SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A tractor drives through plastic bottles at a recycling center in San Francisco, California.
(Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
200+ Groups Decry 'Orwellian' Industry-Backed Plastic Burning Push
The organizations blasted the American Chemistry Council's promotion of "advanced recycling" technologies, arguing that "there is nothing advanced about them and nothing gets recycled."
Sep 19, 2022
More than 200 civil society groups sent a letter to members of the United States Senate on Monday urging them to eschew sponsorship of potential industry-backed bills that critics say rebrand polluting technologies as "advanced recycling" in a bid to keep burning plastic waste.
"The industry is attempting to position itself for a nationwide build-out of plastic burning infrastructure under the guise of so-called 'advanced recycling.'"
The letter--which was signed by environmental, science, and consumer advocacy groups--implored senators to reject so-called advanced recycling legislation being promoted by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry group seeking to "change existing law so that plastics incinerators can operate without meeting the environmental and health protections of the Clean Air Act."
"Under the guise of offering a solution to the global plastic waste crisis, the American Chemistry Council has invented an Orwellian new name for decades-old incineration technologies," the signers stated. "It seeks to rebrand pyrolysis and gasification incinerators as 'advanced recycling,' even though there is nothing advanced about them and nothing gets recycled."
At least 18 states in recent years have passed legislation promoting the technology, which uses chemicals to "recycle" plastic waste.
Opponents, however, argue that what's needed is legislation like U.S. Sen Jeff Merkley's (D-Ore.) Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act of 2021, which would amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to reduce plastic use and environmental contamination.
Less than 10% of U.S. plastic waste is recycled annually. Meanwhile, microplastics, so-called "forever chemicals," and other plastic pollutants permeate the planet, the atmosphere, and even human bodies.
The new letter continued:
In reality, the plastic trash that enters pyrolysis and gasification incinerators gets burned, creating dioxins and other harmful air pollution. What's left is toxic chemical waste that gets burned again later at hazardous waste disposal facilities or as a dirty fuel.
Far from 'recycling' the plastic waste they get paid to accept, gasification and pyrolysis incinerators are turning plastic into highly toxic air pollutants and generating hundreds of thousands of pounds of hazardous waste.
Plastic contains hundreds of toxic chemicals, including heavy metals, phthalates, flame retardants, bisphenol A, and PFAS. The process of burning plastic via pyrolysis and gasification generates even more toxic pollution, including chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, and other serious health harms. Emissions include dioxins, benzene, cadmium, arsenic, lead, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and mercury.
Removing existing Clean Air Act limitations on burning plastic will allow chemical manufacturers to produce and release these toxic chemicals into our communities without limitation.
"For chemical industry lobbyists," however, "the concept of 'advanced recycling' is a dream come true," the letter said. "Having an eco-sounding way to make plastic waste vanish from sight helps the industry justify exponential growth in plastics production, which is expected to triple over the next 40 years."
Last year, Neil Tangri, science and policy director at the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, called the false promise of advanced recycling a "pipe dream."
"This is the continuation of an industry strategy of saying recycling can solve the problem and we don't need to reduce production," he told Politico, which noted that the fossil fuel industry plans to spend around $400 billion on new plastic manufacturing capacity.
The signers of the new letter stated that "while the plastics industry claims that the process of burning plastic via pyrolysis and gasification meets state and federal environmental standards, the whole point of the 'advanced recycling' legislation they are promoting is to allow pyrolysis and gasification incinerators to evade these very protections."
"Changing the legal definition of incineration or waste so that chemical companies can burn plastic in poor and minority communities without controlling the toxic pollution they emit is environmental injustice at its worst," they argued.
"It would be unconscionable for any member of Congress to endorse and enable the chemical manufacturers' plans to evade federal health protections for incinerating plastic," the groups added, "particularly in the face of a global plastic pollution crisis and the projected tripling of plastic waste."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
jeff merkleyplastic pollutioncorporate poweramerican chemistry councilpollutionus senateenvironmentfossil fuelsplasticsbig oilforever chemicalspfasmicroplastics
More than 200 civil society groups sent a letter to members of the United States Senate on Monday urging them to eschew sponsorship of potential industry-backed bills that critics say rebrand polluting technologies as "advanced recycling" in a bid to keep burning plastic waste.
"The industry is attempting to position itself for a nationwide build-out of plastic burning infrastructure under the guise of so-called 'advanced recycling.'"
The letter--which was signed by environmental, science, and consumer advocacy groups--implored senators to reject so-called advanced recycling legislation being promoted by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry group seeking to "change existing law so that plastics incinerators can operate without meeting the environmental and health protections of the Clean Air Act."
"Under the guise of offering a solution to the global plastic waste crisis, the American Chemistry Council has invented an Orwellian new name for decades-old incineration technologies," the signers stated. "It seeks to rebrand pyrolysis and gasification incinerators as 'advanced recycling,' even though there is nothing advanced about them and nothing gets recycled."
At least 18 states in recent years have passed legislation promoting the technology, which uses chemicals to "recycle" plastic waste.
Opponents, however, argue that what's needed is legislation like U.S. Sen Jeff Merkley's (D-Ore.) Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act of 2021, which would amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to reduce plastic use and environmental contamination.
Less than 10% of U.S. plastic waste is recycled annually. Meanwhile, microplastics, so-called "forever chemicals," and other plastic pollutants permeate the planet, the atmosphere, and even human bodies.
The new letter continued:
In reality, the plastic trash that enters pyrolysis and gasification incinerators gets burned, creating dioxins and other harmful air pollution. What's left is toxic chemical waste that gets burned again later at hazardous waste disposal facilities or as a dirty fuel.
Far from 'recycling' the plastic waste they get paid to accept, gasification and pyrolysis incinerators are turning plastic into highly toxic air pollutants and generating hundreds of thousands of pounds of hazardous waste.
Plastic contains hundreds of toxic chemicals, including heavy metals, phthalates, flame retardants, bisphenol A, and PFAS. The process of burning plastic via pyrolysis and gasification generates even more toxic pollution, including chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, and other serious health harms. Emissions include dioxins, benzene, cadmium, arsenic, lead, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and mercury.
Removing existing Clean Air Act limitations on burning plastic will allow chemical manufacturers to produce and release these toxic chemicals into our communities without limitation.
"For chemical industry lobbyists," however, "the concept of 'advanced recycling' is a dream come true," the letter said. "Having an eco-sounding way to make plastic waste vanish from sight helps the industry justify exponential growth in plastics production, which is expected to triple over the next 40 years."
Last year, Neil Tangri, science and policy director at the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, called the false promise of advanced recycling a "pipe dream."
"This is the continuation of an industry strategy of saying recycling can solve the problem and we don't need to reduce production," he told Politico, which noted that the fossil fuel industry plans to spend around $400 billion on new plastic manufacturing capacity.
The signers of the new letter stated that "while the plastics industry claims that the process of burning plastic via pyrolysis and gasification meets state and federal environmental standards, the whole point of the 'advanced recycling' legislation they are promoting is to allow pyrolysis and gasification incinerators to evade these very protections."
"Changing the legal definition of incineration or waste so that chemical companies can burn plastic in poor and minority communities without controlling the toxic pollution they emit is environmental injustice at its worst," they argued.
"It would be unconscionable for any member of Congress to endorse and enable the chemical manufacturers' plans to evade federal health protections for incinerating plastic," the groups added, "particularly in the face of a global plastic pollution crisis and the projected tripling of plastic waste."
More than 200 civil society groups sent a letter to members of the United States Senate on Monday urging them to eschew sponsorship of potential industry-backed bills that critics say rebrand polluting technologies as "advanced recycling" in a bid to keep burning plastic waste.
"The industry is attempting to position itself for a nationwide build-out of plastic burning infrastructure under the guise of so-called 'advanced recycling.'"
The letter--which was signed by environmental, science, and consumer advocacy groups--implored senators to reject so-called advanced recycling legislation being promoted by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry group seeking to "change existing law so that plastics incinerators can operate without meeting the environmental and health protections of the Clean Air Act."
"Under the guise of offering a solution to the global plastic waste crisis, the American Chemistry Council has invented an Orwellian new name for decades-old incineration technologies," the signers stated. "It seeks to rebrand pyrolysis and gasification incinerators as 'advanced recycling,' even though there is nothing advanced about them and nothing gets recycled."
At least 18 states in recent years have passed legislation promoting the technology, which uses chemicals to "recycle" plastic waste.
Opponents, however, argue that what's needed is legislation like U.S. Sen Jeff Merkley's (D-Ore.) Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act of 2021, which would amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to reduce plastic use and environmental contamination.
Less than 10% of U.S. plastic waste is recycled annually. Meanwhile, microplastics, so-called "forever chemicals," and other plastic pollutants permeate the planet, the atmosphere, and even human bodies.
The new letter continued:
In reality, the plastic trash that enters pyrolysis and gasification incinerators gets burned, creating dioxins and other harmful air pollution. What's left is toxic chemical waste that gets burned again later at hazardous waste disposal facilities or as a dirty fuel.
Far from 'recycling' the plastic waste they get paid to accept, gasification and pyrolysis incinerators are turning plastic into highly toxic air pollutants and generating hundreds of thousands of pounds of hazardous waste.
Plastic contains hundreds of toxic chemicals, including heavy metals, phthalates, flame retardants, bisphenol A, and PFAS. The process of burning plastic via pyrolysis and gasification generates even more toxic pollution, including chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, and other serious health harms. Emissions include dioxins, benzene, cadmium, arsenic, lead, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and mercury.
Removing existing Clean Air Act limitations on burning plastic will allow chemical manufacturers to produce and release these toxic chemicals into our communities without limitation.
"For chemical industry lobbyists," however, "the concept of 'advanced recycling' is a dream come true," the letter said. "Having an eco-sounding way to make plastic waste vanish from sight helps the industry justify exponential growth in plastics production, which is expected to triple over the next 40 years."
Last year, Neil Tangri, science and policy director at the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, called the false promise of advanced recycling a "pipe dream."
"This is the continuation of an industry strategy of saying recycling can solve the problem and we don't need to reduce production," he told Politico, which noted that the fossil fuel industry plans to spend around $400 billion on new plastic manufacturing capacity.
The signers of the new letter stated that "while the plastics industry claims that the process of burning plastic via pyrolysis and gasification meets state and federal environmental standards, the whole point of the 'advanced recycling' legislation they are promoting is to allow pyrolysis and gasification incinerators to evade these very protections."
"Changing the legal definition of incineration or waste so that chemical companies can burn plastic in poor and minority communities without controlling the toxic pollution they emit is environmental injustice at its worst," they argued.
"It would be unconscionable for any member of Congress to endorse and enable the chemical manufacturers' plans to evade federal health protections for incinerating plastic," the groups added, "particularly in the face of a global plastic pollution crisis and the projected tripling of plastic waste."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.