to farmers of color.
For example, in the so-called ‘Black Dirt’ region of Orange County, New York, known for its fertile black soil, Latine and Black farmers are pushing for meaningful investments in regenerative agricultural practices and climate resilience programs that protect the land and food security. Many of these farmers don’t own the land that they work - and if they do, they are recent land owners. Because they lack land security, spending their own capital on large scale infrastructure is a huge risk. So several dozen farmers of color from the area have asked for funding assistance with drainage for over a year without success. Funding to add more climate-resilient ditches to their farms would help them withstand flooding and also protect other nearby farms. But as both lessees and more recent owners of their farmland, they have less local political clout than landowning constituents and are more likely than long-standing landowners to face barriers to adopting new farming strategies. To support these farmers and others across the country who are burdened by climate change, the next Farm Bill could expand resources to support farming practices that protect and restore soil health. Healthy soils are more likely to bounce back from flooding and other adverse impacts of climate chaos. In addition to supporting local food economies, these practices can reduce emissions and other toxic pollutants, and revitalize ecosystems.
Amid growing opposition to clean energy and climate resilience investments, an unexpected avenue for climate justice has emerged – the Farm Bill.
Black, Indigenous, and other land stewards of color have long used regenerative farming methods rooted in traditional ecological knowledge. For example, the Diné people of the Navajo Nation have practiced alluvial farming, or planting crops in soil that has formed from sediment deposits, for hundreds of years. This maximizes the nutrients and water that crops receive - without depending on chemical fertilizers or pesticides. Indigenous and immigrant farmers of color have innovated new approaches like these that are rooted in cultural traditions of respect for the land, water, seeds, and life that sustain us. They’ve done so even while confronting seizure of their land, theft of their labor, harm from industrial agriculture, and contamination of their land and water.
These farmers know that investing in regenerative farming can ensure climate resilience and protect local economies. The Farm Bill is among our best chances to make this a reality. By establishing protections and meaningful supports for farmers who are most vulnerable to climate change, the Farm Bill can propel us toward our climate goals while allowing farmers of color to adapt to new uncertainties that climate change has created.
In May, the Senate released a long-delayed Farm Bill proposal while the House released their draft of text for the 2024 Bill. We were happy to see that the Senate proposal includes traditional ecological knowledge as a part of conservation and climate programs, and includes provisions for the protection of Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funds for conservation and climate spending. This is a step in the right direction for our nation's farmers, and for our environment.
Unfortunately, we see the exact opposite in the House Agriculture Committee’s Farm Bill draft, which does little to address farmers’ concerns about climate change. In fact, the Bill moves us backwards. The House Bill removes climate-related safeguards in conservation programs stipulated by the Inflation Reduction Act, which was passed in 2022 and provided historic investments for fighting climate change. To be clear, the 2024 Farm Bill must be a climate bill. Removing support for climate-related programs and practices will not only further disadvantage farmers who are investing in regenerative agriculture and traditional ecological knowledge to build resilience in their operations, but wreak havoc on the nation’s food security.
As climate extremes worsen, the architects of this Farm Bill must change their strategy if they hope for the survival of farmers, communities, or our economies. Farmers of color who are leading the charge for regenerative farming, as they have done for generations, need our support now more than ever, and deserve a farm bill that puts climate front and center.
WATCH: Enduring the “endless” expansion of the nation’s petrochemical corridor
As mounds of dredged material from the Houston Ship Channel dot their neighborhoods, residents are left without answers as to what dangers could be lurking.
In the course of a century, Houston, once known for its magnolia flowers, turned into the “energy capital of the world.” To many, at 52 miles long and deepening under its 11th expansion, the Houston Ship Channel represents its epicenter.
To read and watch a version of this story in Spanish click here. Haz clic aquí para leer este reportaje en español.
The channel hosts hundreds of chemical facilities, some of which have years of documented Clean Air Act violations. Amnesty International called the channel a “sacrifice zone” where fenceline communities, made up predominantly with people of color, are disproportionately exposed to pollution. This is seen as the “cost of doing business,” according to the report.
But to people like Juan Flores and his family, the area is also home.
Flores, who you’ll meet in the video report above, has lived in Galena Park his entire life, and has been surrounded by the Houston Ship Channel’s dredge material deposit sites for as long as he can remember. He even recalls playing in them as a child.
The current 11th expansion of the port will create new dredge deposit sites and will stack new dredge material on old sites. In response to communities’ concerns of potential risks, Port Houston, the local entity that manages the public ports of the channel and is in charge of the expansion alongside the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, has said there is no cause for concern. According to the Corps, the material is tested before being placed on the mounds — yet the Corps has stated in the past that they do not test the deposit sites.
Watch the video above to learn more about the stories of these communities and their industrial neighbors.
Editor’s note: This story is part of a two- part series that will highlight the expansion of industry along the Houston Ship Channel – and the channel itself – amidst the landscape of an ever growing industrial footprint and the pollution that comes with it.
LISTEN: Revisiting our conversation with environmental justice pioneer Dr. Beverly Wright
“The righteous fight in the end will win. Don’t be swayed by all of the noise.”
Today we’re re-airing our conversation with Dr. Beverly Wright, who joined the Agents of Change in Environmental Justice podcast last year to discuss her journey as an environmental justice pioneer.
This episode originally aired in June 2023 and we are re-airing it today to celebrate Juneteenth, as Dr. Wright’s work on justice and equity speaks to the spirit of the holiday and what it represents. We will be back in two weeks with a new episode.
The Agents of Change in Environmental Justice podcast is a biweekly podcast featuring the stories and big ideas from past and present fellows, as well as others in the field. You can see all of the past episodes here.
Listen below to our discussion with Wright, and subscribe to the podcast at iTunes, Spotify, or Stitcher.
Swiss parliament dismisses climate ruling favoring older women
Swiss lawmakers have rejected a European court's ruling that weak climate policies violate the human rights of older women.
In short:
- The European court ruled Switzerland's weak climate policies endanger older women, violating their human rights.
- The Swiss lower house voted 111-72 to dismiss the ruling, claiming judicial overreach and sufficient national efforts.
- Activists, including the KlimaSeniorinnen group, argue this sets a dangerous precedent and betrays vulnerable populations.
Key quote:
"The declaration is a betrayal of us older women – and of all those who are suffering from the real consequences of global warming today and in the future."
— Rosmarie Wydler-Wälti, co-president of KlimaSeniorinnen
Why this matters:
Critics of the Swiss decision argue that dismissing the ruling neglects the urgent need for robust climate policies to protect all citizens, especially the most vulnerable. They point to rising temperatures and increasing instances of heatwaves, which have significant health impacts on older populations, particularly women. Advocates stress that addressing climate change is not just an environmental imperative but also a moral and human rights issue.
Clean air and water amendment delayed in California
A proposed amendment to California’s Constitution that would guarantee the right to clean air and water has been postponed for another year due to a lack of legislative progress.
In short:
- Assemblymember Isaac G. Bryan authored ACA 16, the green amendment, to add clean air, water, and a healthy environment to California’s Constitution.
- The proposal failed to advance in the state Assembly and Senate before the deadline, prompting Bryan to delay it until next year.
- The amendment faced opposition from the California Chamber of Commerce, citing potential economic impacts on housing and infrastructure projects.
Key quote:
“We simply don’t have enough time this election cycle to craft the comprehensive and inspired amendment language California deserves. We will keep working and building for the climate justice our communities need.”
— Isaac G. Bryan, Assemblymember.
Why this matters:
California, often at the forefront of environmental policy, continues to grapple with significant air and water quality issues. Urban areas frequently contend with smog and particulate matter, while rural communities deal with contaminated water supplies, sometimes linked to agricultural runoff or industrial activity. Ensuring the right to clean air and water in California’s Constitution would strengthen environmental protections and hold polluters accountable.“Cancer Alley” residents exposed to more than the lifetime exposure limit for cancer-causing compound: Report
"We are sick and tired of being sick and tired."
HOUSTON – Louisiana communities are experiencing up to 1,000 times the lifetime exposure limit for the cancer-causing compound ethylene oxide, according to a new study published in Environmental Science and Technology.
In February 2023 Johns Hopkins University researchers measured ambient ethylene oxide in one of the most polluted portions of Louisiana, often called the “Cancer Alley” of the United States. The 85-mile stretch of land along the Mississippi River from Baton Rouge to New Orleans is lined with more than 150 petrochemical facilities, and previous studies have found most residents along the 85-mile stretch are in the top 10% of exposure to air toxics related to cancer and are more likely than people that live elsewhere to develop prostate, lung and breast cancers. The burden of cancer-risk compounds is higher for communities of color.
The new report found ethylene oxide measurements were nine times higher than previously estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA notes that life-time cancer risk should not exceed 10.9 parts per trillion, yet the study measured an average of 31.4 parts per trillion. In some parts closest to facility fencelines, the number grew to 140 parts per trillion.
“Accurate measurements of ethylene oxide are needed to understand exposure and cancer risks for communities near to petrochemical facilities,” said lead researcher Peter DeCarlo of Johns Hopkins University. “We encourage state, local and federal agencies to prioritize accurate emissions data to properly estimate risks to communities and protect public health and the climate—in Cancer Alley and beyond."
Ethylene oxide is a colorless gas used in petrochemical facilities to make other chemicals and resins. Considered a known carcinogen by the EPA, ethylene oxide poses substantial health risks when inhaled, and it has been linked to blood, lymph and breast cancers to those exposed.
"We are sick and tired of being sick and tired," said Sharon Lavigne, founder and director of RISE St. James, an environmental justice organization dedicated to opposing petrochemical development in the St. James Parish. “We're flat-footed, exhausted from enduring these health risks and demand immediate action to ensure the safety of our neighborhoods."
Along the same coast as “Cancer Alley” is Houston. Self-titled the petrochemical capital of the nation, it is estimated to have more than 600 petrochemical facilities. The city has struggled with air monitoring in the past, and was awarded $500,000 to increase air monitoring of ethylene oxide and other chemicals last year.
Concentrations of ethylene oxide are expected to drop in the future according to the EPA. In April of this year the EPA updated its regulations related to hazardous air pollutants that aim to reduce cancer risk and air pollution at 200 chemical facilities. The agency is targeting six cancer-causing compounds, including ethylene oxide. Nearly 24% of the impacted facilities are in Louisiana and 40% are in Texas.
*Editor’s note: Bloomberg Philanthropies Beyond Petrochemicals campaign did provide funding for this report. EHN does receive some funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies.