Be Skeptical of Life Cycle Assessments for Chemical Recycling

Life cycle assessments (LCAs)—good ones anyway—are supposed to shine light on the life cycle health and environmental impacts of technologies and processes. But what if they have so many holes in them that they are more like Swiss cheese? Then, you would be right to be skeptical of their findings and think twice before using them for decision-making. 

Based on a recent analysis of LCAs for “chemical recycling” technologies, this is exactly how policymakers should approach them. The analysis shows that LCAs systematically underestimate the negative health and environmental impacts of chemical recycling technologies in a variety of ways. 

Here are just a few of the key findings of the new 50-plus page report titled Major gaps in chemical recycling life cycle assessments (LCAs), authored by Dr. Veena Singla of the University of California, San Francisco, with support from NRDC: 

• Fewer than one-third of the studied LCAs included an analysis of human health or ecotoxicity impacts from chemical recycling, ignoring harmful pollutants emitted to air and water.
• Only 6 percent considered the generation, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste from chemical recycling, despite the fact that these processes are known to generate large quantities of hazardous waste.
• All of them failed to consider one or more critical life cycle steps that contribute significantly to negative impacts such as feedstock preprocessing, chemical or energy inputs, and/or processing of the intermediate products of the technologies into plastic or other products.
• Only 7 percent of the studied LCAs used process data that were reflective of an operational plant; the rest relied on theoretical data. 

You read that right: The vast majority of the peer-reviewed life cycle assessments that were analyzed ignored human health, hazardous waste, and critical steps in the life cycle, and they were based on theoretical data only. 

Now consider the fact that policymakers in Oregon, Washington, and other states may use LCAs to examine the impacts of different recycling technologies under new state programs designed to deal with packaging waste (also known as extended producer responsibility, or EPR, programs). 

We need to ensure that policymakers recognize the major limitations in most of the LCAs conducted on chemical recycling technologies and respond accordingly. They should take LCAs with a grain—make that a whole shakerful—of salt, if they are used at all. 

Policymakers should be particularly cautious about any LCAs that are funded or conducted by chemical companies. As Peter Quicker, a German university professor who is an expert in emission control in waste management, recently stated: Such “LCA documents serve no purpose other than advertising, because companies control the parameters to achieve desired results.”

Despite all of the serious shortcomings of the LCAs analyzed by Dr. Singla, it is notable, she says, that the “LCA studies generally found that mechanical recycling has lower impacts than chemical recycling, even with the issues identified in this report that cause underestimation of chemical recycling impacts.” While we can’t recycle our way out of the plastics crisis, mechanical recycling is certainly a better option than so-called chemical recycling—especially since it is often not recycling at all. 

A short fact sheet that summarizes the main findings of the Major gaps in life cycle assessments report is also available here, and an infographic is available here.