The future of a circular model for plastics

Dave Gray speaks to Dewey Johnson, Chemical Market Analytics, to find out how far the plastics industry really is from achieving true circularity.

Left unchecked, the status quo facing us is quite stark. Recent Chemical Markets Analytics data suggests that, global plastics waste production could reach as much as 320 million metric tons per year by 2030. This could elevate the current environmental challenge that plastics waste poses to new heights, and for years to come.

DG: What are the key challenges to moving beyond a linear model?

DJ: Our work at Chemical Market Analytics has highlighted a number of disruptive truths that require attention from stakeholders across the circular plastics value chain.

For example, our recent modelling has shown that the quantity of plastic waste is projected to increase by 60-70% over the next 30 years. Currently, around 9% of this is recycled. And while this figure could reach 15-17% by 2030, this will require meaningful investment into infrastructure and recycling technologies.

Our research also highlights that a significant portion of the projected waste increase will come about as a consequence of growth in population and living standards in less economically developed regions, for example, Africa, India and SouthEast Asia. These regions are currently characterized by low collection, recycling and recovery rates when it comes to plastics, which means large volumes of plastic waste are leaking into local environments, polluting landfills and water supplies in some of the most globally vulnerable regions. Many collection systems are overwhelmed with waste volumes of all materials and do not currently drive effective economies of scale. This also includes those located in the Global North.

Much of this waste is being generated at a significant distance from where the plastics demand centres are located. For example, production of petrochemical plastics typically happens in North America, the Middle East, Europe and China, but the associated waste is projected to appear in regions far from where the source materials originate. As regulatory efforts accelerate and investment into improving plastic waste infrastructure increases, the ability to monitor evolving risks, costs and emissions will prove increasingly pivotal to achieve meaningful change.

DG: How can technology help us bridge the gap?

DJ: Over the past halfcentury, multiple plastic recycling technologies have risen to prominence. Take mechanical recycling for example. Such an approach has existed since the 1950s and works by non-chemical means to process plastics waste into secondary raw materials for use in new contexts.

Given the maturity of the technology, focusing on a mechanical recycling approach holds significant advantages from a CAPEX and operating costs perspective. This consequently enables stakeholders to achieve break-even economics sooner on investment. Additionally, mechanical recycling of plastics by definition avoids the need to tamper with the chemical make-up of plastics, which minimises the amount of CO2 released in the recycling process. However, there are potential drawbacks. Mechanical recycling reduces the quality of plastics as they pass through the process, reducing their efficacy and potential use cases over time. A lack of feedstock is also a potential barrier, as there are currently stringent quality specifications that limit the types of plastic waste to which mechanical recycling technologies can be applied.

To move beyond the degradation problem, chemical and other recycling technologies such as pyrolysis and gasification, as well as depolymerisation and solvent solution and dissolution, are often proposed as alternative solutions. Pyrolysis and gasification in particular can effectively break down low-quality plastic waste feedstocks, but the nascent nature of these technologies means that in the short term, they require significant CAPEX requirements, pushing breakeven points well into the future. At Chemical Market Analytics, we track more than 120 different recycling technologies in varying stages of development, which illustrates the significant complexity involved in selecting the appropriate technology for each use case.

DG: How pressing is plastic circularity for businesses and key stakeholders? Are we making much progress?

DJ: It cannot be denied that there are currently different perspectives on urgency, depending on the audience. Plastic producer attitudes often differ from the brands that use their products. For example, consumer goods companies such as Coke and Pepsi are on the record with public pledges to drive reusable packaging and plastics by 2030 given consumer demand. Regulatory scrutiny is also accelerating with the UK’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) reporting requirements and the U.S. government’s EPA Draft National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution driving increased scrutiny on brands when it comes to their attitudes about recycling plastics. Plastic producers, on the other hand, may not feel the same pressure, attracting less media and regulatory scrutiny as plastic feedstock suppliers.

Increased attention on global logistics issues when it comes to circularity in plastics is also an ongoing concern. The issue of plastic waste generation being located at a significant distance from where recycling and reuse can take place means that global supply chains need to adapt to drive cost efficiency. This requires careful consideration of whether it may make economic sense to carry out chemical recycling pyrolysis at a small modular installation in one location before transporting the pyrolysis oil to petrochemical centres for further processing. Such additional complexity is a key concern for plastics producers and brands alike.

Ultimately, the plastic value chain as a whole must align itself with government regulation as it evolves to ensure progress on circularity is achieved in a strategic, cost-efficient fashion. The current discrepancy between global manufacturing and delivery of traditional plastics versus the development and scaling of “reverse” plastics highlights the need to effectively track progress and promote investment in these technologies to drive change.

DG: Will plastics really move the needle when it comes to overall sustainability efforts?

DJ: There’s no denying that urgent action is needed on the issue of plastic waste and driving increased uptake of the circular model. Currently, the “plastics end-of-life” challenge is expected to get worse before it gets better. In both the short and long term, it is important for stakeholders to carry out comprehensive life cycle analyses on an ongoing basis to maintain visibility on current priorities.

For meaningful action to be achieved, a global alignment of government policies, stakeholder values, financial support and application of transformative technologies must be prioritised across the entire plastics value chain. Achieving meaningful progress when it comes to circularity in plastics will require organisations to be increasingly nimble when adapting to change and have the right data and business intelligence at hand to make informed decisions.