• The plastics industry has been overselling the effectiveness of 'chemical recycling' despite being aware of its limitations and economic challenges.
• Internal analyses and expert opinions contradict the industry's claims that chemical recycling is a viable solution to the plastic waste crisis and can achieve a circular economy.
• Chemical recycling often converts plastic into fuel rather than new plastic, failing to 'close the plastics loop,' and faces issues with contamination and scalability.

The core issue revolves around the discrepancy between the public promotion and the internal understanding of 'chemical recycling' within the plastics industry. While publicly touted as a revolutionary solution for plastic waste, capable of creating a circular economy, internal documents and expert analyses reveal that chemical recycling is costly, technologically challenging, and not economically feasible at scale. This practice raises concerns about misleading the public and hindering the pursuit of genuine solutions to the plastic pollution crisis.

• What: The plastics industry is promoting 'chemical recycling' as a solution to plastic waste, despite internal knowledge of its limitations, including high costs, technological challenges, and the fact that it often converts plastic into fuel rather than new plastic. This is being portrayed as a misleading tactic.
• Who: Key players include plastics and fossil fuel companies, industry trade groups like the Plastics Industry Association and the American Chemistry Council, the Center for Climate Integrity, and consulting firms like Bain & Company and Roland Berger.
• When: The issue dates back to the 1970s when pyrolysis was first promoted. Recent hype started around 2016. A report was released in May 2025. Exxon Mobil's chemical recycling plant began operations three years prior to the article's publication.
• Where: The discussion focuses on global plastic waste management with specific mention of Exxon Mobil's chemical recycling plant in Baytown, Texas, and Eastman Chemical's facilities in Tennessee and Texas.

The article presents a critical perspective on the plastics industry's promotion of chemical recycling, contrasting it with the realities of the technology's effectiveness and economic viability. The report from the Center for Climate Integrity serves as a central piece of evidence, highlighting the discrepancies between the industry's public claims and internal assessments. The analysis suggests that the industry's aggressive promotion of chemical recycling may be a tactic to delay or avoid more fundamental changes, such as reducing plastic production or investing in proven recycling methods. The dependence on converting plastic into fuel is problematic because it does not create a circular system.

"They’re claiming it’s a solution and it’s not, and they know it."

Chemical recycling “certainly is a fraud. It hasn’t gone anywhere in 50 years, it won’t go anywhere in another 50 years, and it won’t go anywhere in 500 years.”

do not reduce plastic pollution and harm humans

The investigation reveals a significant disconnect between the plastics industry's public messaging on chemical recycling and the technology's actual capabilities. Despite being aware of the economic and technical limitations, the industry continues to promote it as a key solution to the plastic waste crisis. This raises concerns about transparency and the potential for misleading the public regarding the feasibility of achieving a truly circular economy for plastics. As lawsuits against the industry increase, this information may be used to hold them accountable for their claims.