Greenpeace questions ACC recycling investment figures

A new report from Greenpeace says the plastics industry is overstating the potential of chemical recycling to address U.S. waste challenges and questions whether some of the technology should be considered recycling.

The Sept. 9 report from the environmental group takes aim at a prominent argument from the American Chemistry Council that there have been more than 50 new projects and $5 billion in investment in U.S. plastics recycling projects in the last three years.

The report is the latest chapter in an ongoing debate around the new recycling technologies and the kind of support chemical recycling should get from government policymakers.

But what sets the new Greenpeace report apart is it obtained a list of projects that ACC had assembled to calculate those figures.

The environmental group said it did a detailed review of the projects and argues that one-third of them are not likely to be viable.

Greenpeace said about one-quarter of them turn plastic waste into fuel, rather than recycling it back into new plastic. About half of the listed projects are upgrades to traditional recycling plants, not funding for chemical recycling.

"The American Chemistry Council, the plastics industry and the consumer goods sector need to stop hiding behind the fantasy of chemical recycling," said Ivy Schlegel, Greenpeace USA plastics research specialist and author of the report.

ACC's plastics division pushed back against the Greenpeace report in a statement, arguing that companies are making progress with chemical recycling, or advanced recycling, as it calls it.

ACC says that over the last three years, since the start of China's National Sword crackdown on plastic scrap imports, the private sector has invested $5.3 billion in new plastics recycling projects. ACC frequently mentions that figure in congressional and state testimony.

The investment includes both the advanced recycling technologies that break plastics down into molecular components to be reconstructed as fuels, new chemicals or back into same-as-virgin plastics, and traditional mechanical recycling that grinds and melts plastic without breaking molecular bonds.

"Greenpeace's recent report contains factual inaccuracies, ignores progress and dismisses ongoing investments supporting development of practical, real-world solutions to not only remove plastic waste from the environment, but to reuse that waste to create feedstock for new and useful products," ACC said.

"These projects are at various stages of development, but the sheer number of companies involved, dollars invested and facilities coming online demonstrate confidence in the advanced recycling [technologies]," ACC said. "In addition, new and growing demand from over 300 brands that have committed to using recycled plastics in their products and packaging helps to further strengthen the economic viability of these technologies."

Greenpeace said it obtained a copy of the list with 52 projects that ACC used to derive its claim of $5 billion-plus in recycling investment, although the environmental group said it only had project names and did its own financial estimates. It said it completed its research in June and July.

Greenpeace said it examined public records like permitting databases, company websites and news reports, and found financial information for 36 projects, with announced investment of $2.17 billion.

The environmental group said more than half, or $1.25 billion, was for plastics-to-fuel or waste-to-fuel projects.

About $540 million was for traditional mechanical recycling, and $145 million was for four projects that used chemical recycling to break down waste plastic and rebuild it into new plastic.

Greenpeace said a few of the projects seemed to be investments in municipal recyclables sorting operations, rather than directly in plastics recycling.

In other cases, the group said the list seemed to include a waste-to-energy facility for medical waste and a waste-to-fuels plant in the announcement phase since 2011.

ACC, in its statement, did not address specifics of the Greenpeace financial claims or the details of the list. In response to a Plastics News question, ACC Sept. 15 released a list of 64 projects and said that 80 percent of the investments were in advanced recycling.

The two groups sparred over whether the technologies to turn plastic waste into fuel should be called recycling.

Greenpeace argued that since plastics-to-fuel technologies ultimately turn the polymers into hydrocarbons like gas, oil or jet fuel and then burn them, those projects should not be called recycling.

That could be a key flashpoint in congressional or legislative debates. A chemical recycling provision in the Save Our Seas Act 2.0 in Washington, for example, was removed from that bill last year after objections from Senate Democrats.

As well, Greenpeace said it identified $506 million in taxpayer funds spent on projects on the list, with $450 million of that money going to plastics-to-fuel projects.

But ACC said there's a role for plastics-to-fuel technologies, including as a bridge to plastics-to-plastics.

"Converting post-use plastics to alternative transportation fuels is an important step on the road to a more circular economy for plastics, as it displaces fossil-based petroleum," ACC said. "And it is only one approach to reusing plastic.

"Greenpeace seeks to dismiss or even deny the environmental benefits of creating feedstock for fuel out of plastic waste and doesn't recognize that continued progress toward plastics-to-plastics conversion begins with sustainable energy advancement like this," ACC said.

Greenpeace said its research identified four of the 52 projects as investments in chemical recycling to convert waste plastics back into new plastics: a joint venture of Loop Industries Inc. and Indorama Public Ventures Ltd.; PureCycle Technologies Inc.; BP plc's Infinia partnership; and Eastman Chemical Co.

But Greenpeace said the projects were either in the announcement phase or early stages, and it said it was difficult to evaluate them: "Thus we determined that no plastics-to-plastics projects on this list are likely to actually recycle plastic."

Greenpeace also questioned the market impact of the projects, saying that its research estimated that the processing capacity to recycle back into new plastics — either through chemical or mechanical technologies — would amount to 0.2 percent of the 34.5 million tons of plastic waste generated in 2017.

But ACC estimates that all the projects, presumably including plastics-to-fuel, could process 3.6 million tons per year of waste, a figure which it said is mostly plastic.

ACC said companies want to keep plastic out of the environment and are investing "to move toward converting used plastic into new plastic."

It noted three specific projects, including Eastman and an effort in Europe to make cream cheese packaging for Mondelez and ice cream containers for Unilever using recycled resin made from advanced recycling.

As well, ACC pointed to the Tigard, Ore., operation of Agilyx Corp. to convert used polystyrene to styrene oil, which then used by Americas Styrenics LLC to make food packaging, electronics and other goods.

"These projects are examples of our industry making real, substantive investments and ongoing work to develop innovative and impactful solutions throughout the plastics value chain," ACC said.