“Chemical Recycling” Is a Toxic Trap

For decades, the plastic industry has promised that recycling would solve the problem of plastic waste, yet the plastic crisis continues to grow. The dismal U.S. plastic recycling rate continues to hover around 5 percent. Globally, plastic use is projected to almost triple by 2060, relative to a 2019 baseline.

Now the plastic industry is doubling down on its deceptive recycling claims—promoting incineration and other toxic methods for end-of-life plastic management under the misleading term “chemical recycling” (also greenwashed as “advanced recycling” and “molecular recycling”). The truth is these approaches largely fail to recycle plastic. Their expanded use will only lead to more toxic pollution of our air and water and more plastic waste in landfills and incinerators. Meanwhile, the industry hopes that production of new plastic will continue to grow, unrestricted, because the public’s concerns will be eased by this new promise of “chemical recycling.” 

NRDC’s new issue brief “More Recycling Lies” confirms and expands on our previous findings: So-called “chemical recycling” is mostly plastic incineration. 

The term “chemical recycling” is used by the plastic industry to refer to a number of different technologies that include pyrolysis, gasification, solvolysis, and solvent-based purification. The plastic industry, however, is pushing one of these technologies above all others: pyrolysis. This single technology accounts for 80 percent of all currently operating and proposed “chemical recycling” facilities in the United States. Pyrolysis (along with gasification) is a form of incineration with serious toxic impacts and is regulated as such under the federal Clean Air Act.

Yet pyrolysis can’t actually recycle much—if any—plastic. A 2023 study by scientists from the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) found that when pyrolysis is used to process plastic waste, only 0.1 to 6 percent of this plastic waste can become new plastic. NREL scientists also concluded that “the economic and environmental metrics of pyrolysis and gasification are currently 10 to 100 times higher than virgin polymers.” In other words, it would be cheaper and environmentally preferable to make plastic from virgin fossil fuels than to try to use pyrolysis or gasification to turn plastic waste into new plastic products. 

What pyrolysis mostly produces is fuels, yet fuel production and use do not constitute “recycling.” What’s more, these fuels can be highly toxic. In 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved 18 new chemical mixtures derived from plastic waste for use as fuels, even though EPA scientists had also determined that some of these chemicals posed astoundingly high cancer risks. One of the chemical mixtures, intended to be used as jet fuel, was estimated to pose a one in four cancer risk (meaning that one in every four people regularly exposed to it throughout their life would likely develop cancer). The EPA later rescinded the approvals and is reassessing the chemicals. 

At the same time, the pyrolysis process creates large amounts of hazardous waste. EPA reporting data shows that between 2021 and 2024, just three pyrolysis facilities that were processing plastic waste generated more than 2 million pounds of hazardous waste and shipped it off-site for disposal. If all 26 of the pyrolysis facilities that are currently proposed or under construction are actually built and put into operation, this could mean between 624,000 and 10.8 million additional pounds of hazardous waste generated in, transported through, and disposed of in communities across the country. 

While there are very few operational “chemical recycling” facilities in the United States, more than a third of all U.S. states have at least one proposed or currently operating facility. These facilities tend to be sited in low-income communities and/or communities of color.

Even communities and states without “chemical recycling” facilities could still be impacted due to the transportation of hazardous waste. Hazardous waste generated by three pyrolysis facilities traveled through 13 states on the way to disposal facilities, putting even more communities at risk. The dangers of accidents, derailments, and other transportation-related releases of hazardous materials should be clear to the public, given the February 2023 train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.

While chemical and solvent-based methods of “chemical recycling” are more likely than pyrolysis to actually recycle some amount of plastic (as opposed to burning it or turning it into fuels), these processes also pose serious health and environmental concerns. Solvent-based purification and solvolysis, for example, use chemicals linked to neurotoxicity, respiratory toxicity, cancer, developmental harm, and other health hazards. Not only do these technologies often use toxic solvents and chemical agents but, in some cases, they can also generate significant quantities of hazardous waste.

“Chemical recycling” is a false solution to our plastic problem. It doesn’t halt the deluge of plastic waste, and it creates new harms. Policymakers, companies, and the public should not fall for the industry greenwashing and should instead focus on real solutions to the plastics crisis: reducing plastic production and use; switching to more environmentally sound materials; eliminating the most toxic plastics and chemical additives; and building a robust infrastructure for nontoxic plastic reuse/return systems. 

For more information, please also see NRDC’s previous report: “Recycling Lies: ‘Chemical Recycling’ of Plastic Is Just Greenwashing Incineration.”