Chemical recycling technologies in the US are mostly “greenwashing” scams, according to a recent report by non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which accuses plastics corporations of using dubious new technologies to dupe the public while continuing to pollute the environment of poorer communities throughout the country.
The report comes as advanced recycling, which uses various methods to break down materials unsuitable for traditional mechanical recycling infrastructure, is becoming increasingly touted as a potential panacea for waste management.
With as little as 8.7% of all plastics in the US recycled each year, and over 242 million metric tons produced annually, the NRDC says chemical recycling is merely a way for plastics corporations to continue incinerating their waste under the guise of new processes.
The report states that the term “chemical recycling” encompasses many methods that fall into two categories: plastic-to-fuel and plastic-to-chemical components. Plastic-to-fuel conversion is done using pyrolysis or gasification, both of which use heat and chemical processes to break plastic waste down into products that are turned into fuels.
Plastic-to-chemical components use treatments such as heat and solvents to create feedstocks that proponents claim can be further processed into other chemicals or new plastics. “Both categories of chemical recycling are fraught with health, environmental, social, and economic concerns,” reads the report.
The four “advanced” methods
The NRDC details four central chemical processes currently being used or under development in the US:
Poisoning the US
According to EU directives, producing fuel from plastic waste does not qualify as recycling by international standards.
Additionally, it requires continued plastic inputs to create fuels that, just like typical fossil fuels, produce harmful air pollution and greenhouse gasses when burned, says NRDC.
“Therefore, plastic-to-fuel is incompatible with circular-economy or zero-carbon goals. Previous analyses have also found that plastic-to-chemical components ‘recycling’ is barely present on a commercial scale in the US. Plastic-to-fuel processes are more common.”
NRDC has reviewed Environmental Protection Agency databases, environmental permit information, and other relevant information to map out US chemical recycling facilities that are operational, under construction or already shut down. Many appeared to have been opened and closed in a brief time span, indicating many companies may be using these projects as public relations stunts.
Most of those found facilities fall into the plastic-to-fuel category.
Social discrimination and advanced recycling
The report also notes that communities of color already disproportionately bear the burden of health risks from plastics manufacturing. This process releases highly toxic chemicals because these facilities are often located in their neighborhoods.
There is a similar pattern of unequal impacts in chemical recycling facilities. Of the eight facilities researched, six are in communities that are disproportionately black or brown, and five are in communities where a disproportionate percentage of households have an income below US$25,000, relative to national averages. According to the report, a combined total of about 380,000 people currently live within three miles of the eight facilities and could be impacted by their toxic emissions.
“Despite the fact that plastic-to-fuel does not recycle plastic, industry continues to support it strongly. This is likely because plastic-to-fuel creates a mirage of ‘recycling’ to assuage public concerns about increased plastic use and waste but does not disrupt new plastic production.”
“This paves the way for continued profits and the expansion of plastic production facilities. Ensuring that plastic-to-fuel remains excluded from official definitions of recycling will make it difficult for plastic manufacturers to succeed in this greenwashing.”
By Louis Gore-Langton
France has launched an offshore green hydrogen production platform at the country’s Port of Saint-Nazaire this week, along with its first offshore wind farm. The hydrogen plant, which its operators say is the world’s first facility of its type, coincides with the launch of another “first of its kind” facility in Sweden dedicated to storing hydrogen in an underground lined rock cavern (LRC).
The project sets up the Hydrogen Valley in Rome, the first industrial-scale technological hub for the development of the national supply chain for the production, transport, storage and use of hydrogen for the decarbonization of industrial processes and for sustainable mobility.
At first glance, hydrogen seems to be the perfect solution to our energy needs. It doesn’t produce any carbon dioxide when used. It can store energy for long periods of time. It doesn’t leave behind hazardous waste materials, like nuclear does. And it doesn’t require large swathes of land to be flooded, like hydroelectricity. Seems too good to be true. So…what’s the catch?