This is the sequel to the earlier column on plastic recycling. The previous column concluded that the success of plastic recycling was inaccurate. The report claimed a “managed” response of plastic recycling success as totally false. The document, The Fraud of Plastic Recycling, reported of a massive effort by the plastics industry and trade associations to fabricate solutions to the huge volume of plastic byproduct. The final part of that column reported on legislation introduced in New York that would require fossil fuel companies to pay billions of dollars in restitution for contributing to climate change.

Against this is the unsettling political environment that is challenging anything environmental. And, in some cases, stopping efforts to reduce responsibility for those that have caused climate change. To quote Joel Makower of GreenBiz25, “The word ‘climate’ is being weaponized by political extremists, just as ESG and DEI have been. ‘Environmental justice’ is headed for the trash heap. The word ‘sustainability’ could be next.”

And the beat goes on!

The major chemical companies that are in one way or another part of the plastic supply chain are household names to those of us in packaging. They include BSAF, Chevron Phillips, Dow Chemical, and DuPont, Eastman Chemical, ExxonMobil, Occidental Petroleum, and Shell. There are a few others, but these are the kingpins. The trade associations are too numerous to mention. They are also household names to those of us in packaging. In the first column I wrote about an abbreviated schedule of campaign strategy starting with incineration in the 80s and ending with the latest in advanced/chemical recycling.

All of these solutions for plastic waste were created by the chemical companies, but they were certainly eulogized by the trade associations, like the Rite of Spring; as though the plastic waste problem had finally been solved. The rhetoric of positivity and solutions has grown. For example, both Eastman Chemical and ExxonMobil have announced projects that will process billions of pounds of plastic byproduct. Republic Environmental and WM, the two largest waste-haulers and recyclers in North America, have joined the parade of plastic waste recovery by building huge processing facilities in Las Vegas, Indianapolis, and other large metropolitan cities. The numbers are staggering. However, there’s a bit of a wrinkle…

Think about this: the chemical industry is adding 10 times – that’s ten times more virgin manufacturing capacity by the end of 2025 than recovery capacity of secondary plastics. Does that help solve the problem of plastic waste? Think about it!

Furthermore, in the case of ExxonMobil, the language they use when they announce more advanced/chemical recycling is crafted in such a way that while they are committing to developing additional waste plastics processing capacity, they are not guaranteeing they’ll be successful. Dow Chemical uses the same language with oblique references to adding processing capacity for waste plastics but with very little concrete action. No wonder there is doubting and cynical messaging in the Fraud of Plastics Recycling.

Advanced/chemical recycling has always been an interesting solution to me. The report chastises the industry because advanced/chemical recycling doesn’t process old plastics into recycled plastic. Advanced/chemical recycling converts waste plastics into fuel and other chemistries. I am not a purist. I just want a solution for plastic waste, whether it be a recycled product like rPET or fuel. I just want recovery to be cost effective and solve the waste plastics dilemma.

The Fraud of Plastics Recycling defines advanced recycling as “an industry-created term to describe a category of technologies that break down plastics into their chemical components, usually through exposure to extreme heat or chemical solvents.” My definition isn’t quite as esoteric. I think of advanced/chemical recycling as using pyrolysis to decompose plastics, transitioning them back to their original elements. The decomposition process requires high heat and an inert environment, meaning no oxygen. The plastics industry really has a neat solution with pyrolysis because ideally it will take mixed resins – thermoset and thermoplastic – mix them and out comes oil, gas, wax, whatever. The other neat part of pyrolysis is the fact that its own energy drives the process. In other words, it doesn’t require the use of fossil fuel. My only issue with pyrolysis is its high cost. However, I suspect at the end of the day it’s all a matter of scale. Large pressure vessels handling large volumes may allow acceptable cost.

The biggest problem I have with the industry response to what I call a “crisis” is the continued growth of virgin, which translates to more plastic waste.

Advanced/chemical recycling can’t in any way keep up with generation of waste plastics.
Read this concluding remark from the report:

“By deceiving consumers, policymakers, and regulators about the viability of plastic recycling, petrochemical companies have ensured the continued expansion of plastic production, which has led to a plastic waste and pollution crisis for communities across the country. The costs of managing and cleaning up plastic waste are largely borne by municipal and state governments – and those costs are projected to increase exponentially in the coming decades, given that plastic waste generation in the United States is expected to increase from 78 million metric tons in 2019 to more than 140 million metric tons by 2060.

“If not for the Big Oil and the plastic industry’s lies and deception, municipalities and states would not have invested in plastic recycling programs and facilities – many of which have been shut down due to foreseeable economic losses. The industry not only misled municipal and state agencies to believe that plastic recycling was a viable solution to plastic waste but also discouraged them from pursuing other more sustainable waste management strategies (e.g., waste reduction, reuse, bans, alternative materials) in favor of plastic recycling.

“Fossil fuel and other petrochemical companies should now be held accountable for their deliberate campaign of deception and the resulting harms, much like tobacco and opioid companies that employed a similar playbook. Based on the growing body of evidence, municipalities and states are likely to pursue litigation, which could put an end to the industry’s deception, make the companies pay for the devastating harms they have caused to communities, and open the door to real solutions that are currently out of reach.”

I’ll leave you with one final thought: not only is the state of New York starting to litigate fossil fuel companies, but in Europe, effective February of this year, the PPWR (Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation) has established rules on recyclability, minimum recycled content, waste directives, and mandatory recycling quotas. This will force change. This is an EU directive, similar to where EPR is taking five states here in the US.

There has to be change in Europe and the new PPWR will bring it about. It is my belief that North America will ultimately go the same way and one way or another we will reduce the amount of plastic waste, regardless of the political environment in Washington.

Another Letter from the Earth

Calvin Frost is chairman of Channeled Resources Group, headquartered in Chicago, the parent company of Maratech International and GMC Coating. His email address is [email protected].

Channeled Resources Group examines release liner market

Given the release liner’s importance in the structure of a pressure sensitive label, the market for these products has historically been one of stability. However, challenges presented over the past five years have impacted the release liner space in a significant way.

“During this time, the surge in demand for release liners, coupled with limited supply, forced customers to take drastic measures,” states Ginnie Gandy, sales manager, Release Liner, Channeled Resources Group (CRG). “Many overstocked materials as a precaution, accepted sharp price increases due to rising pulp costs and production constraints, and quickly adapted to alternative liner grades when their usual products became unavailable.”

Gandy notes that the market appears to be stabilizing, with an ongoing emphasis on domestic production. However, potential tariffs could significantly impact the market dynamics, but the exact impact is currently uncertain. “As of today, US-based manufacturers are increasingly focused on reducing their reliance on overseas suppliers, prioritizing domestic production for both base paper and silicone coating,” she adds. “In 2024, the market experienced downward price pressure as demand softened, prompting suppliers to lower prices in a bid to retain or grow market share.”

In addition to domestic supply, there are several other trends affecting the release liner market. “Sustainability is a key area of focus for the label market when it comes to release liners, but other industries, like tape, medical, and automotive, have been slower to adopt these practices,” notes Gandy. “However, change is gradually occurring, with these markets beginning to follow the label industry’s lead.”
There are initiatives currently underway to promote sustainability, though. The industry is transitioning to thinner caliper papers where feasible, prioritizing recyclability and exploring alternatives to landfill disposal, and moving away from non-recyclable grades, such as poly-coated release liners, in favor of more eco-friendly options.

“Unfortunately, most liner users, whether in production or at the end-user stage, lack the resources to effectively separate and collect liner waste,” says Gandy. “Efforts are underway within the industry to tackle this challenge. At CRG, we are making strides by converting release liner byproducts into fuel pellets through a partnership with Convergen Energy.”

Organizations like TLMI and the Liner Recycling Initiative have launched regional pilot programs aimed at identifying recycling mills and establishing best practices for managing liner waste.

Gandy says, “These programs are designed to support both small and large end users in setting up operational systems for recycling release liner. Importantly, any manufacturer generating liner waste can participate in these initiatives.”