© Aaron Sprecher / Greenpeace Deception by the Numbers American Chemistry Council claims about chemical recycling investments fail to hold up to scrutiny PUBLISHED: SEPTEMBER 9, 2020 www.greenpeace.org/usa/research/deception-by-the-numbers Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................... 3 Key Findings ................................................................... 4 The Problem .................................................................. 4 The False Solution .............................................................. 4 The Quest for Acceptance—and Taxpayer Dollars .................................. 5 Consumer Goods Companies: Wishcycling Their Recycling Commitments . 6 Petrochemical Companies: Fueling Climate Change ............................... 6 2. Criteria for Evaluation ............................................................. 7 Methodology .................................................................. 7 Criterion 1: Does the Project Actually Recycle Plastic? .............................. 7 Criterion 2: Are These Investments Viable? ........................................ 8 Investment Breakdown ......................................................... 9 Processing Capacity ............................................................ 9 3. Evaluation of the ACC’s Projects List ............................................... 10 AUTHOR 4. Project and Company Profles ..................................................... 16 Ivy Schlegel 5. Recommendations ............................................................... 26 American Chemistry Council ................................................... 26 EDITOR Elected Oficials ............................................................... 26 Perry Wheeler Local Decision-makers ......................................................... 26 Investors ..................................................................... 26 DESIGNED BY Fast-Moving Consumer Goods Companies ....................................... 27 Kyle McKibbin Endnotes .......................................................................... 28 PUBLISHED September 9, 2020 COVER PHOTO An industrial fare burns of waste at a petrochemical refning plant in Baytown, Texas following Hurricane Harvey in 2017. © Bob Pearson / Greenpeace Greenpeace Inc. 702 H Street, NW, STE 300, Washington, D.C. 20001 DECEPTION BY THE NUMBERS | 2 1. Introduction Despite decades of deceptive industry marketing, we know we can’t recycle our way out of the plastic pollution crisis. But the companies making and selling plastic—and their trade association surrogate the American Chemistry Council—aren’t giving up. Instead, they’re doubling down to mislead investors, governments, and the public into believing we can. Here’s how they’re using the fantasy of chemical recycling to do it. “Chemical recycling” is an intentionally vague term used The ACC ofen promotes the plastics industry’s sizable by the chemical and plastics industries to refer to myriad investments in plastics recycling. In April 2020—just one technologies (many of which remain in the lab or pilot day before the debut of the movie The Story of Plastic, phases), all promising to convert plastic waste into its basic which details the environmental and human impacts chemical building blocks and generate ‘“like new” plastic. of the lifecycle of plastic—the ACC issued the statement There are two general categories: (1) plastic-to-fuel or waste- “the private sector has invested $4.6 billion in advanced to-fuel,1 which uses a variety of methods, generally involving recycling technologies to complement and support existing heat and combustion, to turn plastic or mixed waste into recycling systems.”3 An infographic posted on the ACC’s hydrocarbons, such as gas or oil; and (2) plastic-to-plastic, website had an even higher $4.8 billion in investment in which also uses various methods, including chemical 52 projects supposedly able to divert 3 million tons of solvents, to degrade plastic polymers into its basic building waste from landflls, and then later updated this to blocks. However, the engineering realities of these processes $5.2 billion in investments in 62 projects supposedly make this distinction rather fuzzy. able to divert 3.6 million tons of waste.4 Without a widely accepted technical defnition, the industry While the ACC does not promote or publicize the list has ofen attempted to confate waste-to-fuel/plastic-to- of these projects, we obtained the list of the projects fuel and plastic-to-plastic under the respective umbrellas of used to generate this estimate. We found a range of “chemical recycling” and “advanced recycling.” Waste-to-fuel/ technologies, including so-called “chemical recycling” plastic-to-fuel conversion comprises existing technologies and waste-to-fuel, as well as mechanical recycling like pyrolysis and gasifcation, as well as still-theoretical improvements and upgrades, suggesting that the ACC methods. Since these processes produce fossil fuels, energy, may be trying to confate unproven technologies and or petrochemicals, they should not be considered recycling. false solutions with mere additions and improvements Plastic-to-plastic methods would theoretically turn plastic to existing systems. We reviewed the various projects, waste directly into its chemical precursors, but these technologies, and companies to assess whether these promises may never actually deliver. investments are actually plastics recycling and whether any of them might viably—and urgently—reduce plastic The American Chemistry Council (ACC), a trade association production and pollution. We found that many of the that represents manufacturers of petrochemicals and plastics, investments are going into waste-to-fuel projects promotes so-called chemical recycling technologies as a (which is not recycling), that one-third of the total means to overcome the identifed challenges to “traditional” projects or companies are likely to not be viable, and mechanical recycling collection, sorting, and reprocessing that none of the plastic-to-plastic projects on this list (see 2. Criteria for Evaluation for defnitions). The ACC also shows promise of becoming viable. This means that ofen and overtly uses “advanced recycling” as a synonym very little of this investment has a chance of reducing 2 for “chemical recycling,” further confusing the issue, as plastic production or pollution, and ensures years of “advanced” recycling can also refer to innovative elements of fossil-based plastic production. mechanical recycling, such as optical sorting. DECEPTION BY THE NUMBERS | 3 Key Findings | Less than 50% of the projects on the ACC’s list of “advanced” recycling met our basic criteria to be deemed credible plastic recycling projects; the rest were either waste-to-fuel/plastic-to-fuel (which is not recycling), or other non-reprocessing projects. | Of the recycling projects we determined to be valid mechanical or plastic-to-plastic recycling, we found these would have a total processing capacity of 0.2% of the plastic waste generated in 2017. This means that if even these projects are all successful and operate at full capacity, this would not address the overproduction of plastic in the U.S. market. | About one-third of the total proposed recycling projects either is unlikely to be viable or is questionable as to whether they will be completed, and all of the plastic-to-plastic projects are considered to be of questionable viability or potentially unviable. This means that the promises of plastic-to-plastic recycling show very little likelihood of recycling any plastic. | Taxpayer funding of at least $506 million was identifed to be invested in these projects. | Almost 90% of the taxpayer funds identifed for projects on the ACC’s list went to waste-to-fuel projects, meaning public money is being used to produce fuels, waxes, and chemicals for the petrochemical industry. The Problem This is a bait-and-switch, as the world is already awash in oil and gas, and more of it is not needed. In fact, virgin plastic To date, only 9% of the plastic ever produced has been is cheaper than recycled plastic precisely because the fossil 5 recycled. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation estimated in fuels used to produce it are so plentiful. There is no evidence 2017 that, globally, 95% of plastic packaging material value that the marketing of the fuels generated from the burning of was lost afer a single use, and only 14% was even collected waste actually reduces oil and gas exploration or production, for recycling, with a much smaller percentage functionally or demand for virgin plastic resin. Plastic-to-fuel does not 6 recycled into new plastic packaging. In the U.S., only 8% of all solve a plastic production problem, but instead aims to solve 7 plastic generated was recycled in 2017. a waste management problem. It should be underscored that Recent research by Greenpeace revealed that many plastics waste-to-fuel and plastic-to-fuel are not “recycling”; rather, used by food and beverage companies have such a low they are material destruction. likelihood of being reprocessed in the U.S. by municipal ACC member Dow Chemical Company, a leading promoter of collection and waste management systems that “recyclable” pyrolysis waste-to-fuel processes, initially called its process labels or symbols on packaging can be considered deceptive “recycling.” However, afer being pressed by the National 8 marketing. At the same time, in an efort to address public Recycling