Solving the U.S. Plastic Crisis: Chemical Recycling to Advance Plastic to Fuel Creation.

• Author: Blue, Rachel

Introduction

At 14,440 feet, Colorado's Mount Elbert offers the second highest peak in the contiguous United States (U.S.). (1) From its summit, the panoramic views include the tree line below, neighboring mountains that look up in envy, and pristine skies. The atmosphere at this elevation holds the minimal amount of oxygen needed to avoid hypoxia. However, those skies hold more than a hiker's oxygen supply: at this altitude, microplastics exist, and they are ingested. (2) Microplastics were also found near the highest summit on earth, Mount Everest. (3) And it is not just land's highest points that are infiltrated by plastic. So, too, has plastic been discovered in the oceans and their depths. Infamous "patches" traveling the high seas, such as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, (4) are composed primarily of plastic; hence, plastic waste persistently floats with the currents. (5) When plastic pieces eventually break from the patch, they sink to the ocean's bottom, as deep as the Mariana Trench seafloor, 36,000 feet below the surface. (6) Overall, more than six billion pounds of plastic waste are now present across the globe. (7) The U.S. holds the dubious honor of leading the world in plastic pollution; each American produces approximately 290 pounds of plastic waste each year. (8) Yet, the U.S. recycled just 8% of its plastic in 2017. (9)

The inaction by the world's largest plastic polluter is alarming since marine animals ingest or become entangled in such waste; 100,000 marine animals are killed by plastic each year. (10) Moreover, "microplastics reduced the growth of microalgae and the efficiency of photosynthesis," resulting in the ocean's reduced capacity to process carbon dioxide. (11) As Thermal Sciences Professor John Abraham succinctly explained, "The ocean's doing us a favor by grabbing about 90 percent of our heat. But it's not going to do it forever." (12) The plastic crisis and its resounding impact are a result of supply and demand. For example, one million plastic bottles are purchased each minute; plus, half of consumers' plastics are single-use. (13) Consequently, almost all tap water now contains plastic. (14) If unabated in its creation and discard, plastic's carbon footprint will equal the emissions of 615 coal-fired power plants' operations by 2050.15 Equally troubling, it takes approximately 100 years for certain forms of plastic to degrade. (16)

Some American lawmakers recognize the unfolding plastic calamity occurring domestically and abroad. Senator Tom Udall's Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act of 2020 (the Act) is a legislative attempt to curb plastic consumption and pollution. (17) Introduced to the Senate on February 12, 2020, it is currently sitting with the Committee on Finance. (18) This essay will analyze the Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act of 2020, note its deficiencies, and recommend President Biden create an executive order to address the national plastic crisis by (1) categorizing chemical recycling plants that focus on plastic to fuel (PTF) creation as a form of renewable energy; and (2) subsidizing such PTF recycling plants. This executive order will, in turn, reposition the U.S. as a leader in the climate change fight.

1. Background

   The U.S. plastic crisis is two-pronged: companies offer products in forms of plastic that are not intuitively recyclable, (19) so plastic accumulates; further, China stopped accepting U.S. plastic waste in 2018, resulting in limited options for the U.S. to export its plastic waste. (20)

   The U.S.' love affair with plastic began after World War II when plastic production tripled, and by 1960 "annual production exceeded six billion pounds." (21) Plastic's synthetic creation from hydrocarbons (22) made life more convenient for an entire generation and those that followed. Now, plastic's role includes far more than convenience; it is an essential part of the national economy. The plastic industry employs nearly two million people and generates an annual revenue of $591 billion. (23) Moreover, in the last decade, companies invested $200 billion into developing or expanding 333 petrochemical facilities, with a renewed focus specifically on cracker plants. (24) A cracker plant separates ethane from natural gas, reformulating it into plastic. (25) Currently, multiple cracker plants are operational, and Texas and Louisiana are home to the majority of them. (26)

   This geographical monopoly is soon to change, though. Seven facilities will commence operation in the next decade, and Pennsylvania will be host to the most prominent example of a cracker plant. (27) Shell's $6.5 billion facility in Potter Township is now 95% operational. (28) It is of little surprise that Shell opened its operation in Pennsylvania since it sits near Marcellus Shale, "the second largest natural gas field in the world." (29) Aside from the obvious advantages of creating and supplying plastic, oil and gas operators are also turning to plastic due to the unpredictability of fossil fuel prices. April 2020 witnessed oil trade at below $0 per barrel, and the resulting surplus upended many prominent American corporations. (30) Historically, it was oil and gas' worst price crash. (31) To stabilize, the industry is shifting to petrochemical production, specifically plastic. (32) By 2030, petrochemicals will "account for more than a third of the growth in the world oil demand." (33) In total, plastic will require a daily production of seven million barrels of oil. (34) To place into context the U.S.' cracker plant operations, the U.S. "is home to around 40% of the global ethane-based petrochemical production capacity. (35) Therefore, as demand decreases for oil and demand increases for petrochemical products, American oil and gas operators will continue to ramp up their plastic production.

   As the U.S. accelerated petrochemical production, China became the destination to offload plastic waste. For over thirty years, China accepted U.S. plastic. (36) Then, in 2018, China banned U.S. plastic shipments. (37) China's action resulted in the search for other countries willing to accept U.S. plastic, and in the interim, export of U.S. plastic waste decreased by 66%. (38) Soon after China's ban, other countries followed, forbidding U.S. plastic imports. The move was to deter the U.S. from continually taking advantage of less equipped sovereignties since "88 percent [of U.S. plastic] went to nations lacking adequate resources to properly manage and process it." (39) With international prospects decreasing, more and more plastic now finds a domestic endpoint, typically a U.S. landfill.

2. The Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act of 2020

   The Act attempts to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act, (40) and in doing so, is ambitious in scope. Admirably, the Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act of 2020 circumvents existing obstacles at the state level regarding single-use plastic; however, deficiencies exist within the Act, primarily due to its reactive approach. These deficiencies are found in the attempt to curtail corporate behavior while erroneously allocating millions of dollars for recycling centers and educational projects; the implementation of Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) trade requirements; and the incautious mandate to temporarily cease cracker facility operations.

   Seventeen states prohibit making plastic illegal. (41) Further, "eight additional states [are] considering preemption measures in the coming years that could make it illegal to ban single-use plastics." (42) The recent Georgia runoff election placed the Senate in Democratic control, increasing the likelihood the Act becomes law. Notably, one of its co-sponsors is former Senator and now Vice President Kamala Harris. (43) If the Act makes it to the floor for a vote, Harris will cast the affirming "yea," given a tiebreaker is needed. Should the Act become law, it will address plastic waste, even in states that prefer to keep their single-use plastic intact. Still, the Act's short-sighted components undermine any potential beneficial outcome.

   1. Corporate Climate and Consumer Culture

      The Act takes aim at corporate entities by removing from production specific types of plastic traditionally used for containers and packaging. (44) Yet using plastic substitutes, such as glass or metal, would result in "3.5 times more alternative material" needed. (45) The more material, the more waste. Granted, the alternative materials are more easily recyclable, but the demand and use for such would place significant pressure on the stream of commerce to produce enough alternative material and, in turn, have enough recycling capacity to intake the excess waste. (46) Moreover, weight would be added to each shipment, creating increased transportation emissions due to additional energy used. Specifically, the expended energy to move the extra weight equates to an additional "19 million passenger vehicles in a year, or the energy content of about 220 million barrels of oil, 1.2 million tanker trucks of gasoline, over 500,000 railcars of coal, or more than 110 supertankers of oil." (47) However, the more applicable issue is fiscal effect since transportation prices would rise due to increased weight and decreased amounts of product per shipment. In turn, these changes would be passed on to U.S. consumers. It is probable, though, that large corporations may be positioned to absorb such inflation. For example, Amazon's earnings soared 37% in 2020's third-quarter, resulting in $96.15 billion of revenue. (48)

      However, Amazon is certainly not comparable to a locally owned business. While larger corporations such as Amazon may weather the Act's mandate, small businesses will struggle due to the prohibition of single-use plastic, such as bags, bottles, straws, and packaging. (49) Ordinarily, most small businesses may tolerate the increase in operational costs. Yet 2020 proved far from ordinary, and citing the...