The Trump administration recently removed a major roadblock for chemical recycling, an unproven set of technologies that the oil and plastic industries are pitching as a panacea to the world\u2019s plastic pollution crisis. Now, amid an unprecedented lobbying push and with corporate allies ensconced in key regulatory agencies, the industries are clamoring for a nationwide buildout of chemical recycling facilities that experts say are highly polluting, disastrous for climate change, and almost entirely ineffective.<\/p>\n
In promotional videos<\/a> and policy fact sheets, often accompanied by professed commitments to a \u201ccircular economy\u201d for plastic waste, these industries claim that sustainable recycling technologies \u2014 not limits on production \u2014 will solve the world\u2019s plastic pollution crisis.<\/p>\n For decades, oil and gas companies have known<\/a> that the majority of plastics \u2014 made from fossil fuel\u2013derived chemicals \u2014 could not be recycled using traditional methods. But even as the industry faces state and class action lawsuits<\/a> alleging deception, it\u2019s now doubling down on a campaign to persuade lawmakers and regulators to embrace \u201cadvanced recycling,\u201d or chemical recycling.<\/p>\n The term is a catchall for various chemical processes that convert plastic waste into chemicals and fuels, which could then theoretically be used to make new plastic and reduce reliance on virgin fossil fuels. The problem? There\u2019s scant evidence that the method actually works<\/a> \u2014 but there is evidence that it generates hazardous waste<\/a> and toxic emissions, harming human health and the environment.<\/p>\n Fossil fuel companies are working hard to ensure that chemical recycling wins over the American public because plastic is one of Big Oil\u2019s last lifelines. As the world\u2019s demand for oil and gas decreases<\/a>, major corporations are rushing to shift<\/a> their investments to petrochemicals and peddle plastics to consumers. Meanwhile, millions of tons<\/a> of plastic enter the ocean each year, and microplastics have been found virtually everywhere on earth, including inside the human brain<\/a>.<\/p>\n For decades, oil and gas companies have known that the majority of plastics \u2014 made from fossil fuel\u2013derived chemicals \u2014 could not be recycled using traditional methods.<\/p>\n The plastic industry\u2019s largest lobbying group has set an ambitious goal of ensuring that 100 percent of plastic packaging in the United States is reused, recycled, or recovered by 2040. The current domestic plastic recycling rate sits at a measly 5 percent<\/a>.<\/p>\n In July, President Donald Trump\u2019s industry-friendly Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) removed one of the few regulatory hurdles confronting chemical recycling\u2019s toxic outputs: a set of new rules proposed under President Joe Biden that would have required an additional risk review of eighteen plastic-based fuels produced from chemical recycling. Policy experts say the rules\u2019 elimination could now clear the way for the nationwide buildout of chemical recycling facilities that the plastic industry desires.<\/p>\n The move comes as the plastic industry lobbies aggressively for regulatory rollbacks at both the state<\/a> and federal<\/a> levels \u2014 a push spearheaded in part by the same industry group whose former executives now staff the EPA.<\/p>\n More than a third of all US states have at least one proposed or operating chemical recycling facility, most of which perform plastic pyrolysis \u2014 a specialized process that breaks down plastics at high temperatures to create new chemicals. Critics say the process is just glorified incineration and that the toxic emissions it releases disproportionately impact marginalized communities, where chemical recycling facilities are frequently located<\/a>.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the industry is throwing millions of dollars into new chemical recycling projects. ExxonMobil is investing<\/a> more than $200 million to expand a facility in Texas, and chemical recycling company Braven Environmental<\/a> is developing a $145 million facility in the state with Koch Project Solutions, a subsidiary of the Koch family\u2019s vast fossil fuel empire. The waste processing company Brightmark is plowing ahead<\/a> with a $950 million facility in Georgia, despite community pushback and the recent bankruptcy of a similar plant in Indiana.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have booming pyrolysis across the country with woefully inadequate data about the threats to public health and the chemicals that are entering commerce as a result,\u201d Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, a staff attorney at the nonprofit environmental law organization Earthjustice, told the Lever. \u201cI think the withdrawal of [this rule] will deprive EPA scientists of the information they need to protect public health and will deny EPA regulators and risk assessors the information they need to comply with their legal obligations.\u201d<\/p>\n Fringed by shipyards, chemical plants, and Chevron\u2019s largest US refinery, the residents of Pascagoula, Mississippi, have long dealt with<\/a> adverse health impacts from industrial pollution. In 2023, ProPublica and the Guardian revealed<\/a> that the EPA had given Chevron the go-ahead to add to the neighborhood\u2019s toxic burden, authorizing the company\u2019s facility in the area to make \u201cclimate-friendly\u201d jet fuel from discarded plastics \u2014 with a one-in-four lifetime cancer risk for people exposed to the fumes.<\/p>\n Another plastic-derived Chevron chemical, an ingredient used to make boat fuel, carried<\/a> a cancer risk so high that, according to an EPA analysis<\/a>, everyone exposed to it continuously over a lifetime could expect to develop cancer. A community group in Pascagoula sued<\/a> the EPA that April, seeking to halt Chevron\u2019s chemical recycling operation and revoke the EPA\u2019s consent order green-lighting the production of eighteen plastic-derived chemicals.<\/p>\n In response, the EPA proposed new rules under the Toxic Substances Control Act that would require manufacturers to notify the agency before producing any of the eighteen chemicals named in the suit. Regulators would then review the substances for \u201cimpurities of concern\u201d and decide whether to require additional testing or safety requirements.<\/p>\n The EPA said<\/a> in a 2023 press release that it had approved the plant\u2019s production of plastic-derived chemicals without considering the full range of toxic additives they could contain. The plastic \u201cfeedstocks\u201d fed into the recycling process are often made with carcinogenic dioxins, heavy metals, forever chemicals, flame retardants, and more.<\/p>\n \u201cAt the time they were approved, the companies provided some data on impurities, and these data showed there were no impurities of concern,\u201d the EPA wrote. \u201cHowever, EPA knew less about impurities that may be included in plastic-based feedstocks in 2015 and 2019 than it does today . . . Future consent orders for any new plastic waste\u2013derived feedstocks would also contain requirements to address this issue.\u201d<\/p>\n In December 2024, the agency withdrew its consent order for the Chevron plant entirely. Citing issues with its risk assessments, the EPA said in a court filing<\/a> it would again review the chemicals involved and issue a new decision at a later date. Chevron did not respond to the Lever\u2019s request for comment.<\/p>\n In an August 2023 fact sheet<\/a> addressed to the Pascagoula community, Chevron disputed reporting on the one-in-four cancer risk posed by its pyrolysis-derived fuel. The risk, Chevron said, \u201cwas not for those living near the Chevron refinery in Pascagoula \u2014 it was for an unrealistic worst-case exposure scenario at airports. EPA has now confirmed that airport scenario would never actually occur, and it expects actual worst-case risks will be \u2018vastly lower.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n While the EPA\u2019s new decision on the Chevron application is still pending, advocates fear that the agency\u2019s latest announcement revoking the proposed rules signals that it is prepared to take an even more lenient approach to regulating Chevron\u2019s plastics-to-fuel refinery \u2014 and chemical recycling writ large. On July 8, Trump\u2019s EPA said<\/a> it had withdrawn the proposed new use rules because the EPA\u2019s initial Chevron consent order had been revoked.<\/p>\n Maria Doa, senior director of chemicals policy at the Environmental Defense Fund and a former EPA staffer, was skeptical of this reasoning. She noted that the EPA under the previous administration did not choose to revoke the new use rules when it withdrew the plant\u2019s consent order in December. The rules \u201cwould apply to anyone who makes those same chemicals, whether it\u2019s Chevron or somebody else,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n Advocates fear that the agency\u2019s latest announcement revoking the proposed rules signals that it is prepared to take an even more lenient approach to regulating Chevron\u2019s plastics-to-fuel refinery \u2014 and chemical recycling writ large.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s not that they absolutely had to withdraw it,\u201d said Doa. \u201cThe [significant new use rule] says nobody can make it if these toxic components are present, unless you go to EPA, and the EPA reviews it.\u201d<\/p>\n The EPA declined to comment on actions taken by the previous administration, but a spokesperson wrote in a statement: \u201cThis Administration is committed to reviewing new chemicals in a way that follows the science and the law, protects human health and the environment, and allows innovation to thrive . . . . EPA is evaluating the pyrolysis process and the related alternative fuels and products to ensure we have all the necessary information and are using the best available science to assess [new chemicals].\u201d<\/p>\n Since the underlying consent order was revoked, no companies can currently make the eighteen chemicals. But Kalmuss-Katz of Earthjustice said that the withdrawal of the proposed rules while the Chevron review is still pending is a \u201cdangerous indication\u201d of what the EPA may to do next.<\/p>\n \u201cWithdrawing the proposed rules removes a critical safeguard and leaves the public exposed to high rates of cancer and other serious harms in the event that the chemicals are reapproved without a [significant new use rule] in place,\u201d he said. \u201cEPA proposed the significant new use rule because it acknowledged that it didn\u2019t have the information that it needed to evaluate the safety of pyrolysis . . . . That data gap doesn\u2019t go away merely because EPA has withdrawn the [rule].\u201d<\/p>\n Industry groups, meanwhile, were quick to laud the EPA\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n \u201cWe commend the EPA for its prudent decision to withdraw the proposed [significant new use rule] \u2014 a move that aligns with the broader goals of strengthening U.S. manufacturing and advancing a more circular economy,\u201d Chris Rager, vice president of government affairs at the Plastics Industry Association, a lobbying group, said<\/a> in a statement to Plastics News.<\/p>\n Ross Eisenberg, the president of the American Chemistry Council\u2019s plastics advocacy wing, praised the announcement in a statement to the Lever, writing that the proposed new use rules had exceeded the EPA\u2019s regulatory authority, lacked a scientific basis, and hindered investments in the chemical recycling field.<\/p>\n \u201cThe uncertainty and regulatory overreach created by the [significant new use rules] had already slowed progress and stalled investment in advanced recycling and the solutions needed to improve recycling rates in the U.S.,\u201d Eisenberg wrote. \u201cAdvanced recycling is critical to scaling up a circular economy.\u201d<\/p>\n One week after the EPA canceled the proposed new use rules, Eisenberg traveled to Capitol Hill to pitch members of congress on the American Chemistry Council\u2019s vision for chemical recycling. On July 16, Eisenberg and other industry leaders testified before the House Subcommittee on Environment at a hearing<\/a> titled \u201cBeyond the Blue Bin: Forging a Federal Landscape for Recycling Innovation and Economic Growth.\u201d Eisenberg\u2019s testimony stressed the importance of removing \u201cregulatory roadblocks\u201d hindering chemical recycling\u2019s growth.<\/p>\n According to the Vinyl Institute<\/a>, a lobbying group for manufacturers of PVC plastic and vinyl chloride<\/a>, House Republicans were receptive to the industry\u2019s message. In a blog recap<\/a> of the hearing, Kevin Koonce, the Vinyl Institute\u2019s vice president of government affairs, wrote that \u201cHouse Republicans aligned with the chemical industry\u2019s push to ease Environmental Protection Agency regulations on chemical recycling technologies.\u201d<\/p>\n That effort has focused<\/a> on lobbying the EPA to change the classification of chemical recycling under the Clean Air Act, the country\u2019s primary federal air quality law, so that it faces less stringent environmental guidelines. Currently, pyrolysis is classified as waste incineration, but the industry argues that solid-waste rules are inapplicable to chemical recycling and the process should instead be regulated as manufacturing.<\/p>\n \u201cThis reclassification would reduce regulatory burdens and remove certain environmental permitting requirements,\u201dwrote<\/a> Koonce.<\/p>\n Solid waste incinerators are subject to Clean Air Act emissions limits for dioxins and furans,\u00a0highly toxic chemicals often produced as byproducts of plastic combustion. Manufacturing facilities generally don\u2019t have the same emissions requirements, nor do they have to conduct periodic performance tests.<\/p>\n The EPA proposed a rule to reclassify chemical recycling as a manufacturing process during Trump\u2019s first administration, but it was withdrawn<\/a> by Biden\u2019s EPA in 2023. To the industry\u2019s disappointment<\/a>, the EPA declined to take action on the issue when finalizing its periodic review of air emissions standards for solid waste incinerators in June, but it left the door open for future regulatory action.<\/p>\n Revising the Clean Air Act classification isn\u2019t the only issue on the plastic industry\u2019s agenda. Last year marked the American Chemistry Council\u2019s highest lobbying spend on record: The group shelled out more than $22 million<\/a> to influence lawmakers, including to push for a chemical recycling bill in the House titled \u201cAccelerating a Circular Economy for Plastics and Recycling Innovation Act.\u201d<\/p>\n Along with chemical companies like Eastman and Dow, the American Chemistry Council\u2019s lobbying wing represents<\/a> fossil fuel giants like Chevron Phillips Chemical, ExxonMobil, Shell, and the Saudi petrochemical company Sabic.<\/p>\n These corporations\u2019 lobbying dollars appear to be paying off. Trump\u2019s EPA has already implemented various policies on the plastics industry\u2019s wish list, including rolling back <\/a>emissions tracking requirements and weakening standards for forever chemicals in drinking water. And now that two former American Chemistry Council lobbyists \u2014 Nancy Beck and Lynn Dekleva \u2014 hold key roles<\/a> in the EPA office tasked with overseeing chemical safety, the industry could expect more regulatory wins in the future.<\/p>\n \u201cDr. Beck and Dr. Dekleva remain committed to being led by the science and following all applicable ethical guidelines,\u201d said the EPA spokesperson. \u201cPresident Trump made a fantastic choice in selecting these women to work at EPA. They are highly qualified, dedicated public servants, and are among the brightest minds in their field committed to upholding EPA\u2019s mission of protecting human health and the environment.\u201d<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s EPA has already implemented various policies on the plastics industry\u2019s wish list, including rolling back emissions tracking requirements and weakening standards for forever chemicals in drinking water.<\/p>\n At the state level, meanwhile, plastic industry lobbyists have also found great success in advancing their desired rollbacks: Last year, Wyoming became the twenty-fifth state to reclassify chemical recycling as manufacturing.<\/p>\n Since 2022, United Nations delegates from more than 180 countries have been meeting twice annually to hammer out a treaty aimed at tackling the global plastic pollution crisis. But negotiations failed<\/a> on August 15, after six rounds of talks, with no clear path forward. At the center of the stalemate was a rift over recycling.<\/p>\n More than one hundred nations called for legally binding production caps on plastics, and many countries demanded increased restrictions on the toxic chemicals used to produce them. But the United States, alongside wealthy oil-producing nations like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, opposed banning chemical additives or reducing plastic production. Instead<\/a>, these countries pushed for chemical recycling and greater plastic \u201ccircularity.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe U.S., Saudi Arabia, and a few oil-producing allies aim to dodge responsibility for the plastics they make and export by having the public pay for cleaning up their plastic waste and subsidizing plastic recycling to uphold the myth it is economically viable,\u201d said International Pollutants Elimination Network Executive Director Bjorn Beeler, who attended the latest round of negotiations. \u201cThe oil and plastic industries plan to increase plastic and petrochemical production by 300 [percent] by 2060. Even if recycling infrastructure increased by 300 [percent], only 5 to 10 [percent] of plastics would be recycled.\u201d<\/p>\n The American Chemistry Council, for its part, appeared jubilant that the talks had failed.<\/p>\n \u201c[American Chemistry Council] applauds the leadership of U.S. negotiators and their unrelenting efforts to bring governments together around a global agreement on plastic pollution that will help unleash American innovation to solve this global challenge,\u201d the lobbying group wrote<\/a> in an August 15 statement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Trump administration recently removed a major roadblock for chemical recycling, an unproven set of technologies that the…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":12581,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22],"tags":[242,85,46,141],"class_list":["post-12580","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-environment","tag-environment","tag-il","tag-israel","tag-science"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12580","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12580"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12580\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12581"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12580"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12580"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12580"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}