In recent years, chemical recycling, also called "advanced recycling", has been promoted as the next big solution to the plastic pollution crisis. Touted as a cutting-edge technology that can recycle even the most difficult plastics, it’s being heralded as a game-changer for reducing plastic waste. While chemical recycling may offer promising solutions for improving the circularity of plastics and supplement traditional or “mechanical” recycling, which has long been plagued by inefficiencies and contamination, more research and development is needed to avoid impacts for both the environment and public health.

Instead of being a cure-all for the plastic crisis, chemical recycling in its current form offers a false sense of hope for a circular system for plastics. The truth is that it still relies on the same flawed system that enables overproduction of single-use plastics and only further perpetuates the pollution problem. As legislation around the world begins to embrace this controversial technology, it’s crucial that we understand the risks and ensure protection of human and environmental health is prioritized. We must urge policymakers to focus on real solutions, not temporary fixes, by opposing legislation that encourages the expansion of chemical recycling facilities and weakens our move away from harmful single-use plastics.

That’s why EarthEcho International and our Marine Plastics Ambassadors are sending a letter to Congress to make clear that environmental advocates and youth leaders SUPPORT legislation for true circular solutions for plastic pollution that prioritizes and protects human and environmental health. Join us! Every signature counts.

‍

What is Chemical Recycling?

Chemical recycling, sometimes referred to as "advanced recycling" or "molecular recycling”, is a process to break down plastics into their chemical components, which can then be reused to create new products. Unlike traditional or mechanical recycling, which physically shreds and melts plastics to make new items, chemical recycling involves processes like pyrolysis (heating plastics in the absence of oxygen) or depolymerization (breaking down the polymer chains in plastics). Proponents claim that these methods can handle plastics that are not typically recyclable through conventional means, such as mixed or contaminated plastics (including plastics removed from the environment during cleanup efforts).

While chemical recycling may sound like a revolutionary solution, its main selling point is that it promises to “recycle” plastics that would otherwise end up in landfills or incinerators. However, this technology is still in the experimental phase for most types of plastic, and many facilities operate at a fraction of the capacity needed to make a meaningful dent in global plastic pollution. Additionally, many of these methods still produce byproducts, such as carcinogenic dioxins, that can harm the environment and human health, casting doubt on their long-term viability as a sustainable solution. 

‍

The Problems with Chemical Recycling

While chemical recycling is marketed as an innovative solution to plastic waste, the reality is far more complicated. Beneath its high-tech promises lies a host of environmental, health, and ethical concerns that make it a poor substitute for real solutions to the plastic crisis.

1. Environmental Impact
At its core, chemical recycling still requires large amounts of energy and relies on fossil fuels, making it far from the "green" technology it's often portrayed to be. Processes like pyrolysis and gasification, which are common methods of chemical recycling, release significant quantities of greenhouse gasses—undermining the fight against climate change. Even when these technologies do manage to convert plastic waste into new materials, the process is inefficient, with only a small fraction of the plastic actually being recycled into high-quality products. Most often, the end result is a product that’s inferior in quality, requiring more energy and resources to manufacture.

Moreover, chemical recycling is not the silver bullet for plastic waste that it's often billed to be. Many of the plastics that can theoretically be processed still pose significant technical challenges, and not all types of plastic are compatible with these methods. The result is that much of the plastic that enters chemical recycling facilities is either downcycled into lower-quality materials or discarded entirely. This inefficiency could make chemical recycling more of a stopgap measure than a long-term solution to the plastic waste problem.

2. Health Risks
The health implications of chemical recycling are particularly alarming. Many chemical recycling processes produce harmful byproducts, such as dioxins and furans, which are known to be carcinogenic and toxic to both humans and wildlife. Communities living near chemical recycling facilities may face exposure to these pollutants, especially if the facilities are not properly regulated or equipped with effective pollution control measures. Moreover, the handling and processing of contaminated plastics—such as those with toxic additives or hazardous chemicals—can release dangerous substances into the air, water, and soil.

Even when these technologies promise to turn plastic waste into clean fuel or new products, the byproducts they generate can still contaminate ecosystems and pose risks to the health of nearby populations. In some cases, the technology has been linked to air and water pollution, leading to environmental justice concerns in low-income communities or communities of color that may be disproportionately affected.

3. False Promise of a Circular Economy
Chemical recycling is often hailed as a key component of a "circular economy," where products are continually recycled and reused, reducing the need for new raw materials. But the reality is that chemical recycling doesn't solve the fundamental issue: overproduction and overconsumption of single-use plastics. Instead, it enables the continued production of plastic, since plastic manufacturers can claim that their products will eventually be recycled through chemical processes, rather than addressing the root cause—cutting back on plastic production.

In practice, chemical recycling has a track record of downcycling, meaning that the recycled products created through these processes are of much lower quality than their original counterparts. This makes it difficult for these "recycled" products to reenter the market in a meaningful way. Moreover, it reinforces the linear "take-make-waste" model of consumption, where plastics are eventually discarded after being downcycled multiple times, often ending up in landfills or incineration anyway.

Rather than promoting chemical recycling as a long-term fix, we need to focus on reducing plastic production, investing in sustainable alternatives, and improving traditional recycling methods. Chemical recycling, with its high energy demands and questionable environmental and health track record, should not be seen as a replacement for reducing plastic use and improving our waste management systems.

‍

How Legislation Can Make Things Worse

Recent legislative efforts at both the federal and state levels are pushing to redefine recycling to include chemical recycling, often giving it the same regulatory status as traditional recycling methods. One such example is HR 9676 “Accelerating a Circular Economy for Plastics and Recycling Innovation Act of 2024”, spearheaded by the American Chemistry Council and introduced into Congress last month. This bill seeks to classify chemical recycling as a legitimate form of recycling under federal law. This bill would open the door for the rapid expansion of chemical recycling facilities, while essentially allowing plastic producers to continue manufacturing and selling single-use plastics without addressing the root cause of the pollution crisis.

HR 9676 presents several key issues. First, it would prioritize chemical recycling over more sustainable solutions, such as reducing plastic production and improving traditional recycling systems. By giving chemical recycling a free pass, it risks promoting an energy-intensive process that still produces harmful byproducts and perpetuates the plastic waste problem. Further, this bill seeks to undermine the Clean Air Act by exempting pyrolysis and gasification facilities from its regulation of toxic air pollution. Moreover, the bill could preempt state-level bans on single-use plastics, undermining local efforts to tackle plastic pollution at the source. In essence, HR 9676 supports a false solution and lets the plastic industry off the hook for its role in the crisis.

‍

Why We Must Take Action 

We cannot afford to let legislation like HR 9676 pass without opposition. Chemical recycling may sound like a solution, but in reality, it perpetuates the plastic pollution crisis by allowing the continued production of single-use plastics and promoting an energy-intensive, harmful process. Instead of addressing the root of the problem—overproduction and overconsumption of plastic—this legislation gives the green light to polluting industries and undermines local efforts to reduce waste. We need real solutions like reducing plastic production, improving traditional recycling, and investing in sustainable alternatives. Taking action now is crucial to protect both our environment and public health.

Chemical recycling is not the solution we need to address the plastic waste crisis. HR 9676 and similar legislation only enable more plastic pollution and harm to our environment. We must act now. Click here to sign our letter to Congress!

The fight against plastic pollution requires more than just quick fixes—it demands meaningful, long-term solutions. Chemical recycling, in its current state, is a false promise that allows industries to keep producing plastic with little accountability. By taking action to support legislation that offers true circular solutions and oppose those that do not, we can push for real change that protects both our planet and future generations. Together, we can make a difference.

‍