Recycle Ann Arbor (RAA) is a founding member of the Alliance of Mission-Based Recyclers (AMBR), which released two reports staking out a clear position against policies that promote “chemical recycling.” The reports “‘Chemical Recycling’ Will Not Solve Our Plastics Problem” and “The False Promise of Plastics-to-Fuel Technologies” detail the environmental and economic falsehoods behind the push for “chemical recycling” and provide policy recommendations for decision-makers to invest in real solutions.
As American communities fight to keep plastics-to-fuel facilities from harming their environment and health, the Alliance of Mission-Based Recyclers urges state and federal lawmakers to reject any policies supporting plastic-to-fuel technologies.
“There’s nothing ‘advanced’ about burning plastics for energy or fuel,” said Martin Bourque, AMBR founder and director of Ecology Center in Berkeley, California. “Plastics-to-fuel technologies are overhyped, overpriced plastic burning schemes that only enable the production of more harmful plastic packaging and increase our dependence on oil and gas.”
The AMBR reports assert that, rather than searching for technologies to capture the ever-increasing volumes of plastics, policies are needed to prevent fossil fuel extraction and plastic pollution and protect communities from becoming the dumping grounds for even more plastic waste and unproven technologies.
“There is unprecedented momentum around the country to address the plastics crisis, but these technologies are a dangerous distraction from real solutions.
Legislators should reject ‘chemical recycling’ policies and focus on three priority policies to truly address the plastic pollution crisis and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels for plastics – extended producer responsibility, bottle deposit systems, and minimum recycled content standards,” said Kate Bailey, policy director for AMBR and Eco-Cycle.
AMBR firmly opposes “chemical recycling” policies recently adopted in several states and pending legislation such as MN SF1392 in Minnesota, A 5803 in New Jersey, and H 6675 in Rhode Island. AMBR also urges local communities to reject any proposal for plastics-to-fuel facilities. AMBR supports residents and lawmakers in Macon-Bibb County, Georgia, who are actively opposing Brightmark’s proposed construction of the world’s largest chemical recycling facility in their community. Mayor Lester Miller said he opposed the facility due to concerns about the untested plastics-to-fuel technology and concerns about air quality and environmental impacts.
“AMBR members collect, sort and recycle hundreds of tons of recycling every day and we know firsthand the challenges of the plastics recycling system. But so-called ‘chemical recycling’ is not a solution any materials recovery facility operator should support, period. AMBR urges recycling operators to reject sending any loads of materials to plastics-to-fuel facilities,” said Bryan Ukena, chief executive officer, Recycle Ann Arbor.
AMBR calls for investments and policies to first focus on reducing plastic production and building up reuse systems. Investments in recycling should then focus on scaling up mechanical plastics recycling processors, businesses, and technologies. AMBR then outlines key questions for recyclers to ask before sending recycled plastics to emerging plastics-to-plastics processes such as depolymerization and purification. In their reports, AMBR recognizes these processes could become complementary to mechanical recycling if they can be proven to be environmentally sustainable and economically viable.
As outlined in their two reports, “chemical recycling,” specifically plastics-to-fuel technologies, requires a steady stream of plastic waste to create fuel, thus perpetuating the increased extraction of fossil fuels. Because no feedstock is recaptured in the process, these are linear technologies, not circular. Fuels produced from these facilities are combusted just like conventional fossil fuels, leading to climate pollution, air and water pollution, and all the known environmental and health concerns caused by burning fossil fuels. AMBR stands united with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, U.S. Plastics Pact, ISO standards, and many others that plastics-to-fuel technologies have no role in a Zero Waste future.
Instead of investing in risky, unproven plastic-to-fuel technologies, AMBR recommends investors and legislators focus on strategies that will reduce plastic pollution and our dependence on fossil fuels, and the resulting climate impacts.
AMBR’s recommendations include:
•Eliminate problematic and unnecessary plastics;
•Reject all forms of plastics-to-fuel technologies;
•Stop using “chemical recycling” and “advanced recycling” as blanket terms as there is too much variance among technologies falling under this broad label;
•Invest first in proven policies and programs to strengthen mechanical recycling; and
•Only explore emerging molecular plastics-to-plastics technologies that may complement mechanical recycling programs.
“The end goals of any plastics recycling should be to reduce reliance on virgin fossil fuels and support a circular economy,” said Lynn Hoffman, national coordinator for AMBR and co-president of Eureka Recycling. “Every recycling system should be evaluated based on its ability to meet these goals, and chemical recycling fails the test.”