California Doesn’t Believe Plastic Recycling Is Sustainable…Why?

On September 23rd California’s Attorney General, Rob Bonta, announced the state was suing ExxonMobil for “allegedly engaging in a decades-long campaign of deception that caused and exasperated the global plastics pollution crisis” and adds “ExxonMobil’s ‘advanced recycling’ program is nothing more than a public relations stunt”. And finally, the lawsuit states that “ExxonMobil…promoted the chasing arrows symbol for plastics. This symbol is now strongly associated with recycling and consumers are led to believe that items with the symbol can and will be recycled.” Here is their press release.

ExxonMobil’s responded: “for decades, California officials have known their recycling system isn’t effective. They failed to act, and now seek to blame others. Further, they stated the first step would be to acknowledge what their counterparts across the US know: advanced recycling works”.

Shortly after announcing the lawsuit, the AG appeared on CNBC outlining his case based on a series of confusing percentages that didn’t clarify his position and even confused the very business savvy interviewer. But, his legal position is crystal clear regarding the unsustainability of plastic recycling. Here is the full 5-minute interview.

I deduce that the lawsuit’s intended focus is single-use disposable plastic products which rightly deserves environmental attention. However, he dilutes his point by attacking advanced recycling, which is a complex process in its infancy and showing promise of providing a good solution for hard-to-recycle products. ExxonMobil and other similar processors are substantially increasing their capital investment, so they don’t think it’s a “public relations stunt”. I believe Bonta’s attack on this innovation is undeserved and way off target. Click here for a simple explanation of how advanced recycling works.

Recycling’s chasing arrows were originally applied to cardboard products in the early 1970’s and later used on plastic products in the late 1980’s. The plastic producers created a number coding system and placed them inside of the arrows designed to enable residential, commercial and industrial recyclers to quickly identify the products material content. Without the coding system, plastic recycling isn’t possible.

He also claims that only 5% of plastic products are recycled. I contacted the EPA directly on this widely used claim I received the following verbatim clarification referencing a chart in their most up-to-date 2020 Facts & Figures Report: “Looking at the headers of those items. The first (a.) relates to the total amount of MSW (Municipal Solid Waste is their descriptor for trash) materials recycled and shows the percent of each material. So, of the 69.1 million tons of MSW recycled in 2018, 4.47% of it was plastics. The second (b.) is the percent of plastics recycled of the total amount of plastics generated in MSW. So, of the 35,680,000 tons of plastic waste generated, 8.7% was recycled. The third (c.) is the same as (b.) just rounded up to 9%.”

So, based on the EPA, 9% of all plastic that is generated (i.e. produced) is recycled. The AG’s use of the 5% figure is an instant flag for someone with a hostile plastics position. Environmental organizations like Greenpeace use it consistently. They all use the lowest number for theater.

So, Bonta is mistaken about both advanced recycling and the chasing arrows. And, as I’ll explain shortly, he’s also wrong about the sustainability of plastic recycling.

Unlike any other recycled material, plastic is used in so many different applications as diverse as bottles, containers, toys, piping, flooring, siding, wire insulation, shopping bags, film wrap, juice boxes, medical components, carpeting, outdoor furniture & decking, automotive & aviation components, luggage, household appliances, TV’s & computers, eyeglasses, fiberglass and the list continues. The diverse examples shown above each have their own distinct performance characteristics requiring different plastic types which can’t be recycled together.

You’ve probably have seen a chart like the one I’m using below. It’s designed to educate residential recyclers on what to place in collection containers.

Plastic items produced using #1 Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET or PETE) and #2 High-Density Polyethylene (HPDE) are unquestionably 100% recyclable. Up until recently, these were the only recycled plastic materials by most US programs. According to the EPA’s 2020 Facts & Figures Report, both materials have a recycling rate of roughly 30%. Most single-use plastic products are made from these 2 materials.

So, where’s the disconnect? According to the EPA, these plastic materials are recycled, and their recycling rate could be much higher. How you ask?

First, let me explain the primary reason for the low recycling rate. All recycled products must be processed through huge sorting machines. Afterwards all the materials are separated, baled and sold. When plastic film-related products made from the beforementioned materials mistakenly get into the sorting process they jam up the equipment resulting in costly stoppages. Hence, plastic bags and film aren’t accepted by recycling programs. The materials are 100% recyclable, but the sorting machinery technology isn’t currently compatible.

However, an easy-to-access option exists. Plastic film/bags are accepted at most big box retail stores nationally in their curbside collection bins. The stores send the collected material to their distribution center where it’s baled and sold for processing into reusable plastic material.

And that’s not all! Recent technology improvements are allowing #5 Polypropylene (PP) to be recycled. On the other hand, #4 Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE) continues to not be accepted, primarily due to the beforementioned machine-related issue associated with film and bags. But, rigid #4 plastic products are easily recycled, but due to their #4 designation they’re not accepted in most programs.

Another significant issue contributing to low US recycling rates are access and trust. Every material type is under-recycled, because only 73% of all US households have recycling access which is further weighed down by the lack of access in 63% of multifamily households. According to this 2024 report, only 43% of US households participate in recycling partially due to inherent trust issues. Unfortunately, the recycling industry operates without communications leadership. As a result, the communications vacuum is filled by environmental and media organizations who have long treated the plastic industry as an easy piñata.

So, let’s summarize. We can now recycle #1, #2 and #5 products in most recycling US programs and all stretchable plastic bags/film are easily recycled and can be placed in your big box retail stores collection bins.

The news gets better. Manufactures across the board are taking much needed serious responsibility for designing their products to be more easily recycled. They recognize that plastics are here to stay and using recycled waste materials (vs. virgin) is a critically important management decision. Recent examples include:

1. In 2023, Coca-Cola announced that it has partnered with a large waste management company to ensure that they can receive sufficient levels of high-quality recycled materials for their consumer packaging. Their recycling contact goal is 50% by 2030.

2. Polyester, a plastic-based material, is contained in 96% of all Adidas products. They have a stated goal to use only recycled, polyester, and all products beginning in 2024. For you doubters, check the packaging on the new purchases.

3. In 2021, Amazon increased recycled contact a plastic from bags from 25% to 50% and plastic padded bags from 15% to over 40%.

4. L’Oréal stated that in 2022, 78% of the copies packaging worldwide was made from recycled plastic.

5. Ulta Beauty has pledged that by 2025, 50% of their packaging sold will be made from recycled or bio-sourced materials or be recyclable or refillable.

6. In 2024, Dow Chemical and Procter & Gamble announced a new partnership to create a new recycling technology that will enable the conversion of hard-to-recycle plastic packaging into recycled near-virgin quality polyethylene for use in new products.

These are but a few recent examples of a critically important paradigm shift with producers globally. These corporations certainly believe that recycling is both sustainable and an environmental neccessity.

So, what is California’s motivation?

Money grab 101, that’s my bet. The states 2024/2025 budget currently has a $45 billion deficit based on $307 billion in total spending. This article from Cal-Matters, a nonprofit & non-partisan news publication, describes a budget process that was packed with both expensive new programs and projected revenue mistakes. So when all else fails, why not take an extraordinarily low percentage flyer to plug this colossal blunder and sue a corporate fossil fuels poster child? The citizenry will applaud the decision as an environmental no brainer while the AG ties up expensive state resources on a prayer.

Thanks for reading my article. If you’d like to sign up to become a regular member, it cost you $5 per month and provides unlimited access to all the content on Medium. Here’s a link for you to sign up: https://medium.com/@ric62551/membership