Plastic producers have pushed“advanced recycling” as a salve to the plastic waste crisis despite knowing for years that it is not a technically or economically feasible solution, a new report argues.
Advanced recycling, also known as chemical recycling, refers to a variety of processes used to break plastics into tiny molecules. The industry has increasingly promoted these technologies, as public concern about the environmental and health concerns of plastic pollutionhave grown.Yet the rollout of these technologies has been plagued by problems, found the new analysis from the fossil-fuel accountability advocacy group the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI).
“The companies make it sound like it’s pretty great, like it’s something we should pursue,” said Davis Allen, investigative researcher at the CCI and lead author of the report. “But they know the problems, the limitations.”
The new analysis follows a2024 CCI reportwhich alleged that plastic producers concealed the problems with traditional recycling, and argued that they could face legal ramifications for doing so. That earlier research was cited in a September lawsuit filed by California’s attorney general, Rob Bonta, against ExxonMobil for its role in the plastic pollution crisis.
“The new report focuses on this modern deception with advanced recycling, which has become a real focus for the industry in recent years,” said Davis.
Companies have depicted advanced recycling as groundbreaking and new. A2020 videofrom Chevron Phillips, a joint venture between Chevron and Phillips 66, calls it a “revolutionary innovation that can turn a piece of plastic into a new material again and again and again”. Three years later, ExxonMobil’s CEO, Darren Woods, called the technology “brand new” in aninterview, the report notes.
The air of newness has been echoed bypublicationsandpoliticians. However, though there have been some new technological innovations, chemical recycling processes were patented as early as the1950s, and have beentouted as a solution to plastic wasteby trade groups since the 1970s. Back in 1977, for instance, a brochure from the trade group Society of the Plastics Industry claimed that the most common form of advanced recycling, pyrolysis, would allow plastic waste to be “recycled into feedstocks that can be used again to make new plastics”, the report notes.
Asked to comment on the research, anExxonMobilspokesperson, Michelle Gray, said: “Advanced recycling is a proven technology – one which the EU recognizes as a solution to plastic waste. We’ve processed more than 80m lb of plastic at our Baytown facility since startup that might otherwise have gone to landfills”
Chevron Phillips declined to comment.
Society of thePlasticsIndustry did not respond to a request for comment.
Though they have existed for decades, these technologies have still not been realized at scale because they face strong limitations. Though they do not seem to mention them in ads or public relations campaigns, the industry has long been familiar with those problems, the report says.
One major issue: the processes are expensive, requiring large amounts of energy, fuel and labor. In 1991, a market research firm said the “economics of these processes has not been demonstrated”, and at a 1994 trade meeting, the Exxon Chemical vice-president Irwin Levowitz called pyrolysis “fundamentally uneconomical”, the analysis says.
In an emailed comment, Exxon’s Gray said: “The technology makes sense, which is why we’ve invested more than $200m to expand advanced recycling operations and aim to continue doing so both in the US and in Europe.”
The industry has failed to highlight not only the economic challenges of advanced recycling, but also its technical limitations, Allen argues. The industry group America’s Plastic Makers – part of the trade group American Chemistry Council – for instance, hasoftenclaimedthe processes can transform plastic waste into “brand new plastic”. And in 2023, the energy giant Shellclaimed in a videothat chemical recycling can process plastics “used in many places like homes, hospitals, transportation, construction, agriculture and electronics”.
However, many chemical recycling facilities do not turn plastic into new plastic; rather, they produce only fuel.
“That undermines the claim that they’re creating a circular economy – it’s not circular if you’re not using the materials to make new plastic,” said Allen.
Further, post-consumer items cannot easily be processed with advanced recycling. The process works best with clean, homogeneous inputs, and since sorting and cleaning consumer products is expensive, so many facilities working at scale process mostly clean, un-dyed industrial waste. It’s an issue raised in California’s 2024 lawsuit against Exxon.
In an email, the American Chemistry Council spokesperson Matthew Kastner said: “Activist groups who claim advanced recycling ‘isn’t real’ appear to be ignoring science, innovation, and measurable results.
Sign up toDown to Earth
The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential
after newsletter promotion
“Reports built on selective data and anti-plastic agendas do nothing to advance real environmental progress,” he said, adding: “Groups like the Center for Climate Integrity … who claim expertise on advanced recycling despite likely never having visited a facility, were founded to dismantle the petrochemical industry in the United States, killing thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in tax revenue.”
The Guardian has also contacted Shell for comment.
Another problem the industry does not frequently address publicly: the pollution caused by advanced recycling. Though “the plastics industry positions advanced recycling as an environmentally-friendly solution for plastic waste”, the report says, the processes emit toxic and planet-warming pollutants.
The industry acknowledges this fact internally, the report says, noting a 2024reportfrom consulting firm Roland Berger which addresses advanced recycling’s “substantial” carbon footprint, and a2023 industry presentationfrom engineering firm AMI consulting which said the environmental effects of the technologies “need to be taken seriously”.
The Guardian has asked Roland Berger for comment.
The limitations of advanced recyclinggenerallygounmentionedin public by companies, but have long been raised by environmentalists. Privately, industry interests have given credence to those concerns.
“The concerns of industry critics are, in many cases, justified,” one industry consultant explained at a 2023 conference sponsored by the trade group American Chemistry Council, the report notes.
It is possible that the new research could inspire additional litigation, but its main purpose is to inform the public, said Allen.
“The information ecosystem around advanced recycling is totally dominated by the industry itself,” Allen said. “Our hope is that our work gives people the tools they need to break down and assess the industry’s claims.”