plastic pollution
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.”
Seagrasses aren’t the solution to ocean plastic pollution
Recent findings debunk the optimistic view that Mediterranean seagrasses can effectively combat marine plastic pollution, revealing more harm than help.
In short:
- A 2021 study showed seagrasses trapping and removing plastic from the ocean, offering a hopeful solution.
- A new meta-analysis reveals that plastic pollution harms seagrasses, reducing their growth and disrupting ecosystems.
- Experts warn that seagrasses’ ability to trap plastic may cause more harm, as animals ingest the trapped plastic.
Key quote:
“I definitely don’t want people to move in the direction of saying, ‘We have seagrass beds and they’re trapping microplastics so that’s resolving the problem.’ That’s not resolving the problem—it’s just moving and concentrating it in a different location.”
— Alyssa Novak, coastal ecologist at Boston University
Why this matters:
Seagrass, often overlooked in the grand tapestry of marine ecosystems, plays a vital role in maintaining the health of our oceans. It serves as a nursery for fish, a filter for pollutants, and a powerful carbon sink. In the fight against microplastics, the story of seagrass is a stark reminder that the small things we often overlook can have a massive impact. Read more: Plastic pollution in the ocean.
Plastic industry pushes for recycling as a solution to pollution crisis
The petrochemical industry claims to support a global treaty to curb plastic pollution but emphasizes recycling over production caps.
In short:
- Industry groups are promoting recycling targets and waste collection improvements as alternatives to capping plastic production.
- These proposals could cut global plastic pollution by 36% by 2050, but without a production cap, it's harder to achieve significant reductions.
- Industry influence over treaty negotiations is increasing, with substantial lobbying at recent sessions.
Key quote:
“Whether the treaty includes plastic production cuts is not just a policy debate. It’s a matter of survival.”
— Jorge Emmanuel, adjunct professor at Silliman University in the Philippines.
Why this matters:Recycling initiatives proposed by the petrochemicals industry while beneficial, are insufficient to tackle plastic pollution. A comprehensive approach, including production caps, is a more effective approach to achieve meaningful health and environmental benefits. For more read the op-ed by Pete Myers: We must determine which uses of plastic remain essential; eliminate those that aren’t; and design new materials to replace still essential plastics.
Plastic Free July needs systemic change, not just consumer action
A recent analysis argues that while Plastic Free July aims to reduce plastic use, significant impact requires action from governments and companies, not just consumers.
In short:
- Individual efforts during Plastic Free July are insufficient to address plastic pollution without systemic changes.
- Governments and corporations must implement regulations and redesign production and distribution systems to reduce plastic waste.
- Effective solutions need to consider the essential roles plastics play in everyday life and avoid disadvantaging vulnerable communities.
Key quote:
"Consumers shouldn’t have to bear full responsibility for plastic pollution. Individual sacrifices – particularly temporary ones – won’t make a significant difference."
— Bhavna Middha, senior research fellow at the Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University and Ralph Horne, associate deputy vice chancellor of research & innovation at the College of Design & Social Context, RMIT University.
Why this matters:
Focusing solely on consumer action overlooks the need for comprehensive policies and industry accountability to create lasting environmental change. Addressing plastic pollution effectively requires broad, systemic reforms that protect both the environment and vulnerable populations. Read more: A plastic recipe for societal suicide.
Another chemical recycling plant closure offers ‘flashing red light’ to nascent industry
Fulcrum BioFuels’ shuttered “sustainable aviation fuel” plant is the latest facility to run into technical and financial challenges.
For the second time this year, a chemical recycling plant built to turn waste into usable products has closed, casting further doubt on the viability of an upstart industry that has been plagued by financial and technical challenges in its effort to scale up.
Fulcrum BioFuels launched its Sierra plant outside Reno, Nevada, in 2022 with the goal of converting municipal solid waste into “sustainable aviation fuel.” But in May of this year the company suddenly laid off its roughly 100 employees and shuttered its website, as Bloomberg first reported. The decision came just as the plant was ready to reopen after a series of technical challenges had forced it offline, continuing a trend of delays and setbacks for a facility that had initially been slated to open in 2010.
Fulcrum representatives did not respond to emails and phone calls and little is yet clear about the company’s future, while its plans to build a larger plant in Gary, Indiana, appear to be hanging on by a thread following bond defaults. Carolyn McCrady, a co-founder of Gary Advocates for Responsible Development, which formed in 2021 to oppose Fulcrum’s plans, said her organization is still challenging Fulcrum’s air permit to build a plant in the city as it waits to learn more about the company’s next steps.
“We feel vindicated and that we were right all along,” McCrady told EHN. “We think all communities should put on their critical thinking hats when people like these come to town and offer something that’s too good to be true.”
As of September 2023, there were 11 constructed chemical recycling facilities in the country using pyrolysis or gasification to convert plastic into fuel or chemicals that can then be used to create new plastic, according to a report from Beyond Plastics and the International Pollutants Elimination Network. Two of those have now closed — news welcomed by environmental advocates concerned that the plants encourage plastic production and discourage solutions that address the roots of the global plastics crisis. Greenhouse gas emissions from the processing of plastic waste are also 10 to 100 times worse than those from the production of virgin plastic, and the release of plastic additives during chemical recycling can cause reproductive, cardiovascular and endocrine harm, the Beyond Plastics report found.
For the chemical recycling industry—facing a precarious moment with state legislation and a global plastic treaty developing—the closure is another indication of financial, technical and regulatory headwinds. Last fall, Youngstown City Council in Ohio voted against SOBE Thermal’s proposal for a plant that would have converted tires into gas. In February, the Regenyx plant in Oregon, which converted plastic waste into a polystyrene precursor, closed before ever reaching capacity, suffering millions in financial losses in the process. And in April, Encina canceled its plans to build one of the country’s largest chemical recycling plants in Pennsylvania.
The chemical recycling industry “will continue to face enormous challenges, both in securing financing, operating economically and producing products that companies want to buy,” Jenny Gitliz, director of solutions to plastic pollution at Beyond Plastics, told EHN. The fact that plastic has so many different chemicals in it further complicates the various conversion processes now in use, Gitliz explained.
Closure a “black eye” for waste-to-fuel efforts
Fulcrum launched in Pleasanton, California, in 2007, focused on developing the infrastructure to use an unusual feedstock to create jet fuel: municipal solid waste. At its Sierra plant, it turned shredded waste, including up to 20% plastic, into synthetic gas through a process called gasification, which heats the feedstock in a low-oxygen environment. After a second step in which the gas is cleaned up, it enters a Fischer-Tropsch reactor, in which it is converted into aviation fuel. Fulcrum’s facility was the first to license the Fischer-Tropsch technology, designed by BP and Johnson Matthey. A spokesperson for BP declined to comment on the closure of Fulcrum’s plant but said the technology can operate economically at large and small scales and is “a key technology in e-fuels production pathways” that it plans to continue to license and commercialize.
The chemical recycling industry “will continue to face enormous challenges, both in securing financing, operating economically and producing products that companies want to buy.” — Jenny Gitliz, director of solutions to plastic pollution at Beyond Plastics
The Sierra plant cost $300 million to build and had a capacity of 12 million gallons of sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF, per year, according to a report published last fall by Beyond Plastics and IPEN. But its first shipment contained just 350 gallons, Bloomberg reported, and the unexpected creation of nitric acid, emissions of nitrogen oxide and the buildup of material in its gasification process contributed to a start-and-stop nature that prevented the plant from ever reaching capacity.
Before closing the Sierra plant, Fulcrum had entered forbearance on $289 million in bonds. The Indiana Finance Authority had authorized $500 million in bonds for Fulcrum’s planned facility in Gary, but the company failed to secure funding for the 52-acre lakefront property where it hoped to build, McCrady said, delaying that project. Fulcrum had also announced its intention to build facilities in Baytown, Texas, and the United Kingdom.
Fulcrum’s partners on the Sierra project included Waste Connections, which was slated to supply waste to the facility and did not respond to a request for comment on the closure. United Airlines invested $30 million in Fulcrum and did not respond to a request for comment. Fulcrum also had an offtake agreement with Japan Airlines, which did not respond to a request for comment. BP had invested $30 million in Fulcrum with a plan to take up to 50 million gallons of fuel per year from its plants, far exceeding the Sierra plant’s capacity.
The aviation industry is racing to meet its goal of making 10% of its fuel sustainable by 2030, but the total SAF volume of 160 million gallons in 2023 was “a drop in the bucket” of the total 100 billion gallons of fuel used, said Steve Csonka, executive director of the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative, a public-private partnership formed in 2006. The conversion of municipal solid waste into fuel could still contribute to that effort—as could the Sierra plant if it’s brought back online by another company—despite the challenge of utilizing a non-homogenous feedstock, Csonka said. But the Sierra plant’s closure is a “black eye” that will hinder that broader project, he said.
Chemical recycling controversy
Ross Eisenberg, president of America’s Plastic Makers, an industry trade group, said in a statement that 10 new or expanded chemical recycling facilities are in development and the industry is in the midst of a normal, lengthy process to scale up. “With chemical recycling able to produce a wide variety of products at the same time as hundreds of companies are committing to use more recycled plastic, there is a tremendous opportunity in the U.S. to recycle more of our post-use materials,” he said.
But to Anja Brandon, associate director of U.S. plastics policy at the Ocean Conservancy, the Sierra plant’s closure is further evidence that the environmental impacts and economics of chemical recycling “just don’t add up.”
“It’s a flashing red light for these other facilities—really for the potential investors or lenders to these other facilities—that this is an industry that has and continues to fail, which I hope decreases the investment and drive for these types of facilities and opens up the market for investments in real upstream solutions,” Brandon told EHN.
Op-ed: New York considers bill to slash plastic waste and protect health
The New York state Legislature is evaluating a bill that aims to significantly reduce plastic packaging and its associated health risks.
In short:
- The Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act seeks to cut New York's packaging by 50% over 12 years, reducing exposure to microplastics and toxic chemicals.
- The bill would make companies responsible for cleaning up packaging waste, eliminating 19 harmful chemicals, and preventing environmental and health damage.
- Despite opposition from the plastics industry, the bill could set a national precedent for reducing plastic pollution.
Key quote:
"The bill would protect New Yorkers from plastic’s health risks and prevent environmental and climate harms."
— Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics.
Why this matters:
This bill addresses the urgent health risks posed by microplastics and toxic chemicals found in plastic packaging, which can cause serious health issues like cancer and heart disease. Its passage could inspire similar legislation nationwide, reducing plastic pollution and its widespread impacts. Read more: Americans actually agree on something — they want products free of harmful chemicals.
Conservatives target single-use plastic bans as overreach
Canadian Conservatives are framing single-use plastic bans as government overreach and part of a culture war, focusing their criticism on paper straws and lids.
In short:
- Conservative MPs are criticizing the Liberal government's listing of plastic items as toxic and promoting a petition to save plastic straws.
- Bill C-380, aiming to reverse the government's plastic bans, cites convenience and health concerns, referencing PFAS chemicals found in some paper straws.
- Environmental scientists argue that the focus on straws oversimplifies the broader issue of plastic pollution, which significantly impacts ecosystems and human health.
Key quote:
“We do need to improve recycling, but it's not the solution. It's not the one solution. We also need to turn off the tap of production.”
— Tony Walker, professor in the school for resource and environmental studies at Dalhousie University
Why this matters:
Plastic pollution is a significant environmental and health issue, and framing it as a cultural or political conflict can impede effective policy-making and public cooperation needed to address the crisis comprehensively. Environmental advocates argue that reducing plastic usage is critical to addressing the mounting crisis of plastic waste. Plastic straws, while a small part of the problem, symbolize the broader issue of single-use plastics that contribute significantly to pollution. Critics of the ban suggest that such measures might disrupt industries and ignore the convenience plastic straws provide to people with disabilities who rely on them.
Related EHN coverage: