Big Oil’s solution for plastic waste littered with failure
Bales of plastic waste piled up at advanced recycling firm Renewlogy in Salt Lake City, Utah on May 18, 2021. The company said its technology could turn hard-to-recycle plastic garbage into diesel fuel. REUTERS/George Frey
By JOE BROCK, VALERIE VOLCOVICI and JOHN GEDDIE
Filed July 29, 2021, 11 a.m. GMT
In early 2018, residents of Boise, Idaho were told by city officials that a breakthrough technology could transform their hard-to-recycle plastic waste into low-polluting fuel. The program, backed by Dow Inc, one of the world’s biggest plastics producers, was hailed locally as a greener alternative to burying it in the county landfill.
A few months later, residents of Boise and its suburbs began stuffing their yogurt containers, cereal-box liners and other plastic waste into special orange garbage bags, which were then trucked more than 300 miles (483 kilometers) away, across the state line to Salt Lake City, Utah.
The destination was a company called Renewlogy. The startup marketed itself as an “advanced recycling” company capable of handling hard-to-recycle plastics such as plastic bags or takeout containers – stuff most traditional recyclers won’t touch. Renewlogy’s technology, company founder Priyanka Bakaya told local media at the time, would heat plastic in a special oxygen-starved chamber, transforming the trash into diesel fuel.
Boise, Idaho resident David Garman places plastic waste into his recycling bin. More than 90% of the world’s plastic garbage gets dumped or incinerated because there is no cheap way to repurpose it. REUTERS/Brian Losness
Within a year, however, that effort ground to a halt. The project’s failure, detailed for the first time by Reuters, shows the enormous obstacles confronting advanced recycling, a set of reprocessing technologies that the plastics industry is touting as an environmental savior – and sees as key to its own continued growth amid mounting global pressure to curb the use of plastic.
Renewlogy’s equipment could not process plastic “films” such as cling wrap, as promised, Boise’s Materials Management Program Manager Peter McCullough told Reuters. The city remains in the recycling program, he said, but its plastic now meets a low-tech end: It’s being trucked to a cement plant northeast of Salt Lake City that burns it for fuel.
Renewlogy said in an emailed response to Reuters’ questions that it could recycle plastic films. The trouble, it said, was that Boise’s waste was contaminated with other garbage at 10 times the level it was told to expect.
Boise spokesperson Colin Hickman said the city was not aware of any statements or assurances made to Renewlogy about specific levels of contamination.
Hefty EnergyBag, as the recycling program in Boise is known, is a collaboration between Dow and U.S. packaging firm Reynolds Consumer Products Inc, maker of the program’s orange garbage sacks and popular household goods such as Hefty trash bags, plastic food wrap and aluminum foil. Hefty EnergyBag said in an emailed response to questions that it “continues to work with companies to help advance technologies that enable other end uses for the collected plastics.” It declined to answer questions about Renewlogy’s operations, as did Dow spokesperson Kyle Bandlow. Reynolds did not respond to requests for comment.
The collapse of Boise’s advanced recycling plan is not an isolated case. In the past two years, Reuters has learned, three separate advanced recycling projects backed by other major companies – in the Netherlands, Indonesia and the United States – have been dropped or indefinitely delayed because they were not commercially viable.
In all, Reuters examined 30 projects by two-dozen advanced recycling companies across three continents and interviewed more than 40 people with direct knowledge of this industry, including plastics industry officials, recycling executives, scientists, policymakers and analysts.
Most of those endeavors are agreements between small advanced recycling firms and big oil and chemicals companies or consumer brands, including ExxonMobil Corp, Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Procter & Gamble Co (P&G). All are still operating on a modest scale or have closed down, and more than half are years behind schedule on previously announced commercial plans, according to the Reuters review. Three advanced recycling companies that have gone public in the last year have seen their stock prices decline since their market debuts.
PLASTIC BOOM
Many advanced recycling projects have emerged in recent years in response to a global explosion of plastic waste. More than 90% gets dumped or incinerated because there’s no cheap way to repurpose it, according to a landmark 2017 study published in the journal Science Advances.
Not only is this garbage choking landfills and despoiling oceans, it’s contributing to global warming because it’s made from fossil fuels. At a time when demand for transport fuel is under pressure from government vehicle-efficiency mandates and the rise of electric cars, the oil industry is doubling down on plastics. Plastic production – which industry analysts forecast to double by 2040 – will be the biggest growth market for oil demand over the next decade, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency.
Plastic production – which industry analysts forecast to double by 2040 – will be the biggest growth market for oil demand over the next decade.
Source: International Energy Agency
A number of U.S. and European cities have already levied bans or consumer fees on single-use plastic bags. Pressure is also building for “polluter-pays” laws that would shift the cost of waste collection from taxpayers to the companies that make and use plastic. Earlier this month, Maine became the first U.S. state to pass such legislation.
Enter advanced recycling. Also known as “chemical recycling,” advanced recycling is an umbrella term for processes that use heat or chemicals to turn plastic waste into fuel or reclaimed resin to make new plastic.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry group whose membership is dominated by plastics makers, says polluter-pays measures would hurt the economy. It’s urging U.S. lawmakers instead to ease regulations on and provide incentives to advanced recycling companies.
As of July, 14 U.S. states had passed these kinds of laws. At least $500 million in public funds has been spent since 2017 on 51 U.S. advanced recycling projects, the environmental group Greenpeace said in a report last year. Boise’s government, for example, has spent at least $736,000 on garbage bags for its program, according to purchase orders and invoices between May 2018 and April 2020 obtained by Reuters through public records requests.
The ACC says these technologies are game-changers because they could potentially process all types of plastic, eliminating expensive sorting and cleaning.
Joshua Baca, vice president for plastics at the American Chemistry Council, testifying before a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on June 24, 2021 in support of federal measures to promote advanced recycling. C-SPAN
“The potential is enormous,” said Joshua Baca, vice president of the ACC’s plastics division. The ACC this month called on Congress to develop a national strategy to reduce plastic waste, including “rapid scaling” of advanced recycling.
However, the Reuters review found some advanced recycling companies struggling with the same obstacles that have bedeviled traditional recyclers for decades: the expense of collecting, sorting and cleaning plastic trash, and creating end products that can compete on price and quality with fossil fuels or virgin plastic.
Transitioning from the lab to the real-world chaos of dirty and improperly sorted household plastic waste has proven too much for some of these newcomers, said Helen McGeough, a London-based senior plastic recycling analyst at Independent Commodity Intelligence Services, a data and analytics firm.
“People have entered into this, perhaps not understanding the processes properly, the waste that they are handling, and so that’s why some things have failed,” McGeough told Reuters.
Advanced recycling is in its infancy, and as with any emerging technology, setbacks are to be expected, a dozen industry players said.
So far, some of their own research shows it’s no panacea.
An assessment of the Hefty EnergyBag program was commissioned by Reynolds. It compared the environmental impact of recycling plastic waste through a heating process known as pyrolysis – the approach Renewlogy used – to two traditional ways of handling it: burning it in cement kilns or putting it in a landfill.
The study, published on the Hefty EnergyBag program’s website last year, found that in Boise’s case, pyrolysis fared worst among the three in terms of its overall global warming potential. That measure estimated the greenhouse gas emissions of the whole process, from manufacturing the garbage bags and transporting the waste to the energy used in the recycling process.
A narrower analysis, looking just at the final recycling process and its contribution to global warming, found that pyrolysis scored better than landfilling but was worse than burning plastic in a cement kiln.
“These types of studies will really push the chemical recyclers to think about their operations,” said Tad Radzinski, president of Sustainable Solutions Corporation, the consultancy which conducted the study.
The study noted its calculations came from various sources, including a U.S.-based pyrolysis plant that has experience processing the Hefty EnergyBag materials. Asked whether Renewlogy’s plant was the one it examined, Sustainable Solutions said it could not name the plant because of a non-disclosure agreement with that facility.
Reynolds and Dow had no comment about the study.
Renewlogy said it supplied no data to Sustainable Solutions. “Our numbers are vastly different from those used in the report,” Renewlogy said in response to Reuters’ questions.
Orange bags filled with plastic waste in Boise. A recycling effort to turn this garbage into diesel fuel failed. It is now burned in a cement plant. REUTERS/Brian Losness
CASHING IN ON TRASH
Advanced recycling projects have mushroomed globally, especially since 2018. That’s when China, once the top buyer of the world’s used plastic, banned these imports because its recyclers were overwhelmed. Other countries, too, are shutting their doors to foreign waste, putting pressure on the developed world to deal with its own garbage.
The boom is also being fueled by investors looking for the next hot green-tech industry.
Most of the advanced recycling firms involved in the projects reviewed by Reuters use a form of pyrolysis, the process of breaking down matter using high temperatures in an environment with little or no oxygen.
Pyrolysis has been tried before on plastic. British oil giant BP Plc, German chemical maker BASF SE and U.S. oil company Texaco Inc – now owned by Chevron Corp – all separately dropped plans to scale up waste-to-fuel pyrolysis technologies more than 20 years ago due to technical and commercial problems.
BASF said it now believes such an endeavor is viable. It said in October 2019 it invested 20 million euros in Quantafuel, a Norway-based plastic-to-fuel company listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange.
Some scientists challenge the assertion that melting unsorted plastic made from a variety of chemicals is good for the environment.
“Pyrolysis can generate toxic waste, such as dioxins.”
Hideshige Takada, geochemist and professor at the Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology
In addition to consuming large amounts of energy, “pyrolysis can generate toxic waste, such as dioxins,” said Hideshige Takada, a geochemist and professor at the Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology who has studied pollutants in waste for decades.
A numerical symbol that commonly appears on plastic packaging to identify the resin out of which the product is made
Nor has pyrolysis proven capable of transforming unsorted garbage into high-quality fuel and clean plastic resin, says Susannah Scott, a chemistry professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who receives funding from the plastics industry to perform recycling research.
Plastics have long been stamped with the numbers 1 to 7 inside the familiar “chasing arrows” logo to help traditional recyclers separate the waste before processing it.
Scott said melting different numbered plastics together through pyrolysis produces a complex blend of hydrocarbons that must then be separated and purified for reuse. That process requires a lot of energy, she said, and typically yields products that don’t measure up to the quality of the original material.
With pyrolysis, “the value of what you’re making is so low,” Scott said.
Advanced recyclers say they’re overcoming these problems with innovations in energy efficiency and purification.
Of two-dozen companies whose projects were reviewed by Reuters, three have gone public in the last year: PureCycle Technologies Inc, Agilyx AS and Pryme B.V. The market value of all has declined since their debuts.
One of the hardest hit has been PureCycle, a Florida-headquartered advanced recycling startup that went public this year through a special purchase acquisition company. It ended its first day of trading on March 18 with shares up 13% to $33, giving it a market capitalization of around $3.8 billion.
But its shares tumbled 40% on May 6, the day short-seller Hindenburg Research published a report calling the recycler’s technology “unproven” and its financial projections “ridiculous.” PureCycle shares have since regained some ground.
PureCycle said the same day that Hindenburg’s report was “designed to drive down the stock price in order to serve the short seller’s economic interests.” It declined further comment about the report.
Hindenburg declined to comment.
According to its website, PureCycle uses a “ground-breaking” recycling process developed by P&G, maker of Gillette razors and Head & Shoulders shampoo, to turn a particular type of waste plastic, polypropylene, back into resin. PureCycle is around two years behind schedule on its first commercial plant, which its CEO Mike Otworth told Reuters on March 6 was due to slower-than-expected debt financing and the coronavirus pandemic.
P&G declined to comment.
The ACC, the chemicals trade group, continues to promote the potential of advanced recycling. Last year, it spent $14 million lobbying members of Congress on various issues, the most the organization has ever spent, according to OpenSecrets.org, a non-profit initiative that tracks money in U.S. politics.
Until her two-year term ended in December, Renewlogy’s Bakaya was the chair of the ACC’s advanced recycling unit.
Renewlogy is among a crop of “advanced recycling” startups using heat or chemicals to turn plastic waste into new products. REUTERS/George Frey
Previous Next
ONE TO WATCH
Bakaya grew up in Australia after her father emigrated there from India, she told business podcast Upside in 2020. She attended Stanford University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), graduating from the latter in 2011. She became a prominent figure in advanced recycling, promoting her technology on media forums such as National Geographic and the BBC.
Bakaya garnered a string of accolades, including making Fortune’s “40 under 40: Ones to Watch” list in 2013.
She declined to be interviewed for this story.
Renewlogy’s Priyanka Bakaya holding up a jar of hard-to-recycle plastics at a TEDx talk in Amherst, Massachusetts in 2015. Cade Belisle/The Massachusetts Daily Collegian/Handout via REUTERS
Bakaya said in a TEDx talk in 2015 that she initially set up a company called PK Clean to recover oil from “mixed, dirty landfill-bound plastic.” PK Clean later changed its name to Renewlogy, Bakaya said in an interview with MIT in 2017.
Steve Case, co-founder and former chief executive of AOL Inc, invested $100,000 in PK Clean in 2016, according to a blog he authored on the website of his venture capital firm Revolution. The governor’s office in Utah said it gave a total of $200,000 in grants in 2016 and 2017, while Salt Lake City’s Department of Economic Development provided $350,000 in loans in 2015 to PK Clean, according to Peter Makowski, acting director of business development for the department.
Revolution did not respond to requests for comment. The Utah governor’s office said the program under which PK Clean received the grants had ended and it was no longer funding the company. Salt Lake City said its loans to PK Clean have been repaid.
Boise first sent plastic waste to Renewlogy in June 2018, followed by at least five more truckloads in the following months, minutes of meetings of Boise’s Public Works Commission show. In June 2019, Boise said in a statement it had temporarily stopped sending its waste to Renewlogy while the Utah plant upgraded its equipment. Hefty EnergyBag said Renewlogy left the program for good in December 2020. Renewlogy did not respond to questions about how much of Boise’s plastic waste it had recycled.
Reuters made an unannounced visit to Renewlogy’s Salt Lake City operation in mid-May. On a Monday afternoon, there was little visible activity outside the facility; the front parking lot contained five passenger cars, two of which had flat tires. The back lot contained dozens of bales of plastic waste dotted with faded orange recycling bags stacked next to rusty oil drums and a wheelbarrow full of glass jars containing a murky liquid.
Benjamin Coates, Renewlogy co-founder and chief technology officer, outside the company’s Salt Lake City facility. REUTERS/George Frey
Renewlogy co-founder Benjamin Coates emerged from the building to speak to a reporter. Asked about the status of the company, Coates said opponents of chemical recycling were trying to damage the industry by pushing “conspiracy theories” about the technology. He directed further questions to Bakaya before telling Reuters to leave the premises.
Jeremiah Bates, owner of a tire shop next door to Renewlogy, said the recycling plant didn’t appear to have been active for at least six months and that he had complained to Coates and the local fire marshal about the debris piling up out back.
Renewlogy did not respond to questions about Bates’ assertions.
Jeremiah Bates, owner of Jeremiah’s Tires Services next door to Renewlogy. He told Reuters in May that the recycling facility didn’t appear to have been active for at least six months and that he was concerned about debris piling up. Renewlogy did not respond to Bates’ assertions. REUTERS/George Frey
An inspector from the Salt Lake City Fire Prevention Bureau, Jose Vila Trejo, visited the recycling facility on Feb. 12, according to his inspection report. Vila Trejo told Reuters that his tour of the plant turned up no fire hazard because there were no machines present that could generate heat, flames or sparks.
“They were basically shut down,” Vila Trejo said. “There was no equipment in there.”
Renewlogy confirmed to Reuters that Vila Trejo inspected the building in February. It said the facility had not shut down and that there was equipment at the site.
Renewlogy said it shares the Salt Lake City premises with other companies that work on pyrolysis of wood and other waste, and that much of the junk Reuters saw on the back lot belonged to other firms that it declined to name. Renewlogy added that it continues to operate its plant as a testing facility to develop new plastic recycling technologies.
Reuters exclusively reported in January that an advanced plastic recycling project in India, which was a collaboration between Renewlogy and a charity funded by plastics makers, collapsed last year.
Renewlogy later this year plans to launch another plastics recycling facility, this one in Phoenix, Arizona, according to its website. Joe Giudice, assistant public works director at the City of Phoenix, confirmed the facility was due to start being set up in August. More taxpayer money is due to flow to the company.
The Arizona Innovation Challenge, a state-funded program, in 2017 awarded Renewlogy a $250,000 grant, funds that will be dispersed when Renewlogy sets up in Phoenix, the Arizona Commerce Authority, which runs the program, told Reuters.
Giudice said Phoenix would not be sending Renewlogy any film plastics due to uncertainty over whether they could be easily recycled.
Renewlogy said it would be “starting very small” and would be “validating each step before scaling up.”
Trucks arrive at the Devil’s Slide cement plant in Morgan, Utah. The facility has been burning Boise’s plastic waste since March 2020 as a replacement for coal. REUTERS/George Frey
BOUND FOR THE DEVIL’S SLIDE
Back in Boise, the Hefty EnergyBag program continues, but Renewlogy is no longer involved. Waste in those orange Hefty bags now helps fuel the Devil’s Slide, a cement plant in Morgan, Utah, part of the U.S. unit of Holcim, a European multinational firm. The company told Reuters it has been burning Boise’s plastic since March 2020 as a replacement for coal.
Hefty EnergyBag has forged similar arrangements with cement makers in Nebraska and Georgia, according to the environmental study of the program commissioned by Reynolds.
Environmental groups tracking chemical pollutants say incinerating plastic this way produces significant carbon emissions and releases dioxins associated with the chemicals in the plastic. This is in no way “recycling,” said Lee Bell, advisor to the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global network of public interest groups working to eliminate toxic pollutants.
Bandlow, the Dow spokesperson, said the Hefty EnergyBag program was helping to “transform waste into valuable products.” He declined to respond to questions about the environmental impact of burning plastic in cement kilns.
reuters investigates
Jocelyn Gerst, a spokesperson for Holcim’s U.S. operations, said the emissions levels of the plastic waste it burns are “the same or lower than traditional fuel,” and that it had a state permit to incinerate plastic. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it does not have any data to show that “substitution of plastic waste for coal makes a significant difference in air emissions.”
Back in Idaho, Anne Baxter Terribilini, a resident of Meridian, a Boise suburb, said she initially was eager to participate in the Hefty EnergyBag program, but was disillusioned to learn that her plastic waste now ends up in a cement kiln.
“I hate to feel like we are being lulled into complacency, believing that we are having a positive impact on the environment, when really we aren’t,” she said.
Boise officials said they’ve been transparent with the public about the handling of their plastic waste. Haley Falconer, Boise’s sustainability officer, said the city has learned from the setbacks. In hindsight, she said, it would have been better to build a customized recycling program with a local partner so that Boise could control where its waste was going.
But the city has no place else to put its plastic garbage, so it’s sticking with the Hefty EnergyBag program, Boise’s McCullough said.
From Shell to Unilever, plastics polluters back recycling-tech flops
Some of the world’s biggest multinationals are hailing so-called advanced recycling as the solution to a waste crisis that has lawmakers looking to crack down on plastics use.
The impetus is coming from two sets of players: big oil and chemical companies that make the petrochemicals used to manufacture plastic, and global consumer brands that use huge amounts of the material in packaging. These giants are striking deals with startups that claim they can transform this garbage into fuel or resin to make new plastic.
But some recent efforts in this “high-tech” recycling boom have already fizzled.
At least four high-profile projects have been dropped or indefinitely delayed over the last two years because they weren’t commercially viable, Reuters has learned. Here are the details:
NO DIESEL FOR DOW
Dow Inc, one of the world’s biggest plastics makers, backed a program that in 2018 began taking plastic waste from residents in Boise, Idaho and trucking it more than 300 miles (483 kilometers) across the state line to Salt Lake City, Utah. There it was to be converted into diesel fuel by Renewlogy, an advanced recycling startup.
At least four high-profile projects have been dropped or indefinitely delayed over the last two years because they weren’t commercially viable.
Renewlogy touted its technology as capable of handling all types of plastic waste, including takeout containers and cling wrap, things many traditional recyclers won’t touch. But Renewlogy was unable to handle plastic “films,” used to make food packaging and grocery bags, and eventually left the program, the City of Boise told Reuters.
Renewlogy said it left the program because plastic waste being sent from Boise was too contaminated to recycle.
Dow deferred questions to Renewlogy.
Boise’s plastic waste is now being trucked to a Utah cement plant, which burns it for fuel.
SHELL PLANT ‘REPURPOSED’
In March 2019, Enerkem, a Montreal-based advanced recycler, announced that Anglo-Dutch oil giant Royal Dutch Shell Plc had joined a consortium of equity partners in a waste-to-chemicals recycling project to be based in Rotterdam, which they claimed was the first of its kind in Europe.
Enerkem says its technology uses extreme heat to turn plastic and other common household garbage into “bio-methanol,” a fuel for use in the chemical industry and transportation sector. The Rotterdam project was supposed to convert waste from the equivalent of more than 700,000 homes, Enerkem said in a March 2019 press release.
Two sources directly involved with the project told Reuters it was cancelled late last year due to uncertainty about the plant’s ability to secure a reliable waste supply and to turn a profit.
Enerkem said the project was never cancelled, rather “repurposed” to focus on making jet fuel from waste due to high demand for a sustainable product.
Shell will make a decision in 2022 on whether to invest, a company spokesperson said. Shell declined further comment.
UNILEVER’S ‘RADICAL RECYCLING’ FALTERS
Unilever Plc in 2017 announced it was creating a pilot plant using a “radical recycling process” that turns hard-to-recycle plastic sachets into new packaging. Sachets are used to dispense a vast array of products, including fast-food ketchup, shampoo and toothpaste.
The global consumer products giant told Reuters that its CreaSolv process uses chemicals to dissolve plastic waste into a liquid, drains off the impurities, dries it and extrudes it into clean plastic that can then be turned into new products.
Unilever said in its announcement that it would share this technology with its competitors so that recycling plants could be built around the world.
“At best, the sachets end up in landfill. At worst, they end up as litter in the streets, the waterways and the oceans.”
Unilever in a 2017 announcement about its plastics recycling initiative
Unilever, which makes Dove soap and Hellmann’s mayonnaise, said publicly it began operating a pilot plant in Indonesia in 2018. But within a year it was clear the technology was not commercially viable, and plans to build a full-scale operation were dropped, two people involved in the program told Reuters. Although the sachets could be recycled in small amounts, the people said, it was too expensive to collect, sort and clean enough of these packets to scale up the project without incurring large losses.
In an emailed response to Reuters’ questions, Unilever said the project had faced “some disruption due to Covid-19” but that the pilot plant was still operating. It declined to say at what capacity.
“We’re actively working with others to determine ways to scale this technology,” a company spokesperson said.
On May 6, Reuters called the factory complex where Unilever’s plant was situated in Sidoarjo, East Java, Indonesia. A front desk operator at the complex said no one had visited Unilever’s recycling facility in at least six months.
Unilever did not respond to questions about this claim.
Consumer goods companies like Unilever use billions of single-serve sachets to sell laundry detergent, instant coffee and other basics, mostly in poor countries. These packets are nearly impossible to recycle, and have become a major source of pollution in places like Africa and Southeast Asia.
“At best, the sachets end up in landfill. At worst, they end up as litter in the streets, the waterways and the oceans,” Unilever said in its 2017 CreaSolv announcement.
DELTA AIRLINES PROJECT GROUNDED
Agilyx, an advanced recycling firm backed by Virgin Group and its billionaire founder Richard Branson, in 2018 announced a deal to convert plastic waste to jet fuel for Delta Air Lines Inc.
Press releases issued by the companies at the time outlined the plan: By 2020, a new plant near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania would supply up to 2,500 barrels a day of “synthetic crude oil” derived from plastics to a nearby refinery owned by Delta.
“This project marks the first truly commercial-scale facility that will advance the new plastics economy,” Agilyx’s CEO at the time, Joe Vaillancourt, said in the release. Branson tweeted on Nov. 25, 2018: “This is a major step forward in the search for a cost effective low carbon aviation fuel.”
Construction on the facility never started.
Current Agilyx CEO Tim Stedman told Reuters in March the project was delayed due to negotiations over contracts and finances and “was eventually killed by COVID,” referring to the pandemic that spread around the world in early 2020. In a June email to Reuters, he described the project as “on hold” and said “we remain optimistic” about its prospects.
A spokesperson for Virgin Group and Richard Branson declined comment and referred questions to Agilyx. A spokesperson for Delta said the project was “on hold” due to the pandemic.
Agilyx and Delta gave no time frame for the project to restart.
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Code Red for Humanity
August 26, 2021 Letter-to-Editor by Vic Elam, Marietta, Ohio
“Code red for humanity” that is what United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterras stated, in regard to the latest report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
With more than 300 authors using 14,000 scientific papers the IPCC pulls together a wealth of corroborating information about the severity of the current impacts of climate change, but also the consensus about the severity of climate change going forward, of course depending on how well the human population rises to the challenge facing us.
“We’re in danger of going down in history as the species that chose to monitor its own extinction rather than taking urgent steps to avert it,”says Caroline Lucas a member of UK parliament.
Emissions from the use of fossil fuels for heating, power generation, industrial processes, to propel cars, trucks, ships and more release carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, often referred to as greenhouse gases because they trap heat in our atmosphere. Some of the findings in the IPCC report of note are:
The last five years have been the hottest on record since 1850. Sea levels have risen almost three times as much in recent years, when compared with 1901-1971. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is at its highest in two million years. Methane and nitrous oxide are at their highest levels in 800,000 years.
The science community has been warning about climate change for decades and it has all but fallen on deaf ears and it has not been until the evidence has impacted livelihoods that we start listening.
We are now at what most scientists consider to be a critical point – we control our fate, and by we, I mean each and every one of us has the ability to have an impact. I am reminded of a favorite quote by Jane Goodal, “You cannot get through a single day without having an impact on the world around you. What you do makes a difference, and you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make.”
It’s easy to think that the little things that you can do reduce your environmental impact can’t make a difference, but collectively we can all make a huge difference.
If you decide you want to make a huge difference individually there is a lot of opportunity for that as well, get involved in organizations such as Citizens Climate Lobby, Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action, or Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition.
I invite you to find out more about the IPCC report and challenge you to make a difference for the future of humanity.
Vic Elam
Marietta
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Too Much Fracking Waste & Too Many Unanswered Questions
Christopher Schmitt, Patch Staff
Posted Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 12:24 pm ET
Marietta native George Banziger expresses grave concerns about how fracking and injection wells are affecting Washington County.
MARIETTA, OH — This is a news release written by George Banziger, Ph.D. He was a faculty member at Marietta College and an academic dean at three other colleges. Now retired, he volunteers for the Mid-Ohio Valley Interfaith, and Harvest of Hope. He is a member of the Green Sanctuary Committee of the First Unitarian Universalist Society of Marietta, Citizens Climate Lobby, and of the Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action Leadership Team. His comments do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of this writer, or this company.
In 2019 Washington County had the second-highest level of injection well activity in the state at 8.1 million barrels of brine waste, 68% of which was from out-of-state (PA & WV) sources. Our county has the highest number of wells in the state. In 2011 there were 1.9 million barrels of brine waste injected in our county. Washington County is one of 22 counties in the officially designated Appalachian region, where the vast majority of injection wells are located. This leads to my first question: If there are deleterious effects of injection wells in this region, wouldn’t this constitute a disproportionate impact and involve an issue of environmental justice?
Class II injection wells, as they are categorized by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil & Gas Resources Management, are deep ground penetrations that push waste from hydraulic fracturing (fracking) into the ground. This division of ODNR is tasked with reviewing requests for permits and for conducting regular inspections of these wells.
This fracking waste is referred to as “brine,” but much of it is radioactive and is composed of water and additional chemicals, such as lead, arsenic, formaldehyde, mercury. Although only one percent of brine contains these chemicals, when we are dealing with a million gallons of water per well, this is not about teaspoons full. The shocking fact about this fracking waste is that, due to congressional action, referred to as the Halliburton rule, oil and gas companies are not required to reveal the contents of fracking waste. A recent article in the New York Times (July 13, 2021) has pointed out that toxic chemicals from hydraulic fracturing can transform into PFAS, a substance that has been linked to cancer and birth defects in people. PFAS is long-lasting and harmful to humans, wild mammals, and birds.
I am aware that injection wells have cement casings and annulus controls and that they are customarily drilled to a depth of approximately 3,000 feet while aquifers, from which drinking water is obtained normally are drilled at 200-300 feet. This means that, if properly done, injection wells should not pose any risk to aquifers or surface water. The keyword in this conclusion is “properly.” Spills. leaks, discharges, excessive amounts of brine, and other potentially harmful events are not uncommon at injection well sites, especially given the vast proliferation of injection wells in Washington County and throughout eastern Ohio.
In November/December 2020 I reviewed 23 violation reports, 26 compliance reports, and 1,155 inspection reports provided by the ODNR. After my review, I posed several questions to the public representative of ODNR on injection wells. These questions had to do with specific reports on injection wells in the county, where spills or related violations were reported, what action was taken, and whether follow-up was made. On December 9 I sent a list of over 25 questions from inspection reports, which I grouped into the following categories: Redbird #4 injection well (aka #24), where numerous problems were cited, spills & leaks, conditions of wells at inspection, issues related to the recently approved barge offload facility in Marietta (owner Deep Rock), ownership of wells, and roads and transport to wells. I have not yet received responses to any of these questions, several of which relate to spills and leaks (at dykes and other places), which may have flowed into aquifers, streams, and rivers.
On February 5, 2021, I sent another message to ODNR, asking the representative to please respond to the questions I posed on December 9 regarding inspection reports and to respond to some immediate questions I had about a reported spill on January 20, 2021, at a Deep Rock injection well facility near Marietta. One of my questions about this spill was whether there is any evidence that brine waste from this spill entered streams and the Ohio River. At this date, I have not yet received any response to these questions. Neither has there been any public hearings on injection wells in this county regarding spills at these wells, what follow-up and enforcement actions ODNR has taken, and how such spills can be reduced or eliminated in the future.
In a September 5, 2020 article in the Columbus Dispatch, there was a report on the Redbird #4 spill indicating that fracking waste had seeped into natural gas production wells but not into drinking water. But an article in Consumer Reports (December 3, 2020) stated: “The risk to drinking water comes in two major ways. First, water used in the hydraulic drilling process can leak into aquifers and other groundwater supplies. Second, the wastewater that fracking produces can contaminate supplies when waste leaks from landfills that accept oil remain when waste spills from trucks or pipelines moving it, when equipment fails, or when waste leaks from unlined disposal pits.”
I have written to State Senator Frank Hoagland Washington County) about my questions. His office contacted ODNR, which responded in a message merely identifying their standard procedures. I also contacted State Representative Don Jones (who represents the part of Washington County where I reside), and have received no response.
This year the Ohio legislature passed two bills (House Bill 282 and Senate Bill 171) which amounted to a giveaway to the oil and gas business and a sell-out to the health of Ohioans. These bills allow for 333 times the radioactive level recommended by health experts. Even the ODNR has stated that this does not ensure the protection of public health.
On September 14 (6 p.m.) there will be a meeting at 600 Goose Run Road (off Ohio 26) in Marietta on the impact of injection wells. Ohio Representative Jay Edwards will be there. This will be an opportunity to get some of the numerous questions about injection wells answered.
As a concerned resident of Washington County and one who has reviewed the numerous reports of Class II injection wells in the county, it is my observation that ODNR does not have the human or physical resources to conduct a complete regimen of inspection (which they are supposed to do every 11-13 weeks), follow-up and enforcement required of these facilities which pose environmental and health risks to the county and indeed to the entire state. Until ODNR answers these numerous questions, it is my recommendation that all activity at injection wells be halted—or at the very least no additional permits for Class II injection wells be approved.
For further information about the health and environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing and the significant amount of brine waste that results from this process, I refer you to a significant national (and indeed international) review study of all health and environmental aspects of hydraulic fracturing by the Concerned Health Professionals of New York: Concerned Health Professionals of New York, & Physicians for Social Responsibility. (2020, December). Compendium of scientific, medical, and media findings demonstrating risks and harms of fracking (unconventional gas and oil extraction) (7th ed.). https://concernedhealthny.org/compendium/. One of the “emerging trends” noted in this report is that fracking waste threatens drinking water in the form of spills, discharges into rivers, underground migration of chemicals, and water depletion.
###
This is a news release written by George Banziger of the Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action Leadership Team.
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Climate change makes allergies worse
Cynthia Burkhart
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
“Leaves of three, let it be!” I first learned this little rhyme many years ago, when I was a Brownie Scout in my cute little brown uniform and dark brown beanie hat. Of course, there are many plants with three leaves out in the woods that are quite harmless, but the rhyme is referring to one plant you really don’t want to touch — the dreaded Poison Ivy. Poison Ivy has three glossy deep green leaves on each stem, and can creep on the ground, grow upright, or climb up trees, where it can get quite massive. Contact with any part of the plant, any time of the year, can cause an allergic reaction resulting in a painful rash, blisters, and itching in 80 percent of people.
If you have had a case of poison ivy rash in recent years, and thought it seemed worse than ever before, you are probably right! A six-year study conducted by Duke University showed that elevated levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere causes Poison Ivy to grow faster, grow more leaves, and produce a more potent form of urushiol, the oil agent found in all parts of the plant that causes the allergic skin reaction. Not only is the urushiol more potent, there is more of it. In 1950, when CO2 levels were about 310 ppm, the average amount of the toxic oil per plant was 15 milligrams. Today, with CO2 levels near 420 ppm, it is a whopping 40.9 milligrams!
Poison Ivy is not the only allergy-causing plant that is affected by the changes in our climate. Do you suffer from hay fever (allergic rhinitis) — the congestion, runny nose, and itchy eyes caused by plant pollen? If so, you are not alone. In 1970, about 1 in 10 Americans suffered from hay fever. By 2000, the number had risen to 3 in 10. With today’s U.S. population at over 332,000,000, that means there are almost 100,000,000 hay fever sufferers in the country. Hay fever accounts for over 13,000,000 doctor’s visits a year in the U.S.
So, here is the bad news: hay fever season is getting worse. Due to warmer temperatures and a longer frost-free season, the pollen season is longer, starting about 20 days earlier in the spring, and lasting longer in the fall. According to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, between 1995 and 2011, pollen season lengthened by 11-27 days.
Another effect of warmer temperatures is that trees, grasses, and weeds are producing greater quantities of pollen, with trees seeing the greatest increase. One study of pollen records from 60 U.S. and Canadian cities from 1990-2018 found that allergy seasons now start 20 days earlier, last 10 days longer, and include 21 percent more pollen. Some evidence suggests that rising CO2 levels may be playing a role as well, causing the pollen itself to be more allergenic.
So, don’t touch the Poison Ivy, stock up on anti-histamines and tissues, and if the pollen is really getting to you, wearing a mask can help.
***
Cynthia Burkhart is a concerned citizen, gardener, goat farmer and hay fever sufferer.
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Corporate disinformation
Aug 14, 2021
Giulia Mannarino
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
On Aug. 9, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations body that assesses the science related to climate change, issued its most recent and most comprehensive assessment report with the opening sentence, “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.” The fact that our planet is warming due to human activity is “settled” science just as much as gravity exists and vaccinations prevent communicable diseases. Although the IPCC report says we are not yet doomed, it makes it clear we must change the path we are on before it’s too late. The report also warns that the consequences of this climate crisis will reshape life on Earth in the coming decades even if fossil fuel emissions are curbed. In a July Climate Corner article titled “Warning Signs,” Aaron Dunbar dramatically described the urgency of the climate crisis.
Unlike the average American, the executives of fossil fuel companies were made aware of the harm burning fossil fuels would cause the globe by their own research and scientists decades ago! In 1958, a Shell executive presented a paper to the American Petroleum Institute (API) that warned about increased carbon emissions. An Exxon study, done in 1979, said that burning fossil fuels “will cause dramatic environmental effects in the coming decades.” It concluded, “The potential problem is great and urgent.” A team headed by a Mobil Corporation scientist warned, in 1995, that burning the company’s products was causing climate change and that the relevant science “is well established and cannot be denied.” API’s own reports noted “significant temperature changes” by the end of the 20th Century.
All fossil fuel companies responded to these warnings by knowingly denying this harm and intentionally spreading climate “disinformation.” The industry downplayed evidence of climate change, promoted misleading information related to the benefits of gas and oil and spent millions on lobbyists to block actions that would curb emissions. And, of course, these tactics continue today as evidenced by a recently taped video of Exxon senior lobbyist Keith McCoy, which aired on a British channel, admitting that they “aggressively fight” the science. Even though fossil fuel company executives know their products are harmful to people and the planet, they continue to choose to ignore scientific facts and deliberately obscure the truth.
The tactic of deception is not an uncommon one for multi-billion dollar corporations. It also was used by tobacco companies in the past and pharmaceutical companies are now facing similar accusations. However, the fossil fuel companies’ disinformation campaigns should be considered the most horrific because their consequences effect ALL living species across the globe. It angers me to think how much more relaxing my retirement years would be if this industry had felt it important to listen to the science. And, it terrifies me to think what life may be like for my young granddaughters when they are senior citizens.
Because a global transition to sustainable alternatives for a clean energy grid and transportation seems to be underway, the fossil fuel industry is making an effort to protect its profits by focusing on petrochemicals. The industry is planning a massive build-out of petrochemical plants primarily in the Gulf Coast and Appalachian regions including right here in our own Mid-Ohio Valley backyard. Petrochemicals are toxic chemicals made from oil and gas that are used to make plastics, industrial chemicals and agricultural pesticides. These materials harm human health and the environment not only during production but throughout their life cycle. Fossil fuel corporations, who still believe profits come before people and the planet, are utilizing intentional disinformation to promote this development while overlooking environmental and public health concerns. They want you to believe that modern society cannot function without petrochemical products and there are no sustainable alternatives. They have even made the flimsy argument that petrochemicals advance and enable renewable energy technologies.
In order to rein in this destructive industry, many environmental organizations concerned with the future of the planet are attempting to take on the power structures surrounding petrochemicals and plastics by funding projects in front line communities. This past spring, Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action received “Direct Support Funds” to run a campaign in our area in opposition to the proposed petrochemical build-out on the Ohio River. The Direct Support Fund is made possible by the Heinz Endowments, the 11th Hour Project and The Plastic Solutions Fund and is a project of the Mountain Watershed Association (for more information or to apply visit www.mtwatershed.com). These funds are awarded to small grassroots groups that, among other related activities, “…seek to organize, inform or educate community members about the impacts of shale gas and petrochemical development.” MOVCA’s anti-petrochemical campaign is underway this summer. Funds are being used to air anti-petro radio and TV PSAs on local stations during July and August and anti-petro billboards have been installed on State Route 7 and Interstate 77. MOVCA wants to demonstrate, especially to those in political positions, that not all people in the local area are in agreement with or support the proposed petrochemical development. Hopefully, these messages are being noticed. Hopefully, our region and the world will take action to address this climate crisis before it’s too late to save the grandchildren.
***
Giulia Mannarino, of Belleville, is a member of Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action.
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
The latest climate report is alarming (Opinion)
By Eric Engle Aug 10, 2021 Appearing on-line in the Charleston Gazette-Mail
The sixth assessment report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was released Monday, and its findings are beyond dire.
It provides a disturbing wake up call after decades of industry and corporate malevolence enabled by world governments, as well as deliberate inaction by the most responsible parties.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a United Nations body established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly. The purpose of the body is to provide the world with scientific information relevant to understanding the risk of anthropogenic (human-induced) climate change, as well as it’s natural, political, and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options for world governments and other stakeholders.
Working Group I assesses the science as comprehensively as possible, in this case involving hundreds of global climate scientists, thousands of studies and eight years of work, building on more than three decades of prior research. Working Group II assesses the vulnerability for economies and the natural world. Working Group III assesses options for mitigation of the worst possible outcomes and adaptation to what’s locked in. The findings of Working Groups II and III are due next year.
Government representatives from 197 countries will be meeting in Glasgow, Scotland, this November for UN climate talks referred to as the Conference of Parties 26, as established under the Paris Climate Accords of 2015. The goal of these conferences is to periodically offer revised plans for meeting the warming goals of the Paris agreement of ideally 1.5 degrees Celsius, but no more than 2 degrees Celsius, global temperature rise over a preindustrial baseline by the end of this century.
Temperatures have currently risen by about 1.1 Centigrade above a mid-19th century baseline.
We’ve been witnessing the devastation wrought by just 1.1c warming over the established baseline: Extreme, record-breaking temperatures in the northwestern region of the U.S. and western Canada; extreme and long-lasting drought throughout the U.S. west; massive, almost unfathomable flooding events in central China and numerous European countries; wildfires in the U.S. west and throughout the Mediterranean region burning thousands of acres, destroying homes and properties and killing hundreds; hurricanes in Texas and Puerto Rico in 2017 that dumped 40 inches of rain in a four-day period (Hurricane Harvey in Houston) and killed upwards of 3,000 people (Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico), just to name a few. This can’t be allowed to continue.
Global systems we all depend on are being destabilized. The jet stream of the northern hemisphere is becoming wavier as the Arctic warms three times faster than the rest of the planet. This leads to things like the stalled out low-pressure system that dumped a year’s worth of rain in three days on central China and what’s referred to as an “omega block” pattern that caused temperatures in Pacific Northwest cities like Portland and Seattle to jump to over 100 degrees Fahrenheit — temperatures unheard of in these cities.
The Atlantic Meridional Oscillating Current, a system that includes the Gulf Stream that runs along the U.S. eastern seaboard, is an ocean current that moves warmer, saltier water from the Caribbean and U.S. Gulf northward toward Greenland and around to Europe. As the water gets colder on its trip North, it becomes denser and sinks and is circulated back in a southerly direction. This system affects weather patterns in the U.S. northeast and northern Europe and impacts the living patterns of numerous ocean species that economies in these regions depend on.
Recent studies have shown the current slowing down with the potential to stop in the no-too-distant future because of the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, introducing fresh glacial runoff water and warmer Arctic oceans.
Geologic history shows this would be disastrous, causing extreme cold in these northern regions and putting an end to monsoon rains that other regions around the world depend on.
These are just a few of the myriad effects of human-caused climate destabilization.
To quote author Kate Aronoff, “There is no prosperous future for humanity that includes one for the fossil fuel industry. Barring an about-face in its core business model — a change we have no reason to suspect will happen — these companies’ mission to dig up and burn as much coal, oil and gas as possible stands directly at odds with a reasonably habitable planet.”
We’ve seen failure to heed science lead to another surge in infections, hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19 in the U.S. as well as stalled recovery efforts. Will we also fail to leave posterity a habitable planet? We’re almost out of time to have any choice in the matter.
Eric Engle, of Parkersburg, is chairman of Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action, a board member for the West Virginia Rivers Coalition and co-chairman of Sierra Club of West Virginia’s executive committee.
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Bipartisanship, money should not be focus
Aug 7, 2021
Eric Engle
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
A bipartisan infrastructure bill is moving through the U.S. Senate, slowly but surely, and is being touted by the White House as a major achievement. The $1.2 trillion bill (with approximately $550 billion in new spending) is a good start, but it is not nearly enough to meet the climate crisis and the multiple other infrastructure-related crises we face with the urgency demanded.
The original proposal from the Biden administration was a $2.6 trillion proposal with $566 billion for R&D and manufacturing, $387 billion for housing, schools, and buildings, and $400 billion for home-and-community-based care. Virtually all of this was wiped out in the bipartisan compromise. $157 billion was originally set aside for electric vehicle-related infrastructural investment. That number is down to $15 billion in the compromise. $363 billion was set aside in the original proposal for clean energy tax credits. Those credits are wiped out of the bipartisan compromise.
The bipartisan infrastructure bill, according to Bloomberg Law, would also, “eliminate the need for federal agencies to do environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act for activities like applying pesticides and doing timber cuts on parcels of land up to 3,000 acres. Bloomberg Law continues, “The bill would also codify an executive order President Donald Trump enacted in 2017 that sought to streamline environmental reviews by consolidating the decision-making process across agencies and putting new deadlines in place. President Joe Biden rescinded the Trump order early in his administration.”
Stephen Schima, Senior Legislative Counsel at Earthjustice, points out that, “These provisions on NEPA not only severely limit or, at times, eliminate the review of health and environmental impacts, but taken together, they may effectively silence frontline communities, shield decisions from public scrutiny, and make it more difficult to hold the government accountable when they ignore impacts on communities most affected by the climate crisis.”
Progressives in the House of Representatives are vowing not to support this legislation unless a companion bill, a $3.5 trillion measure that would need to be passed using budget reconciliation in the Senate to pass on a simple majority vote without Republican support, is also sent to them. These progressives have the votes in the House to force this companion bill concession, and I hope they hold strong and do so. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) is already saying she opposes the $3.5 trillion price tag of the companion measure and Sen. Manchin was recently booed by his own caucus when mentioning deficit concerns. It seems deficits are never a concern with defense spending (the most recent National Defense Authorization Act authorized total military spending of nearly $778 billion), but always become a concern on desperately needed investments like infrastructure.
All Democratic Senators, including Senators Manchin and Sinema, are poised to support a budget resolution from the Senate Budget Committee outlining what the budget reconciliation companion legislation will look like. The Senate Parliamentarian advises on what passes muster under budget reconciliation rules (the Parliamentarian’s role is strictly advisory). The companion measure has got to pass, along with the bipartisan compromise bill, to even begin making the investments we desperately need. Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action supports the Transform, Heal, & Renew by Investing in a Vibrant Economy (THRIVE) Act, which authorizes investments of at least $1 trillion annually between Fiscal Years 2022-2031 – you can learn more about the THRIVE Act at greennewdealnetwork.org.
Action cannot wait. Approximately 14,000 scientists from 1,990 jurisdictions in 34 countries recently published a report in the peer-reviewed scientific journal BioScience stating that, “We suggest an urgent need for transformative change to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, more broadly, human overexploitation of the planet.” According to sciencealert.com, “The researchers suggested, ‘a three-pronged near-term policy approach:’ a significantly higher global price on carbon, a worldwide phase-out and eventual ban of fossil fuels, and development of climate reserves to protect and restore biodiversity and carbon sinks).”
When our only home in the cosmos is becoming unstable and gradually uninhabitable, we can’t worry about bipartisanship and arbitrary price tags. Government spending is not equivalent to household spending and government does not operate like a business with a profit motive or need for return on investment–though there will be almost unfathomable short-and-long-term returns on such important investments. It’s now or quite possibly never.
***
Eric Engle is Chairman of the not-for-profit volunteer organization Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action, Board Member for the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, and Co-Chairman of the Sierra Club of West Virginia Chapter’s Executive Committee.
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: What Can an Individual Do?
Jul 31, 2021
George Banziger
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
Human-caused climate change is rapping on our collective door with increasing urgency and with palpable visibility—even in the Mid-Ohio Valley. Before this summer we knew about oceans rising, warming, and becoming more acidic, disappearing glaciers (especially in the northern hemisphere), and constantly rising temperatures since the advent of the industrial revolution. More recently, we have seen triple-digit temperatures in the Pacific northwest, uncontrolled wildfires in the west, and unprecedented floods in western Europe. Summer 2021 is on pace to be the hottest on record in North America. The impact of climate change has now become evident in the Mid-Ohio Valley. Smoke and particulates from the western fires have migrated into the Ohio Valley and have affected our air quality; The Washington County engineer has cited challenges of record rainfall in contributing to the many land slips in that county. My colleague in the Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action team, Aaron Dunbar, has described the warning signs about climate change and the tipping point we may soon be reaching after these several “once-in-a-millennium” extreme weather events.
In the face of all this discouraging news one can feel hopeless and inconsequential as a single individual. But there is an opportunity to take immediate action as a concerned and informed citizen in the current “climate” of the Congress. In the U.S. Senate within the next two weeks senators will be discussing a budget reconciliation bill. A carbon pricing feature will be incorporated into this bill if senators hear from their constituents that it is important to them. Budget reconciliation may be adopted by the senate if 51 of its members agree to certain adjustments in spending and revenue. A price on carbon, that is, a fee assessed on the producer for oil, natural gas, or coal. These fossil fuels are what account for a large share of the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the climate change that we are all experiencing.
Why a price on carbon, you may ask. First of all, such a move will get us to net zero emissions by 2050 with a blend of renewable fuel sources that provide clean, affordable energy. The move to carbon pricing will send a signal to the economy and to industry to attend to energy efficiency, electric energy from renewables, and carbon capture. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will save 4.5 million lives over 50 years by decreasing premature deaths due to air pollution. Energy companies will, of course, raise their prices for products like gasoline, but economists have shown that up to 85% of individual Americans can cover the increased costs by the dividend that is provided to them through the carbon pricing program. In a re-imagined Appalachia that can advance from a dependency on coal and other extractive industries, carbon pricing and increases in investment in renewable energy can bring sustainable good jobs to our region as well as cleaner air and water.
There may be concerns about the cost of carbon pricing. Consider, as the alternative to the status quo, the long-term costs of the federal government and other insurers to compensate for property and human loss in the events of extreme weather, such as increasingly violent hurricanes, wildfires, flooding, and droughts.
Other ideas for reducing greenhouse gases have been offered in the past including cap and trade, which would create another bureaucracy to administer such a policy. And instituting more environmental rules to respond to climate change would require a complex web of multiple regulations across multiple agencies.
Responding to the climate crisis is popular. Eric Engle of the MOVCA in a previous Climate Corner piece has cited the fact that fully two-thirds of Americans are concerned about climate change.
The Citizens Climate Lobby has arranged a convenient procedure to express your views on carbon pricing to your senators. Simply go to cclusa.org/senate. There you will find some advice about how to word your e-mail and phone message as well as the phone numbers for your senators (Senator Manchin – 202-224-3954 and Senator Capito – 202-224-6472). Please do what you can soon to help save our planet.
Watch for future Climate Corner articles about climate action in the infrastructure bill.
George Banziger, Ph..D., was a faculty member at Marietta College and an academic dean at three other colleges. Now retired, he is a volunteer for the Mid-Ohio Valley Interfaith, and Harvest of Hope. He is a member of the Green Sanctuary Committee of the First Unitarian Universalist Society of Marietta, Citizens Climate Lobby, and of the Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action team.
Last Updated: April 30, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Cutting Carbon Pollution Quickly Would Save About 74 Million Lives, Study Finds
July 29, 20215:00 AM ET
Rebecca Hersher
Twitter
A wind farm in Wyoming generates electricity for a region that used to be more dependent on coal-fired power plants. A new study finds that millions of lives could be saved this century by rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Matt Young/AP
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions quickly would save tens of millions of lives worldwide, a new study finds. It’s the latest indication that climate change is deadly to humans, and that the benefits of transitioning to a cleaner economy could be profound.
In recent years, the connection between a hotter planet and human death and disease has become clearer, thanks to a series of research papers. A study published in 2021 found that about a third of heat-related deaths worldwide can be directly attributed to human-caused climate change. A 2020 Lancet report warned that climate change is the biggest global public health threat of the century.
But those findings have not been factored into one of the three major computer models that scientists, economists and the federal government use to calculate the societal costs of carbon emissions. That means economists and policymakers may be underestimating the cost of climate change to human life.
“One key takeaway is that there are a significant number of lives that can be saved by reducing emissions,” says R. Daniel Bressler, a Ph.D. candidate at Columbia University who is the author of the new study, published Thursday in the journal Nature Communications.
When he factored in the latest mortality research, Bressler found that about 74 million lives could be saved this century if humans cut greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050, compared with a scenario in which the Earth experiences a catastrophic 4 degrees Celsius (about 7 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming by the end of the century.
He hopes the findings will be helpful to a federal working group currently reassessing how the government calculates the costs and benefits of climate policies. Since 2010, the federal government has calculated the “social cost of carbon” — a dollar amount that represents the cost associated with emitting 1 metric ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Those costs include changes to agricultural productivity, energy use, species extinction, sea level rise and human health.
The social cost of carbon informs trillions of dollars of federal policy, including regulations about vehicle tailpipe emissions, power plants and appliance efficiency standards.
“There have been over 100 U.S. government regulations where the social cost of carbon was used,” says Maureen Cropper, a climate economist at the University of Maryland, who co-chaired a 2017 National Academies of Sciences committee on the social cost of carbon.
At least 11 states also use the social cost of carbon to inform decisions about their power grids, efficiency regulations and other climate policies, Cropper says, and Canada based its own cost number on the original U.S. calculations.
Having an accurate cost number is especially important at a time when Congress and state governments are considering major infrastructure investments, Bressler says.
“Imagine you’re looking at the cost-benefit analysis of building a new power plant,” Bressler says. “You’re trying to compare a coal plant to a wind farm. And that coal-fired power plant is producing a lot more carbon dioxide emissions. How do we think about the costs associated with that?”
It depends on whom you ask. Under the Obama administration, the cost associated with emitting carbon was calculated to be at least seven times higher than under the Trump administration, mostly because the latter purposely ignored the effects of U.S. emissions on the rest of the world.
President Biden reinstated the Obama-era cost number and directed a federal working group to reexamine the calculation to make sure it includes the most up-to-date research about the costs of climate change. A new cost number is expected in early 2022.
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
The Recycling Myth
Big Oil’s solution for plastic waste littered with failure
Bales of plastic waste piled up at advanced recycling firm Renewlogy in Salt Lake City, Utah on May 18, 2021. The company said its technology could turn hard-to-recycle plastic garbage into diesel fuel. REUTERS/George Frey
By JOE BROCK, VALERIE VOLCOVICI and JOHN GEDDIE
Filed July 29, 2021, 11 a.m. GMT
In early 2018, residents of Boise, Idaho were told by city officials that a breakthrough technology could transform their hard-to-recycle plastic waste into low-polluting fuel. The program, backed by Dow Inc, one of the world’s biggest plastics producers, was hailed locally as a greener alternative to burying it in the county landfill.
A few months later, residents of Boise and its suburbs began stuffing their yogurt containers, cereal-box liners and other plastic waste into special orange garbage bags, which were then trucked more than 300 miles (483 kilometers) away, across the state line to Salt Lake City, Utah.
The destination was a company called Renewlogy. The startup marketed itself as an “advanced recycling” company capable of handling hard-to-recycle plastics such as plastic bags or takeout containers – stuff most traditional recyclers won’t touch. Renewlogy’s technology, company founder Priyanka Bakaya told local media at the time, would heat plastic in a special oxygen-starved chamber, transforming the trash into diesel fuel.
Boise, Idaho resident David Garman places plastic waste into his recycling bin. More than 90% of the world’s plastic garbage gets dumped or incinerated because there is no cheap way to repurpose it. REUTERS/Brian Losness
Within a year, however, that effort ground to a halt. The project’s failure, detailed for the first time by Reuters, shows the enormous obstacles confronting advanced recycling, a set of reprocessing technologies that the plastics industry is touting as an environmental savior – and sees as key to its own continued growth amid mounting global pressure to curb the use of plastic.
Renewlogy’s equipment could not process plastic “films” such as cling wrap, as promised, Boise’s Materials Management Program Manager Peter McCullough told Reuters. The city remains in the recycling program, he said, but its plastic now meets a low-tech end: It’s being trucked to a cement plant northeast of Salt Lake City that burns it for fuel.
Renewlogy said in an emailed response to Reuters’ questions that it could recycle plastic films. The trouble, it said, was that Boise’s waste was contaminated with other garbage at 10 times the level it was told to expect.
Boise spokesperson Colin Hickman said the city was not aware of any statements or assurances made to Renewlogy about specific levels of contamination.
Hefty EnergyBag, as the recycling program in Boise is known, is a collaboration between Dow and U.S. packaging firm Reynolds Consumer Products Inc, maker of the program’s orange garbage sacks and popular household goods such as Hefty trash bags, plastic food wrap and aluminum foil. Hefty EnergyBag said in an emailed response to questions that it “continues to work with companies to help advance technologies that enable other end uses for the collected plastics.” It declined to answer questions about Renewlogy’s operations, as did Dow spokesperson Kyle Bandlow. Reynolds did not respond to requests for comment.
The collapse of Boise’s advanced recycling plan is not an isolated case. In the past two years, Reuters has learned, three separate advanced recycling projects backed by other major companies – in the Netherlands, Indonesia and the United States – have been dropped or indefinitely delayed because they were not commercially viable.
In all, Reuters examined 30 projects by two-dozen advanced recycling companies across three continents and interviewed more than 40 people with direct knowledge of this industry, including plastics industry officials, recycling executives, scientists, policymakers and analysts.
Most of those endeavors are agreements between small advanced recycling firms and big oil and chemicals companies or consumer brands, including ExxonMobil Corp, Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Procter & Gamble Co (P&G). All are still operating on a modest scale or have closed down, and more than half are years behind schedule on previously announced commercial plans, according to the Reuters review. Three advanced recycling companies that have gone public in the last year have seen their stock prices decline since their market debuts.
PLASTIC BOOM
Many advanced recycling projects have emerged in recent years in response to a global explosion of plastic waste. More than 90% gets dumped or incinerated because there’s no cheap way to repurpose it, according to a landmark 2017 study published in the journal Science Advances.
Not only is this garbage choking landfills and despoiling oceans, it’s contributing to global warming because it’s made from fossil fuels. At a time when demand for transport fuel is under pressure from government vehicle-efficiency mandates and the rise of electric cars, the oil industry is doubling down on plastics. Plastic production – which industry analysts forecast to double by 2040 – will be the biggest growth market for oil demand over the next decade, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency.
Plastic production – which industry analysts forecast to double by 2040 – will be the biggest growth market for oil demand over the next decade.
Source: International Energy Agency
A number of U.S. and European cities have already levied bans or consumer fees on single-use plastic bags. Pressure is also building for “polluter-pays” laws that would shift the cost of waste collection from taxpayers to the companies that make and use plastic. Earlier this month, Maine became the first U.S. state to pass such legislation.
Enter advanced recycling. Also known as “chemical recycling,” advanced recycling is an umbrella term for processes that use heat or chemicals to turn plastic waste into fuel or reclaimed resin to make new plastic.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry group whose membership is dominated by plastics makers, says polluter-pays measures would hurt the economy. It’s urging U.S. lawmakers instead to ease regulations on and provide incentives to advanced recycling companies.
As of July, 14 U.S. states had passed these kinds of laws. At least $500 million in public funds has been spent since 2017 on 51 U.S. advanced recycling projects, the environmental group Greenpeace said in a report last year. Boise’s government, for example, has spent at least $736,000 on garbage bags for its program, according to purchase orders and invoices between May 2018 and April 2020 obtained by Reuters through public records requests.
The ACC says these technologies are game-changers because they could potentially process all types of plastic, eliminating expensive sorting and cleaning.
Joshua Baca, vice president for plastics at the American Chemistry Council, testifying before a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on June 24, 2021 in support of federal measures to promote advanced recycling. C-SPAN
“The potential is enormous,” said Joshua Baca, vice president of the ACC’s plastics division. The ACC this month called on Congress to develop a national strategy to reduce plastic waste, including “rapid scaling” of advanced recycling.
However, the Reuters review found some advanced recycling companies struggling with the same obstacles that have bedeviled traditional recyclers for decades: the expense of collecting, sorting and cleaning plastic trash, and creating end products that can compete on price and quality with fossil fuels or virgin plastic.
Transitioning from the lab to the real-world chaos of dirty and improperly sorted household plastic waste has proven too much for some of these newcomers, said Helen McGeough, a London-based senior plastic recycling analyst at Independent Commodity Intelligence Services, a data and analytics firm.
“People have entered into this, perhaps not understanding the processes properly, the waste that they are handling, and so that’s why some things have failed,” McGeough told Reuters.
Advanced recycling is in its infancy, and as with any emerging technology, setbacks are to be expected, a dozen industry players said.
So far, some of their own research shows it’s no panacea.
An assessment of the Hefty EnergyBag program was commissioned by Reynolds. It compared the environmental impact of recycling plastic waste through a heating process known as pyrolysis – the approach Renewlogy used – to two traditional ways of handling it: burning it in cement kilns or putting it in a landfill.
The study, published on the Hefty EnergyBag program’s website last year, found that in Boise’s case, pyrolysis fared worst among the three in terms of its overall global warming potential. That measure estimated the greenhouse gas emissions of the whole process, from manufacturing the garbage bags and transporting the waste to the energy used in the recycling process.
A narrower analysis, looking just at the final recycling process and its contribution to global warming, found that pyrolysis scored better than landfilling but was worse than burning plastic in a cement kiln.
“These types of studies will really push the chemical recyclers to think about their operations,” said Tad Radzinski, president of Sustainable Solutions Corporation, the consultancy which conducted the study.
The study noted its calculations came from various sources, including a U.S.-based pyrolysis plant that has experience processing the Hefty EnergyBag materials. Asked whether Renewlogy’s plant was the one it examined, Sustainable Solutions said it could not name the plant because of a non-disclosure agreement with that facility.
Reynolds and Dow had no comment about the study.
Renewlogy said it supplied no data to Sustainable Solutions. “Our numbers are vastly different from those used in the report,” Renewlogy said in response to Reuters’ questions.
Orange bags filled with plastic waste in Boise. A recycling effort to turn this garbage into diesel fuel failed. It is now burned in a cement plant. REUTERS/Brian Losness
CASHING IN ON TRASH
Advanced recycling projects have mushroomed globally, especially since 2018. That’s when China, once the top buyer of the world’s used plastic, banned these imports because its recyclers were overwhelmed. Other countries, too, are shutting their doors to foreign waste, putting pressure on the developed world to deal with its own garbage.
The boom is also being fueled by investors looking for the next hot green-tech industry.
Most of the advanced recycling firms involved in the projects reviewed by Reuters use a form of pyrolysis, the process of breaking down matter using high temperatures in an environment with little or no oxygen.
Pyrolysis has been tried before on plastic. British oil giant BP Plc, German chemical maker BASF SE and U.S. oil company Texaco Inc – now owned by Chevron Corp – all separately dropped plans to scale up waste-to-fuel pyrolysis technologies more than 20 years ago due to technical and commercial problems.
BASF said it now believes such an endeavor is viable. It said in October 2019 it invested 20 million euros in Quantafuel, a Norway-based plastic-to-fuel company listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange.
Some scientists challenge the assertion that melting unsorted plastic made from a variety of chemicals is good for the environment.
“Pyrolysis can generate toxic waste, such as dioxins.”
Hideshige Takada, geochemist and professor at the Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology
In addition to consuming large amounts of energy, “pyrolysis can generate toxic waste, such as dioxins,” said Hideshige Takada, a geochemist and professor at the Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology who has studied pollutants in waste for decades.
A numerical symbol that commonly appears on plastic packaging to identify the resin out of which the product is made
Nor has pyrolysis proven capable of transforming unsorted garbage into high-quality fuel and clean plastic resin, says Susannah Scott, a chemistry professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who receives funding from the plastics industry to perform recycling research.
Plastics have long been stamped with the numbers 1 to 7 inside the familiar “chasing arrows” logo to help traditional recyclers separate the waste before processing it.
Scott said melting different numbered plastics together through pyrolysis produces a complex blend of hydrocarbons that must then be separated and purified for reuse. That process requires a lot of energy, she said, and typically yields products that don’t measure up to the quality of the original material.
With pyrolysis, “the value of what you’re making is so low,” Scott said.
Advanced recyclers say they’re overcoming these problems with innovations in energy efficiency and purification.
Of two-dozen companies whose projects were reviewed by Reuters, three have gone public in the last year: PureCycle Technologies Inc, Agilyx AS and Pryme B.V. The market value of all has declined since their debuts.
One of the hardest hit has been PureCycle, a Florida-headquartered advanced recycling startup that went public this year through a special purchase acquisition company. It ended its first day of trading on March 18 with shares up 13% to $33, giving it a market capitalization of around $3.8 billion.
But its shares tumbled 40% on May 6, the day short-seller Hindenburg Research published a report calling the recycler’s technology “unproven” and its financial projections “ridiculous.” PureCycle shares have since regained some ground.
PureCycle said the same day that Hindenburg’s report was “designed to drive down the stock price in order to serve the short seller’s economic interests.” It declined further comment about the report.
Hindenburg declined to comment.
According to its website, PureCycle uses a “ground-breaking” recycling process developed by P&G, maker of Gillette razors and Head & Shoulders shampoo, to turn a particular type of waste plastic, polypropylene, back into resin. PureCycle is around two years behind schedule on its first commercial plant, which its CEO Mike Otworth told Reuters on March 6 was due to slower-than-expected debt financing and the coronavirus pandemic.
P&G declined to comment.
The ACC, the chemicals trade group, continues to promote the potential of advanced recycling. Last year, it spent $14 million lobbying members of Congress on various issues, the most the organization has ever spent, according to OpenSecrets.org, a non-profit initiative that tracks money in U.S. politics.
Until her two-year term ended in December, Renewlogy’s Bakaya was the chair of the ACC’s advanced recycling unit.
Renewlogy is among a crop of “advanced recycling” startups using heat or chemicals to turn plastic waste into new products. REUTERS/George Frey
Previous Next
ONE TO WATCH
Bakaya grew up in Australia after her father emigrated there from India, she told business podcast Upside in 2020. She attended Stanford University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), graduating from the latter in 2011. She became a prominent figure in advanced recycling, promoting her technology on media forums such as National Geographic and the BBC.
Bakaya garnered a string of accolades, including making Fortune’s “40 under 40: Ones to Watch” list in 2013.
She declined to be interviewed for this story.
Renewlogy’s Priyanka Bakaya holding up a jar of hard-to-recycle plastics at a TEDx talk in Amherst, Massachusetts in 2015. Cade Belisle/The Massachusetts Daily Collegian/Handout via REUTERS
Bakaya said in a TEDx talk in 2015 that she initially set up a company called PK Clean to recover oil from “mixed, dirty landfill-bound plastic.” PK Clean later changed its name to Renewlogy, Bakaya said in an interview with MIT in 2017.
Steve Case, co-founder and former chief executive of AOL Inc, invested $100,000 in PK Clean in 2016, according to a blog he authored on the website of his venture capital firm Revolution. The governor’s office in Utah said it gave a total of $200,000 in grants in 2016 and 2017, while Salt Lake City’s Department of Economic Development provided $350,000 in loans in 2015 to PK Clean, according to Peter Makowski, acting director of business development for the department.
Revolution did not respond to requests for comment. The Utah governor’s office said the program under which PK Clean received the grants had ended and it was no longer funding the company. Salt Lake City said its loans to PK Clean have been repaid.
Boise first sent plastic waste to Renewlogy in June 2018, followed by at least five more truckloads in the following months, minutes of meetings of Boise’s Public Works Commission show. In June 2019, Boise said in a statement it had temporarily stopped sending its waste to Renewlogy while the Utah plant upgraded its equipment. Hefty EnergyBag said Renewlogy left the program for good in December 2020. Renewlogy did not respond to questions about how much of Boise’s plastic waste it had recycled.
Reuters made an unannounced visit to Renewlogy’s Salt Lake City operation in mid-May. On a Monday afternoon, there was little visible activity outside the facility; the front parking lot contained five passenger cars, two of which had flat tires. The back lot contained dozens of bales of plastic waste dotted with faded orange recycling bags stacked next to rusty oil drums and a wheelbarrow full of glass jars containing a murky liquid.
Benjamin Coates, Renewlogy co-founder and chief technology officer, outside the company’s Salt Lake City facility. REUTERS/George Frey
Renewlogy co-founder Benjamin Coates emerged from the building to speak to a reporter. Asked about the status of the company, Coates said opponents of chemical recycling were trying to damage the industry by pushing “conspiracy theories” about the technology. He directed further questions to Bakaya before telling Reuters to leave the premises.
Jeremiah Bates, owner of a tire shop next door to Renewlogy, said the recycling plant didn’t appear to have been active for at least six months and that he had complained to Coates and the local fire marshal about the debris piling up out back.
Renewlogy did not respond to questions about Bates’ assertions.
Jeremiah Bates, owner of Jeremiah’s Tires Services next door to Renewlogy. He told Reuters in May that the recycling facility didn’t appear to have been active for at least six months and that he was concerned about debris piling up. Renewlogy did not respond to Bates’ assertions. REUTERS/George Frey
An inspector from the Salt Lake City Fire Prevention Bureau, Jose Vila Trejo, visited the recycling facility on Feb. 12, according to his inspection report. Vila Trejo told Reuters that his tour of the plant turned up no fire hazard because there were no machines present that could generate heat, flames or sparks.
“They were basically shut down,” Vila Trejo said. “There was no equipment in there.”
Renewlogy confirmed to Reuters that Vila Trejo inspected the building in February. It said the facility had not shut down and that there was equipment at the site.
Renewlogy said it shares the Salt Lake City premises with other companies that work on pyrolysis of wood and other waste, and that much of the junk Reuters saw on the back lot belonged to other firms that it declined to name. Renewlogy added that it continues to operate its plant as a testing facility to develop new plastic recycling technologies.
Reuters exclusively reported in January that an advanced plastic recycling project in India, which was a collaboration between Renewlogy and a charity funded by plastics makers, collapsed last year.
Renewlogy later this year plans to launch another plastics recycling facility, this one in Phoenix, Arizona, according to its website. Joe Giudice, assistant public works director at the City of Phoenix, confirmed the facility was due to start being set up in August. More taxpayer money is due to flow to the company.
The Arizona Innovation Challenge, a state-funded program, in 2017 awarded Renewlogy a $250,000 grant, funds that will be dispersed when Renewlogy sets up in Phoenix, the Arizona Commerce Authority, which runs the program, told Reuters.
Giudice said Phoenix would not be sending Renewlogy any film plastics due to uncertainty over whether they could be easily recycled.
Renewlogy said it would be “starting very small” and would be “validating each step before scaling up.”
Trucks arrive at the Devil’s Slide cement plant in Morgan, Utah. The facility has been burning Boise’s plastic waste since March 2020 as a replacement for coal. REUTERS/George Frey
BOUND FOR THE DEVIL’S SLIDE
Back in Boise, the Hefty EnergyBag program continues, but Renewlogy is no longer involved. Waste in those orange Hefty bags now helps fuel the Devil’s Slide, a cement plant in Morgan, Utah, part of the U.S. unit of Holcim, a European multinational firm. The company told Reuters it has been burning Boise’s plastic since March 2020 as a replacement for coal.
Hefty EnergyBag has forged similar arrangements with cement makers in Nebraska and Georgia, according to the environmental study of the program commissioned by Reynolds.
Environmental groups tracking chemical pollutants say incinerating plastic this way produces significant carbon emissions and releases dioxins associated with the chemicals in the plastic. This is in no way “recycling,” said Lee Bell, advisor to the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global network of public interest groups working to eliminate toxic pollutants.
Bandlow, the Dow spokesperson, said the Hefty EnergyBag program was helping to “transform waste into valuable products.” He declined to respond to questions about the environmental impact of burning plastic in cement kilns.
reuters investigates
Jocelyn Gerst, a spokesperson for Holcim’s U.S. operations, said the emissions levels of the plastic waste it burns are “the same or lower than traditional fuel,” and that it had a state permit to incinerate plastic. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it does not have any data to show that “substitution of plastic waste for coal makes a significant difference in air emissions.”
Back in Idaho, Anne Baxter Terribilini, a resident of Meridian, a Boise suburb, said she initially was eager to participate in the Hefty EnergyBag program, but was disillusioned to learn that her plastic waste now ends up in a cement kiln.
“I hate to feel like we are being lulled into complacency, believing that we are having a positive impact on the environment, when really we aren’t,” she said.
Boise officials said they’ve been transparent with the public about the handling of their plastic waste. Haley Falconer, Boise’s sustainability officer, said the city has learned from the setbacks. In hindsight, she said, it would have been better to build a customized recycling program with a local partner so that Boise could control where its waste was going.
But the city has no place else to put its plastic garbage, so it’s sticking with the Hefty EnergyBag program, Boise’s McCullough said.
From Shell to Unilever, plastics polluters back recycling-tech flops
Some of the world’s biggest multinationals are hailing so-called advanced recycling as the solution to a waste crisis that has lawmakers looking to crack down on plastics use.
The impetus is coming from two sets of players: big oil and chemical companies that make the petrochemicals used to manufacture plastic, and global consumer brands that use huge amounts of the material in packaging. These giants are striking deals with startups that claim they can transform this garbage into fuel or resin to make new plastic.
But some recent efforts in this “high-tech” recycling boom have already fizzled.
At least four high-profile projects have been dropped or indefinitely delayed over the last two years because they weren’t commercially viable, Reuters has learned. Here are the details:
NO DIESEL FOR DOW
Dow Inc, one of the world’s biggest plastics makers, backed a program that in 2018 began taking plastic waste from residents in Boise, Idaho and trucking it more than 300 miles (483 kilometers) across the state line to Salt Lake City, Utah. There it was to be converted into diesel fuel by Renewlogy, an advanced recycling startup.
At least four high-profile projects have been dropped or indefinitely delayed over the last two years because they weren’t commercially viable.
Renewlogy touted its technology as capable of handling all types of plastic waste, including takeout containers and cling wrap, things many traditional recyclers won’t touch. But Renewlogy was unable to handle plastic “films,” used to make food packaging and grocery bags, and eventually left the program, the City of Boise told Reuters.
Renewlogy said it left the program because plastic waste being sent from Boise was too contaminated to recycle.
Dow deferred questions to Renewlogy.
Boise’s plastic waste is now being trucked to a Utah cement plant, which burns it for fuel.
SHELL PLANT ‘REPURPOSED’
In March 2019, Enerkem, a Montreal-based advanced recycler, announced that Anglo-Dutch oil giant Royal Dutch Shell Plc had joined a consortium of equity partners in a waste-to-chemicals recycling project to be based in Rotterdam, which they claimed was the first of its kind in Europe.
Enerkem says its technology uses extreme heat to turn plastic and other common household garbage into “bio-methanol,” a fuel for use in the chemical industry and transportation sector. The Rotterdam project was supposed to convert waste from the equivalent of more than 700,000 homes, Enerkem said in a March 2019 press release.
Two sources directly involved with the project told Reuters it was cancelled late last year due to uncertainty about the plant’s ability to secure a reliable waste supply and to turn a profit.
Enerkem said the project was never cancelled, rather “repurposed” to focus on making jet fuel from waste due to high demand for a sustainable product.
Shell will make a decision in 2022 on whether to invest, a company spokesperson said. Shell declined further comment.
UNILEVER’S ‘RADICAL RECYCLING’ FALTERS
Unilever Plc in 2017 announced it was creating a pilot plant using a “radical recycling process” that turns hard-to-recycle plastic sachets into new packaging. Sachets are used to dispense a vast array of products, including fast-food ketchup, shampoo and toothpaste.
The global consumer products giant told Reuters that its CreaSolv process uses chemicals to dissolve plastic waste into a liquid, drains off the impurities, dries it and extrudes it into clean plastic that can then be turned into new products.
Unilever said in its announcement that it would share this technology with its competitors so that recycling plants could be built around the world.
“At best, the sachets end up in landfill. At worst, they end up as litter in the streets, the waterways and the oceans.”
Unilever in a 2017 announcement about its plastics recycling initiative
Unilever, which makes Dove soap and Hellmann’s mayonnaise, said publicly it began operating a pilot plant in Indonesia in 2018. But within a year it was clear the technology was not commercially viable, and plans to build a full-scale operation were dropped, two people involved in the program told Reuters. Although the sachets could be recycled in small amounts, the people said, it was too expensive to collect, sort and clean enough of these packets to scale up the project without incurring large losses.
In an emailed response to Reuters’ questions, Unilever said the project had faced “some disruption due to Covid-19” but that the pilot plant was still operating. It declined to say at what capacity.
“We’re actively working with others to determine ways to scale this technology,” a company spokesperson said.
On May 6, Reuters called the factory complex where Unilever’s plant was situated in Sidoarjo, East Java, Indonesia. A front desk operator at the complex said no one had visited Unilever’s recycling facility in at least six months.
Unilever did not respond to questions about this claim.
Consumer goods companies like Unilever use billions of single-serve sachets to sell laundry detergent, instant coffee and other basics, mostly in poor countries. These packets are nearly impossible to recycle, and have become a major source of pollution in places like Africa and Southeast Asia.
“At best, the sachets end up in landfill. At worst, they end up as litter in the streets, the waterways and the oceans,” Unilever said in its 2017 CreaSolv announcement.
DELTA AIRLINES PROJECT GROUNDED
Agilyx, an advanced recycling firm backed by Virgin Group and its billionaire founder Richard Branson, in 2018 announced a deal to convert plastic waste to jet fuel for Delta Air Lines Inc.
Press releases issued by the companies at the time outlined the plan: By 2020, a new plant near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania would supply up to 2,500 barrels a day of “synthetic crude oil” derived from plastics to a nearby refinery owned by Delta.
“This project marks the first truly commercial-scale facility that will advance the new plastics economy,” Agilyx’s CEO at the time, Joe Vaillancourt, said in the release. Branson tweeted on Nov. 25, 2018: “This is a major step forward in the search for a cost effective low carbon aviation fuel.”
Construction on the facility never started.
Current Agilyx CEO Tim Stedman told Reuters in March the project was delayed due to negotiations over contracts and finances and “was eventually killed by COVID,” referring to the pandemic that spread around the world in early 2020. In a June email to Reuters, he described the project as “on hold” and said “we remain optimistic” about its prospects.
A spokesperson for Virgin Group and Richard Branson declined comment and referred questions to Agilyx. A spokesperson for Delta said the project was “on hold” due to the pandemic.
Agilyx and Delta gave no time frame for the project to restart.
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Talking to kids about climate change
Jul 24, 2021
Linda Eve Seth
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
“Never shelter children from the world.” — Roald Dahl
***
Whether you think our changing climate is a man-made situation or just part of a natural cycle, there is no denying that there are increasing numbers of record-breaking high temperatures, low temperatures, hurricanes, droughts, floods, tornadoes, wild fires …
Whether you get your news and information from the TV, a newspaper, the radio, or from an online source (or likely all of the above) the effects of a warming planet and changing climate patterns are in the news daily.
If the young people in your home are paying any attention at all, they may be struggling to deal with the constant barrage of anxiety-provoking news about the environment. Your kids are hearing warnings and prophecies regarding climate change in the news, on TV, online, in science classrooms, maybe even on the school bus. It’s all around them.
The realities of the world today are tough for parents to grapple with. But it’s even more tough for kids. Our youth deserve to be hopeful about their future.
If adults (parents/teachers) ignore the changing environment, they short change the children in their orbits, but teaching kids about such a complex and unsettling issue can be daunting for any adult.
Parents who are nervous about bringing up climate change with their child might prefer to wait for a teacher to raise the subject first. But parents have a distinct advantage over educators because the former know their children’s interests, their emotional intelligence, and how they’ll be affected by news that’s difficult to hear.
There are plenty of ways to talk about what’s happening to the Earth in age-appropriate ways without frightening a child. The key is to lay a foundation for children to appreciate and be curious about the natural world. The first step parents can take is to help their children develop an appreciation of the natural world before trying to explain climate change. That could mean watching a nature documentary together, visiting a wildlife center, growing a garden, or introducing a child to natural habitats like a creek, beach, or forest. Such experiences give kids a sense of why taking care of the earth is important, which ultimately helps them grasp the stakes of climate change — and care about preventing it.
But understanding the underlying science — let alone its many impacts on the effects of climate change on oceans, animals, crops, land, and the air we breathe — is admittedly complicated. So, for a simple second step, consider sharing books about the environment with your kids; LEARN TOGETHER.
The following books give children the facts — sometimes straight up, sometimes wrapped within the story-telling — to help them learn about the rapidly warming, melting, flooding, parching world that their generation is urgently tasked with protecting.
Here are a few titles to get you started:
* Ages 9+ “Rising Seas” by Keltie Thomas
* Ages 10+ “When the Sky Breaks” by Simon Winchester
* Ages 6-10 “A Place For” by Melissa Stewart, illustrated by Higgins Bond
* Ages 8-12 “The Global Warming Express” by Marina Weber, illus. J. Whysner
* Ages 7+ “Look at the Weather” by Britta Teckentrup
* Ages 5-6 “Great Polar Bear” by Carolyn Lesser
* Ages 3-7 “The Digger and the Flower” by Joseph Kuefler
There are many more books on the subject. Ask your local librarian or the science teacher at school to recommend some that might suit your child’s age, interests, and intellect.
For more specific suggestions about how to talk to your kids about climate change, watch this column next month for a follow-up piece with a few more detailed ideas.
Until then, be kind to your Mother Earth.
***
Linda Eve Seth, SLP, M.Ed., is a mother, grandmother, concerned citizen and member of MOVCA.
Find Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action on the following social media:
Check out our Facebook group and join a conversation
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
Categories
Meta