From PennEnvironment (http://www.pennenvironment.org):
From early on, many of us are taught that recycling is beneficial to the planet and an important responsibility. But what if not all recycling is as it seems?
“Chemical recycling,” a term coined by the fossil fuel and plastics industries, is the process of melting plastic waste into oil and gas to be burned.1 It’s bad for our planet, and it encourages more disposable plastic.2
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering including “chemical recycling” in its definition of recycling, and it’s accepting public input through March 8. Will you join us in telling the EPA that “chemical recycling” isn’t actually recycling?
Go to https://pennenvironment.webaction.org/p/dia/action4/common/public/?action_KEY=42933 to tell the EPA: Don’t classify polluting, ineffective “chemical recycling” as actual recycling.
Rather than reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions released into the atmosphere, “chemical recycling” adds to it. Over half of the plastic waste being processed through “chemical recycling” comes out as carbon dioxide emissions. That’s not even counting the amount of pollution resulting from burning the resulting fuel.3
The EPA is accepting public input on its proposed definition of recycling, and it’s legally obligated to review and consider all comments in its decision-making process. That’s why your voice is so important, Sandy. By signing onto our petition, you help demonstrate widespread opposition to the notion that “chemical recycling” creates sustainable, reusable material.
-
Joseph Winters, “This ‘solution’ to the plastic crisis is really just another way to burn fossil fuels,” Grist, August 3, 2020.
- Emanuela Barbiroglio, “Chemical Recycling Won’t Solve The Plastic Crisis As Over 50% Of Carbon Contained Gets Lost,” Forbes, June 6, 2020.
- “NEW REPORT: Plastic “Chemical Recycling” Means More Pollution for Pennsylvania,” PennEnvironment, July 28, 2020.
Leave a Reply