Greenpeace has found a new way to attack capitalism and popular industries. The environmental activist organization now claims that businesses have crafted a “recycling myth,” as it turns out the most cost-and-energy efficient options are using virgin plastics.
For decades, recycling has been championed by businesses and environmental groups alike as a critical way to reduce the amount of waste that ends up in landfills and the oceans.When it comes to plastics, however, the common belief that items in the recycling bin will end up being repurposed down the line is rarely borne out. Only about 5% of the 51 million tons of plastic waste produced by American households in 2021 was recycled domestically, according to a new study conducted by the environmental nonprofit Greenpeace. The rest is sent to landfills, incinerated or shipped overseas, where its ultimate fate can be hard to track.Greenpeace’s findings are consistent with a wide range of research that has led many experts to argue that the environmental promise of plastic recycling, which has been promoted by plastic-producing companies for years, is essentially “a myth.”.Compared to materials like metal, paper and glass, plastics are much more complicated and less economical to recycle. They come in a wide variety of chemical compositions — some that can’t be processed at most recycling facilities and others that can’t be recycled at all. But even when recyclable plastics make their way to places that have the capacity to repurpose them, those items often still end up in landfills. That’s because it’s frequently cheaper for companies to create new plastic than it is to recycle old plastic.
There are five reasons that recycling isn’t the grand solution to pollution, as touted by green justice advocates. Their fantasies are not based on any form of science (especially chemistry and economics) or reality.
First, plastic waste is generated in vast quantities and is extremely difficult to collect— as becomes clear during what the report called ineffective “volunteer cleanup stunts” funded by nonprofits such as “Keep America Beautiful.”Second, even if it were all collected, mixed plastic waste cannot be recycled together, and it would be “functionally impossible to sort the trillions of pieces of consumer plastic waste produced each year,” the report said.Third, the recycling process itself is environmentally harmful, exposing workers to toxic chemicals and itself generating microplastics.Fourth, recycled plastic carries toxicity risks through contamination with other plastic types in collection bins, preventing it from becoming food-grade material again.Fifth and finally, the process of recycling is prohibitively expensive.”New plastic directly competes with recycled plastic, and it’s far cheaper to produce and of higher quality,” said the report.
This narrative has real fans in California, especially as it is being used to target the fossil fuel industry. In April, the state’s attorney general announced a first-of-its-kind investigation into petrochemical industries for their alleged role in plastic waste pollution.
Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Thursday that his office has subpoenaed Exxon Mobil Corp. seeking information related to the company’s “historic and ongoing efforts” to minimize the public’s understanding of the harmful consequences of plastic.“For more than half a century, the plastics industry has engaged in an aggressive campaign to deceive the public, perpetuating a myth that recycling can solve the plastics crisis,” Bonta said.
Exxon Mobil rejected the assertions.
Exxon spokeswoman Julie King said the company rejects the attorney general’s allegations. She said Exxon shares society’s concerns about plastic waste and is working on recycling and other waste management technologies.“We are focused on solutions and meritless allegations like these distract from the important collaborative work that is under way to enhance waste management and improve circularity,” Ms. King said.
This attempt to smear industries over the realities of the recycling process is simply another way for green justice activists to drum up more money, and the lawyers support them to get paid. It will also hinder meaningful research from exploring feasible ways to address this issue. Like climate alarmism, it isn’t founded on any science except political ones.
It also allows the United Nations power over this country in the form of a “Global Plastics Treaty” that the organization hopes to create as an international legally binding agreement to “end plastic pollution” by the end of 2024.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY