I'm not too worried about sending some plastic to the landfill. Anything but it blowing around or ending up in the river! Second worst, burning in any way which means I'm just providing cheap fuel. I'm tempted to just stop putting my plastic in the recycle bin; it's mostly filled cardboard, box board, some newspapers and the 1000 beer cans every two weeks that I need to stay sane. We have good biowaste collection for compost, which I think is more important, emissions reduction wise and is actually done within 30 miles.
Recently I listened to a Euro windpower podcast about recycling turbine blades. There were two companies, one US and one EU. The EU one recycled them into raw materials for the next generation of blades. Actual circularity. The American one created some kind of "fuel" and spent a lot of time explaining to the somewhat befuddled Euros how this counted as recycling and how various "incentives" stacked up to make this profitable and various emissions "accounting" made this fuel "carbon negative." Didn't exactly incite my patriotic pride in American ingenuity.
"Through America’s Plastic Makers, the ACC has spent the last four years advertising chemical recycling as if recycled products are already widely available in stores. "
This is the big issue I have. Advertising this process as if it was in general use. But I do want advanced recycling to succeed because I think at any level of realistic plastic consumption, it will still be necessary to recycle it.
I'm curious if anyone at the conference asked him if anything is being done to reduce the types of plastic in use? To me that is the big obstacle that keeps coming up in all the articles about the problems of plastic recycling. The problems of sorting and discarding and having different processes for different types of plastics, all lead to the central issue that recycling is more expensive than original production of plastic.
Great reporting! Really needed the Catch of the Day after this one... I was talking to a friend of mine recently who's a chemist, and they were also talking about how difficult depolymerization is compared to expectations. Presumably that would be more emissions efficient than pyrolysis, but you still have to find chemicals that work well for each plastic type. Then, of course, as another commenter mentioned, you still have the problem that making new plastic is simply WAY too cheap / unregulated for the industry, hence the race to greenwash it seems!
Did any of the networks that have aired that spot bother to try to vet the information within, or did they trip over themselves to cash the check? Sheesh.
Since Crude Oil was first discovered its markets have evolved and been driven by for profit interests. So, what would be the “Highest & Best Use” of crude oil? Surely not commuting and maybe not even thundering through the sky at almost the speed of sound, considering there are other fuels and power sources now available There are numerous other synthetic things manufactured by the Petro-Chemical Industries but most of those are also most profitable as single use throw away products and some, from dangerous chemicals and plastics bits & pieces are coming back to haunt all life on Earth.
The very first internal combustion engine built by M. Damlier burned Hydrogen and when the airship he installed it on crashed, M. Damlier took that engine, mounted it on a bicycle and invented something we call the motorcycle. Engine driven motor vehicles have generated vast wealth and overtaken the world as well as modern civilization. One problem is that their emissions are killing life on the planet. Fortunately there are alternatives: wind, solar and geothermal generated electricity and the truly clean Hydrogen fuel that can be manufactured for aircraft, most specifically, as heavy batteries are fine for road vehicles.
But what if there is a wonderful and economic use for crude oil and even if that application and economy is off a few centuries from now, it would be responsible for us to conserve that non-renewable resource for that future need.
Economists use a thought game to try to puzzle out complex issues. So, to use their favorite word, “Assume”: Please assume that huge, miles in diameter pressurized petroleum plastic space ships can voyage between Earth, Mars, the many moons and asteroids of this Solar System and make an excellent profit for all, a self sustaining economy that preserves living nature on earth while providing professions, careers and new lifestyles.
Should this speculation come to pass then every ton of crude we burn up and throw away is one less ton of economic power for those who follow us. About seven generations of Western drivers have thrilled at pushing the petal to the metal. The Iroquois Confederacy required that consideration had to be given to the 7th generation far off in the future, current selfishness and greed do not serve them well.
big oil won’t be able to ‘innovate’ their way out of the plastic crisis. Thank you for highlighting the facts to keep the growth-obsessed eco-modernists accountable !
Great article! I'd wondered who was funding those ads and glad to have my question answered and then some. I try to shop farmers markets and bulk bin stores (kudos to ReGrocery in LA), or make friends with people who have home gardens and fruit trees to avoid plastic packaging. For those accidental plastic moments my mom and I use Ridwell, which is gaining in popularity but hard to track how the plastic we send them is processed. Similar issues have been raised with TerraCycle, which is part of the reason the university I work for won't get on board with their glove recycle. We're worried they just get incinerated. Would you consider doing a followup to evaluate which of these plastic recycle companies and take-back programs (ie. How2recycle store drop-off, Nike sneaker recycle) are actually making a difference and which are just greenwashing? Or is it, as I suspect, that the moral of this article is they all are, in a way?
It is obvious to anyone who listens and reads these reports over the last decades, anything made from oil is bad for the environment. The trouble is, the world has now set itself up to make plastics indispensable by design. Once again, it comes down to making a small group of humans insanely rich at the expense of everything else. By everything, I mean every little thing on this planet we live on.
Find a way to eliminate petroleum from the ecosystem and the planet, along with its inhabitants may actually have a chance to survive into the long term future.
Wouldn’t be surprised if I hear that the ACC gets an IRA grant for advanced recycling to improve on “pyrolysis could at best “replace 0.2 percent of new plastic churned out in a year”” as a method to reduce emissions. Campaign is reminiscent of iron eyes Cody preventing mandated recycling to cure litter by turning it into personal responsibility instead of a problem of disposable products made from depleting natural resources and creating a solid waste crisis
I'm not too worried about sending some plastic to the landfill. Anything but it blowing around or ending up in the river! Second worst, burning in any way which means I'm just providing cheap fuel. I'm tempted to just stop putting my plastic in the recycle bin; it's mostly filled cardboard, box board, some newspapers and the 1000 beer cans every two weeks that I need to stay sane. We have good biowaste collection for compost, which I think is more important, emissions reduction wise and is actually done within 30 miles.
Recently I listened to a Euro windpower podcast about recycling turbine blades. There were two companies, one US and one EU. The EU one recycled them into raw materials for the next generation of blades. Actual circularity. The American one created some kind of "fuel" and spent a lot of time explaining to the somewhat befuddled Euros how this counted as recycling and how various "incentives" stacked up to make this profitable and various emissions "accounting" made this fuel "carbon negative." Didn't exactly incite my patriotic pride in American ingenuity.
"Through America’s Plastic Makers, the ACC has spent the last four years advertising chemical recycling as if recycled products are already widely available in stores. "
This is the big issue I have. Advertising this process as if it was in general use. But I do want advanced recycling to succeed because I think at any level of realistic plastic consumption, it will still be necessary to recycle it.
I'm curious if anyone at the conference asked him if anything is being done to reduce the types of plastic in use? To me that is the big obstacle that keeps coming up in all the articles about the problems of plastic recycling. The problems of sorting and discarding and having different processes for different types of plastics, all lead to the central issue that recycling is more expensive than original production of plastic.
Great reporting! Really needed the Catch of the Day after this one... I was talking to a friend of mine recently who's a chemist, and they were also talking about how difficult depolymerization is compared to expectations. Presumably that would be more emissions efficient than pyrolysis, but you still have to find chemicals that work well for each plastic type. Then, of course, as another commenter mentioned, you still have the problem that making new plastic is simply WAY too cheap / unregulated for the industry, hence the race to greenwash it seems!
Did any of the networks that have aired that spot bother to try to vet the information within, or did they trip over themselves to cash the check? Sheesh.
Gentlefolk;
Since Crude Oil was first discovered its markets have evolved and been driven by for profit interests. So, what would be the “Highest & Best Use” of crude oil? Surely not commuting and maybe not even thundering through the sky at almost the speed of sound, considering there are other fuels and power sources now available There are numerous other synthetic things manufactured by the Petro-Chemical Industries but most of those are also most profitable as single use throw away products and some, from dangerous chemicals and plastics bits & pieces are coming back to haunt all life on Earth.
The very first internal combustion engine built by M. Damlier burned Hydrogen and when the airship he installed it on crashed, M. Damlier took that engine, mounted it on a bicycle and invented something we call the motorcycle. Engine driven motor vehicles have generated vast wealth and overtaken the world as well as modern civilization. One problem is that their emissions are killing life on the planet. Fortunately there are alternatives: wind, solar and geothermal generated electricity and the truly clean Hydrogen fuel that can be manufactured for aircraft, most specifically, as heavy batteries are fine for road vehicles.
But what if there is a wonderful and economic use for crude oil and even if that application and economy is off a few centuries from now, it would be responsible for us to conserve that non-renewable resource for that future need.
Economists use a thought game to try to puzzle out complex issues. So, to use their favorite word, “Assume”: Please assume that huge, miles in diameter pressurized petroleum plastic space ships can voyage between Earth, Mars, the many moons and asteroids of this Solar System and make an excellent profit for all, a self sustaining economy that preserves living nature on earth while providing professions, careers and new lifestyles.
Should this speculation come to pass then every ton of crude we burn up and throw away is one less ton of economic power for those who follow us. About seven generations of Western drivers have thrilled at pushing the petal to the metal. The Iroquois Confederacy required that consideration had to be given to the 7th generation far off in the future, current selfishness and greed do not serve them well.
Sincerely; Thomas R. Wilson
big oil won’t be able to ‘innovate’ their way out of the plastic crisis. Thank you for highlighting the facts to keep the growth-obsessed eco-modernists accountable !
Great article! I'd wondered who was funding those ads and glad to have my question answered and then some. I try to shop farmers markets and bulk bin stores (kudos to ReGrocery in LA), or make friends with people who have home gardens and fruit trees to avoid plastic packaging. For those accidental plastic moments my mom and I use Ridwell, which is gaining in popularity but hard to track how the plastic we send them is processed. Similar issues have been raised with TerraCycle, which is part of the reason the university I work for won't get on board with their glove recycle. We're worried they just get incinerated. Would you consider doing a followup to evaluate which of these plastic recycle companies and take-back programs (ie. How2recycle store drop-off, Nike sneaker recycle) are actually making a difference and which are just greenwashing? Or is it, as I suspect, that the moral of this article is they all are, in a way?
It is obvious to anyone who listens and reads these reports over the last decades, anything made from oil is bad for the environment. The trouble is, the world has now set itself up to make plastics indispensable by design. Once again, it comes down to making a small group of humans insanely rich at the expense of everything else. By everything, I mean every little thing on this planet we live on.
Find a way to eliminate petroleum from the ecosystem and the planet, along with its inhabitants may actually have a chance to survive into the long term future.
Wouldn’t be surprised if I hear that the ACC gets an IRA grant for advanced recycling to improve on “pyrolysis could at best “replace 0.2 percent of new plastic churned out in a year”” as a method to reduce emissions. Campaign is reminiscent of iron eyes Cody preventing mandated recycling to cure litter by turning it into personal responsibility instead of a problem of disposable products made from depleting natural resources and creating a solid waste crisis