Greenpeace USA condemns morally suspect chemical recycling tactics in plastic pollution investigation
An industrial flare burns off waste at a refining plant in Texas, US (Image credit: Aaron M. Sprecher/Greenpeace).21 Sep 2020 --- Greenpeace USA is warning that many American Chemistry Council (ACC) approved “chemical” or “advanced” recycling projects are unviable or misleadingly promoted as recycling when they mainly produce fuels and waxes. The “Deception by the Numbers” report examined 52 US chemical or advanced recycling projects.
The report concludes that “chemical recycling is not a solution to the plastic pollution crisis, but rather a bait-and-switch PR tactic meant to create the illusion of industry progress.”
“The ACC, the plastics industry, and the consumer goods sector need to stop hiding behind the fantasy of chemical recycling,” lambasts Ivy Schlegel, Greenpeace USA plastics research specialist.
“Turning plastic into even more unneeded fuel is a bad investment and certainly should not be considered recycling. Many of the projects the industry promotes as chemical recycling are not even viable and meant to give a false sense of progress on the pollution crisis.”
Plastic reduction priorities
Greenpeace indicates that mechanical recycling is environmentally preferable to chemical recycling. However, current US reprocessing capability is so low that only PET and HDPE are functionally recyclable, meaning the role of mechanical recycling for plastic waste is very limited.
Investments in mechanical recycling should not substitute or outpace investments into infrastructure, innovations, and alternative business models that reduce plastic production, the NGO stresses.
Mechanical recycling is widely regarded as environmentally preferable to chemical recycling but its capacity is mostly limited to PET and HDPE.
Nestlé, PepsiCo, Unilever, Danone, and Procter & Gamble have invested in or agreed to purchase material from chemical or advanced recycling technologies, including projects supported by the ACC.
The ACC is a trade association that represents manufacturers of petrochemicals and plastics and promotes chemical recycling technologies to overcome the challenges to “traditional” mechanical recycling collection, sorting, and reprocessing.
Greenpeace is concerned that the ACC “often and overtly” uses “advanced recycling” as a synonym for “chemical recycling,” which it says further confuses the issue, as “advanced” recycling can also refer to innovative elements of mechanical recycling, such as optical sorting.
A drop in the plastic ocean
The ACC currently touts 62 advanced recycling projects that it claims are valued at US$5.2 billion. Less than 50 percent of the projects on the ACC’s “advanced” recycling list met Greenpeace’s basic criteria for credible plastic recycling projects. The rest were either waste-to-fuel, plastic-to-fuel, or other non-reprocessing projects.
Moreover, Greenpeace found that the recycling projects’ total processing capacity determined to be valid mechanical or plastic-to-plastic recycling stands at 0.2 percent of the plastic waste generated in 2017.
The NGO identified US$506 million of taxpayer investment in the ACC-touted chemical and advanced recycling projects. Almost 90 percent of the taxpayer funding went to waste- and plastic-to-fuel projects.
Climate considerations
Libby Peake, Green Alliance senior policy advisor, shares similar concerns chemical recycling is not the “silver bullet” solution to the plastic pollution crisis.
Greenpeace warns that “valid” chemical and advanced recycling projects represent just 0.2 percent of the plastic waste generated in 2017.
“We are concerned with increased energy use compared to conventional recycling. Also, if these types of technologies require more energy than virgin plastics, it doesn't make sense,” Peake tells PackagingInsights.
“We would only want it to be used where the energy requirements are lower; we do not want to increase fossil fuels just for the sake of recycling. Further, we are concerned that there might be some drive to make fossil fuels out of existing plastics and then say that it is recycling when we want the material kept as the material with all of its carbon remaining embedded.”
“There needs to be considerably more thought to conventional infrastructure to improve energy outcomes and ensure we do not push materials than could be mechanically recycled into other systems.”
Chemical recycling is on the rise, with British multinational oil and gas company BP, UK waste management specialist Viridor and US-based Georgia-Pacific Recycling announcing investments in the last year.
In the advanced recycling space, Coca-Cola European Partners announced funding for CuRe Technology in July. This recycling startup aims to provide a new lease of life for difficult to recycle plastic polyester waste through “polyester rejuvenation” technology.
By Joshua Poole
