While most Americans are blissfully in the dark about the fate of their plastic waste, plastic companies are fully aware that recycling systems cannot handle all the plastic they create. In fact, the plastics industry purposefully deceived the public into believing in plastic recycling, selling the importance of the practice while knowing that recycling centers would never be able to effectively recycle plastic waste. The goal: keep environmentally conscious consumers from turning away from plastic to greener materials.

As the former head of the Society of Plastics Industry, Larry Thomas, said in an interview, “If the public thinks that recycling is working, then they’re not going to be as concerned about the environment.”

And, of course, the impact of all of this unrecycled plastic on the environment has been brutal, killing marine life and wildlife, poisoning our drinking systems and food supplies, polluting the air we breathe, and increasing greenhouse gas emissions. These effects will only get worse as plastic production continues to grow; already in the past twenty years it has more than doubled. And, as we turn away from reliance on oil and other fossil fuel energies, the fossil fuel industry (which makes the petroleum used to create plastic) is investing even more in the material to keep their businesses alive.

How did we get here? And how do we hold the plastics industry accountable?

__________

In the late 1970s and 1980s, the plastics industry was in trouble. Growing environmental awareness and activism was cutting into its bottom line as consumers became informed about the devastating impact of plastic on the environment. In the midst of the 1970s environmental movement that led to Earth Day protests and the passage of environmental protection legislation, public approval of the use of plastic dropped to 30-35% and consumers started turning away from the material.

In response to the plastic pushback, state legislatures began passing legislation to limit or even ban the use of plastics. Suffolk County, New York banned plastic bags in 1988, and local governments across the country began to follow suit with their own bans. With the market for plastic goods shrinking and shrinking, the plastics industry was in a crisis and approaching “a point of no return,” according to Thomas.

Rather than accept the changing public sentiment and get out of the plastics business, oil and gas companies decided to double down. Their strategy: blame the public for littering and sell recycling as the environmental solution.

Companies like DuPont, Exxon, Chevron, and Dow spent $50 million per year on ad campaigns promoting the value of plastic and the importance and benefits of recycling. Dow even produced a “Rock ‘N’ Roll and Recycling” musical show that toured schools and released video tapes targeted at children; songs featured included “We Didn’t Start the Landfills” and “Recycle or Die!,” ending with a happy rendition of “I Feel Good!” to celebrate the success of recycling.

One of the most famous ads of all time, purportedly featuring a Native American man who was actually an Italian actor, showed the man crying as he looked at scenes of plastic trash. He says gravely to the viewer, “People start pollution. People can stop it.” The American public bought the messaging, and plastic pollution became a responsibility for the consumer.

Beyond advertising, the plastics industry also began spending huge dollars on lobbying. Coca-Cola and the American Beverage Association opposed bottle-deposit laws that encourage consumers to return their used plastic bottles. Today, Hawaii is the only state that has successfully passed a bottle bill since 1987 because the industry outspends opponents 30 to 1 to kill the legislation.

The proper strategy, according to the industry, was a full-out pitch for recycling. Plastic companies and interest groups also began piloting recycling centers, nonprofits, and sorting machines in municipalities across the U.S., all funded by taxpayers. The industry even lobbied states to pass legislation mandating that the famous chasing arrows symbol appear on all plastic products to help categorize and separate plastic — and promote recycling. Executives knew that if the public believed in recycling, they would be more willing to continue buying plastic.

Executives knew that if the public believed in recycling, they would be more willing to continue buying plastic.

The marketing worked. Once consumers believed that the plastic they purchased wouldn’t end up in a landfill after all, approval of plastics skyrocketed to mid-60% favorability. Municipalities backed off or repealed their plastic bans, and business was booming again.

The public began sorting their plastic into recycling bins, reducing litter and therefore the visible impact of plastic waste — and the use of plastics skyrocketed. Corporations were officially off the hook for the environmental impacts of the products that they were manufacturing and selling, and the recycling industry was there to clean up the waste.

__________

As it turned out, the great push for plastic recycling was a huge failure in every measure except the plastic industry’s bottom line.

For starters, most plastic is genuinely unrecyclable. The most prevalent type of plastic today, mixed plastics, makes up 69% of all plastic waste but can’t be recycled in most recycling facilities. With thousands of other kinds of plastic on the market, each requiring their own processes for recycling, there is no way that recycling centers can adequately sort and recycle each type. Relying on recycling centers to handle the waste is simply infeasible.

And when a piece of plastic can be recycled, the process is often so expensive as to not be financially viable. The resulting piece of recycled plastic must have a buyer, or it too will go straight to a landfill — and in most cases, buying virgin, brand-new plastic is cheaper than buying recycled plastic.

Even successful plastic recycling is just downcycling. According to Yen Ba Vu, who worked on a French language publication about waste reduction and plastic recycling in Vietnam, recycling plastic is not like recycling glass or aluminum. When metal and glass are recycled, the outcome is a product of the same quality as the original materials. However, when it comes to plastics, the recycling process creates a form of plastic that is cheaper, less durable, and far more degraded than the original products input into the system.

In fact, most plastic can only be recycled two or three times before it is too degraded to recycle again — meaning that it will almost always end up in a landfill, the ocean, or an incinerator eventually anyway. Says Vu, “this material is doomed from the start.” And, once again, the inferior quality of recycled plastic makes it less attractive for potential buyers, in turn making it less likely that the recycled plastic will ever be used.

To make matters worse, plastic recycling creates its own pollution problems. Recycling plastic produces toxic waste, and the negative effects fall disproportionately on the countries where the U.S. exports its plastic. Developing countries, particularly in Southeast Asia, often bear the burden of handling America’s plastic waste and the brunt of the health and environmental consequences.

As Vu notes, “this issue of plastic is also one of environmental justice.” In Minh Khai, Vietnam, where 90-95% of residents make their living by recycling plastic, the health and environmental effects have been severe. The city has seen a rise in cancer cases, respiratory infection, and asthma since the recycling industry arrived to the area. The chemicals used in the process cause itching and rashes for the workers, and the recycling wastewater has infiltrated the drinking water and forced residents to rely on bottled water to survive. One documentary announces, “all recycling businesses are very, very dirty businesses,” with their own pollutant effects on the surrounding environments.

Finally, a focus on recycling puts a burden on consumers that is simply impossible for the average person to navigate and does nothing to stop plastic production at the source. Consumers are told that it is their burden to solve the plastic waste problem, and most people — 72% — believe it. The narrative is that it is on the consumer to correctly wash, sort, and categorize their plastic waste into the correct recycling bins, or even to stop buying plastic in the first place.

Developing countries, particularly in Southeast Asia, often bear the burden of handling America’s plastic waste and the brunt of the health and environmental consequences.

With a confusing recycling system made up of over 9,800 recycling centers across the U.S., each with their own standards and technology, burdening individuals to know the intricate recycling details of their localities is infeasible. And in a world where companies offer very few non-plastic options on the market, and when corporations are the ones who decide what packaging and materials to use for their products, consumers have a very limited ability to make a meaningful impact in the first place.

As Vu notes, “when [corporations] decide that plastic is cheap and therefore they’re going to package their goods in plastic,” there’s no practical way for consumers to stop them. In the end, corporations, who bear no financial or legal responsibility for the environmental impact of the plastic that they so flippantly create, get off scot free for their actions.

These consequences of a failed plastic recycling system are not abstract. The vast majority of plastic waste today ends up in landfills or incinerators in the U.S. or around the globe. In our oceans, marine life die entangled in plastic. Fish, whales, and birds ingest it by accident and die of suffocation or starvation, unable to take in more food or air as their stomachs fill with waste. Plastics thrown in landfills break down into microplastics that spread through water supplies and into food, while incineration releases toxic chemicals into the air. Incineration produces carbon dioxide, methane, and other toxic chemicals that accelerate the pace of climate change. Even the plastic discarded in landfills or the environment releases the same greenhouse gases as it sits in the sun. Additionally, production and incineration of plastic alone adds 850 million metric tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere — and by 2050, it could rise to 2.8 gigatons, the equivalent of 615 coal plants. And microplastics in our food and water supplies are known to cause cancer as well as immune disorders, neurological problems, and reproductive and developmental issues.

The impact of plastic on the environment is not just scary. It is fatal.

__________

Plastic recycling would be an unfortunate accident — a noble experiment gone unexpectedly wrong — if it wasn’t for the fact that corporations knew all along that plastic recycling would fail.

A 1973 report for plastic industry consultants investigating the viability of recycling stated that successful recycling was “unlikely to happen on a broad scale,” with other documents saying it was too “costly” and “infeasible.” A year later, industry insiders wrote that there was serious doubt that recycling could ever be economically viable.

Plastic recycling would be an unfortunate accident — a noble experiment gone unexpectedly wrong — if it wasn’t for the fact that corporations knew all along that plastic recycling would fail

But the industry was struggling, and executives were determined to find something to turn things around. Recycling was their ticket, and it didn’t matter to the industry if recycling would never work as long as consumers believed it was working. Plastic companies began selling a practice that they knew would do little for the environment, ensuring that consumers forgot about the harms of their products in the meantime.

The impact of the industries’ plastic promotion campaign was significant. Consumers became used to a lifestyle predicated on single-use, convenient, disposable products, without any of the environmental concerns that had paused them before. The ubiquitous presence of the chasing arrows led people to understandably believe that any product with the symbol was recyclable, even though the symbol appears on products regardless of their recyclability, ultimately overwhelming recycling centers with unrecyclable materials.

Companies knew that the code was being misunderstood but continued promoting it anyway, convincing consumers that their plastic products were environmentally friendly. And, despite the fact that every one of the pilot recycling programs that the plastic industry touted had closed by the mid-1990s, plastic waste was skyrocketing. It’s not surprising that the system was designed to fail; for the oil and gas companies producing the brand-new plastic, any plastic that is successfully recycled is competition.

It’s not surprising that the system was designed to fail; for the oil and gas companies producing the brand-new plastic, any plastic that is successfully recycled is competition.

Today, the deception around recycling is still persistent and widespread. Companies can label their plastic with a “100% recyclable” stamp if it’s recyclable in a lab environment, regardless of whether there are any recycling centers that can actually process the material.

The plastic industry has developed thousands of varieties of plastics that are unrecyclable and created a world that relies on single-use plastics. The rise of single-use plastics only accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the use of disposable packaging skyrocketed to reduce cross-contamination and slow the spread of the virus.

The only way to stop this vicious cycle is to cut down on plastic use, and the most effective way to do that is to stop its production at the source. That will be an uphill battle.

Rising costs of gas and oil combined with the growing push for green energy alternatives has put the industry in crisis once again, and the backup plan for oil and gas companies who can no longer sell fuel is to sell plastic. Just like in the 1980s, plastic corporations are once again peddling recycling as the solution to the world’s plastic woes.

There are advertisements to accompany the new push that are eerily reminiscent of the marketing from decades ago. The industry even goes so far as to admit that plastic recycling failed the first time around, but asks the public for a second chance and the opportunity to “fix” recycling.

But there’s no way to fix a strategy that was always designed to fail. Indeed, on the waste management hierarchy, recycling was never meant to come first. The priority should always be prevention, then reduction, and then reuse before recycling even comes into play.

But there’s no way to fix a strategy that was always designed to fail.

The better approach — and, in fact, the only meaningful approach — is to hold corporations responsible for their effect on the environment and to move the blame from consumers to the producers who created the plastic crisis in the first place.

This effort is gaining momentum as cities and almost ten states across the U.S. — including California, Connecticut, New York, and Oregon — have begun banning the use of plastic bags or straws, targeting the more visible types of plastic waste. New Jersey recently joined the ranks with a plastic bag ban that went into effect in May of 2022. California lawmakers have even introduced two pieces of legislation that together would ban certain types of single-use plastic entirely. Bans like this are important because they stop the production of plastic waste at the source and limit the amount of plastic that enters the economy and later the environment.

There is also a growing movement in Europe, Canada, and some U.S. states to force companies to take financial responsibility for the products they create. These policies, known as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes, require corporations to fund the recycling and handling of the plastic waste they produce, and puts the full life cycle cost of products on producers.

The effect is twofold—first, recycling systems become better-funded without dipping into taxpayer resources. More importantly, EPR raises the projected costs for companies planning to use plastic and therefore make plastic a less financially attractive option. Since one of the main reasons that corporations love plastic is its cheapness, rising costs will incentivize companies to look elsewhere for their materials and reduce the amount of plastic created over time.

The better approach — and, in fact, the only meaningful approach — is to hold corporations responsible for their effect on the environment and to move the blame from consumers to the producers who created the plastic crisis in the first place.

Unlike plastic recycling, EPR may not be a fairytale. The laws are already common for other types of goods like batteries, electronics, pharmaceuticals, and a host of other products, and there’s a growing call to apply them to plastic too.

Some states have launched a coordinated campaign to introduce EPR legislation, and in 2021 Maine became the first state to pass an EPR law for packaging materials, with Oregon following soon after. California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York have all introduced bills that are still making their way through the legislative process. Today, fifteen states have introduced plastic EPR bills, and that number will continue to grow if the public calls for it.

Other areas of intervention are also possible. Regulations that require accurate labeling of plastic materials — i.e., whether it is actually recyclable at most recycling facilities — would greatly reduce the confusion created by the common “recycling arrows” symbol. Indeed, the Federal Trade Commission has begun cracking down on misleading claims about biodegradable plastic, an important step in curbing widespread consumer deception.

Other regulatory schemes could require that producers disclose the full environmental impact of the products that they create: how much water is used in creating the product, the carbon footprint of production, and the environmental impact of the plastic waste. Corporations already have this information, and public disclosure would push companies that are unwilling to take responsibility for the effects of their actions.

No matter the approach, the most important part of any regulation must be that it targets plastic producers and incentivizes plastic reduction and investment in alternative materials.

No matter the approach, the most important part of any regulation must be that it targets plastic producers and incentivizes plastic reduction and investment in alternative materials.

Plastic production is on the rise and will only continue to grow exponentially. Analysts predict that the production of plastic will triple by 2050, to devastating environmental consequences. As oil and gas prices rise and green energy becomes more popular, plastics are the backup plan — and indeed the biggest market for growth — for the oil and gas industry. Chevron Phillips has even built a brand-new, $6 billion plastic plant in Texas as it tells shareholders to expect the company’s future profits to come from the plastic business.

As the oil and gas industry doubles down again on plastic, the world cannot continue to rely on a doomed recycling system to dig us out of this crisis. Instead, the plastic industry must be held accountable and forced away from producing these toxic materials in the first place. Plastic bans, EPR legislation, required disclosure, and increased regulation may be our best bet at turning society away from its dependence on plastic.

As history makes clear, however, no reform policy can stand on its promise. Regulatory policies should be assessed primarily by their actual consequences — in this case, whether or not they lead to a plastic-free future that is healthy, safe, equitable, and sustainable.

* * *

From The Systemic Justice Journal:

• Micaiah Barley, One Dollar, One Vote: Corporate Capture of Electoral Redistricting.
• Jordan Mulevicz, Corporate Power, Consumers, and Climate, Systemic Justice Journal.
• Samuel B. Stratton, Incorporating the Environment? Critiquing the Law’s Structural Bias Against Nature and in Favor of Business Interests.
• Breanne Parker, Fast Fashion, Consumer Complicity, & Corporate Accountability.
• John Ellis, Lie of Emission: The VW Scandal and the Future of Corporate Social Responsibility.
• Isabel Patkowski. The Wrong Hands: How the Firearms Industry Captured the Gun Control Movement.