Instead of doubling down on pledges to clean up their act, the brands responsible for producing this waste – global companies like Coca Cola, Nestle and PepsiCo – want to triple the production of single-use plastic by 2050.¹

If this goes ahead, global carbon emissions from the plastic life cycle will increase by over 50% of 2019 levels by 2030 – equivalent to 300 coal-fired power plants – suffocating marine life and increasing dangerous global warming.

CONTENTS

2 INTRODUCTION

7 PLASTICS ARE CONTRIBUTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE

9. 9  BIG BRANDS PARTNER WITH BIG OIL TO PROFIT ON PLASTIC
10. 10  THE PET BOTTLE HOWAPETBOTTLEISMADE

    KEY MANUFACTUERS

11. 11  DIFFERENT WAYS OF OPERATING

    OTHER PLASTIC PACKAGING

15 BIG BRANDS + FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY USE RECYCLING AS A SMOKESCREEN

15 “CHEMICAL RECYCLING”
17 BIG BRANDS’ COLLABORATION

WITH THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY

21 THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY IS EXPANDING PLASTIC PRODUCTION, THREATENING CLIMATE AND HUMAN HEALTH

21 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS

23. 23  WHERE THE EXPANSION IS HAPPENING AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE
24. 24  PLASTIC INDUSTRY EXPANSION PROJECTS

26 THE U.S. – TOXIC EXPANSION / CANCER ALLEY

30 EUROPE – SWITCHING TO U.S. SHALE GAS

32 ASIA – FROM BIG TO BIGGER

35 BIG BRANDS MUST SHIFT TO REUSE
TO STOP THE PETROCHEMICAL EXPANSION AND MEET CLIMATE GOALS

38 REFERENCES 42 ENDNOTES

1TONOF PLASTIC = 5TONSOF CO2

THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED 1

A

A B

C

D

E F

G

H

La Porte, Texas. Ineos and Braskem oil facilities. © Aaron Sprecher / Greenpeace
Plastic nurdles are plastic in it’s raw state, before being manufactured into plastic objects. ©Shutterstock

Kuala Lumpar, Malaysia. Energy drinks, soda and soft drinks in single-use plastic bottles. © Abdul Razak Latif/Shutterstock
Malaysia. Packaging from everyday British products – exported as recycling – is discarded at multiple illegal dump sites. © Greenpeace
Waste incinerator. ©hassan/Shutterstock Indonesia. People collect plastic and paper to take to a local factory, where it is burned as fuel. © Ecoton/Fully Handoko

Wiang Thoeng subdistrict, Thoeng District, Chiang Rai Province, Thailand. Waste disposal by burning. ©NikonStocker/Shutterstock
Dumaguete City, Philippines. Discarded Coca-Cola label is seen on a pile of plastic bottles at a dumpsite. © Greenpeace

BC

for around 40% of total non-fiber plastic demand and contributes over half of plastic waste worldwide.22 And bullish industry projections talk up the scope for sector growth, driven by sharp increases in plastic consumption in developing economies.23 Despite intensifying public and regulatory pressure on consumer brands to address their plastic pollution, most FMCG companies have failed to meaningfully reduce single-use plastic packaging and adopt reuse-based alternatives.24 In this context, the FMCG sector’s continued dependence on single-use plastic packaging is helping enable the fossil fuel industry’s move to expand plastic production.

In this report, we examine how consumer brands’ failure to significantly reduce their reliance on single-use plastic, combined with ongoing fossil fuel industry investments of billions of dollars in expanding plastic production capacity, risk creating a plastic boom that could triple production capacity by 2050. In addition to accelerating

4 THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED

the plastic pollution crisis, this expansion poses a serious threat to our ability to stay within the 1.5 °C carbon budget. Specifically, we examine:
• How FMCG companies are failing to transparently

report the full climate impacts of their plastic

packaging;
• Supply chain connections between nine major FMCG

companies and the fossil fuel industry;
• The decades-long focus on recycling as a smokescreen

to enable increased plastic production;
• Climate impacts and issues with “chemical recycling”; • Human health and environmental justice impacts of

the petrochemical expansion;
• Key geographies where the expansion is happening;

and
• The need for FMCGs to shift to package-free or

reusable systems of delivery to stop enabling the fossil fuel industry expansion and to help meet climate goals.

DE

FG

H

“Coca-Cola will not ditch single-use plastic bottles because consumers still want them. Customers like them because they reseal and are lightweight.”

BEA PEREZ,

HEAD OF SUSTAINABILITY, THE COCA-COLA COMPANY

6

THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED

THE EMISSION INTENSIVE PLASTIC PRODUCTION SYSTEM

FROM BREATHE THIS AIR, PEAK PLASTIC FOUNDATION.

“The plastics we use in our everyday

life, the chemicals that are used to

make those items are being emitted in

the air. And we are breathing that” SHARON LAVIGNE FOUNDER OF THE RISE ST JAMES CAMPAIGN,

WINNER OF 2021 GOLDMAN PRIZE,

HOW OIL AND GAS ARE

TURNED INTO PLASTIC PACKAGING – AND WHAT BECOMES OF THAT PACKAGING AFTER IT HAS BEEN USED

BIG BRANDS PARTNER WITH BIG OIL
TO PROFIT FROM PLASTICS

Workers on an oil rig owned by Shell. © Greenpeace / Pablo E. Piovano

The plastic supply chain is largely opaque, making it hard to trace an individual single-use plastic package sold by an FMCG company back through the processes of packaging manufacturing, plastic resin production, petrochemical production, and oil and gas extraction, refining and processing. However, establishing supply chain links is made somewhat easier by the fact that many of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies are vertically integrated businesses with significant downstream operations, supplying and processing oil and gas, producing petrochemicals and manufacturing plastic resin – in fact, some of them are among the world’s largest plastic resin producers.

This report looks at the supply chain relationships between nine major FMCG companies responsible for significant amounts of plastic pollution globally, and 12 key resin producers providing the world with plastic resin and packaging. Ten of the resin suppliers are large fossil fuel companies, and only two exclusively make plastic and plastic packaging. At least one analysis suggests that nearly all of the plastic producers profiled here have at least half of their capacity tied directly to plastic packaging.34 To determine which companies to include for this analysis, we reviewed worldwide 2019 plastic resin production capacity, prioritizing polyethylene and polypropylene for their relevance to the plastic packaging market. Of the top 25 plastic resin producers, we examined ExxonMobil (#1 in worldwide capacity), Dow (#2), SABIC (#3, a subsidiary

©hassan/Shutterstock

of Saudi Aramco), Ineos (#5), Braskem (#6), Formosa (#8), Total (#12), Indorama (#13), Chevron Phillips Chemical (#15) and Borealis (#22, a subsidiary of OMV).35 Shell36 and Eni37 (through its subsidiary Versalis38) are also key players in the production of single-use plastic packaging.

Despite the FMCG sector’s lack of transparency concerning its plastic supply chains, our investigation revealed plastic supply chain connections between every single FMCG company we researched and at least one major fossil fuel and/or petrochemical company. Coca- Cola, PepsiCo, Nestlé, Mondelēz, Danone, Unilever, Colgate-Palmolive, Procter & Gamble and Mars all buy packaging from manufacturers supplied with plastic resin or petrochemicals by well-known companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron Phillips, Ineos and Dow. All the connections our research identified are shown in the supply chain graphic and in the Appendix.39

To establish these supply chain connections, we consulted detailed import/export records40 and analyzed customer–supplier relationships via the Bloomberg data service.41 We also reviewed publicly available sources, including company annual reports, press releases and websites, and identified plastic manufacturers co-located at FMCG manufacturing facilities.

To understand the nature of the relationships we found and that are presented in this chart, it is helpful to consider the example of PET bottles.

THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED 9

17 December, 2020, Baytown, Texas.
Oil storage facilities at ExxonMobil Baytown refinery and petrochemical complex.
© Aaron Sprecher / Greenpeace

THE PET BOTTLE

One of the most iconic and familiar plastic packaging materials is polyethylene terephthalate (PET), used for water and soda bottles as well as bottles for shampoo, liquid soap and body wash. For the majority of the nine FMCG companies highlighted in this report, PET represents a large share of their packaging portfolios by weight.42 For example, in 2020, PET made approximately 45% of the total packaging mix used by Coca-Cola43 49% and 27% respectively of the plastic packaging used by Danone,44 and Colgate-Palmolive.45

The use of PET bottles has long been justified by the beverage industry on the grounds that they are more environmentally friendly than other packaging types because of their lower weight, and thus lower transport-related emissions.46 Indeed in the late 1960s, Coca-Cola sponsored the first life-cycle analysis to justify the use of plastic for its soda bottles in light of rising environmental concerns around disposable plastic bottles.47 However, recent analyses suggest that PET is one of the more emissions-intense plastics, second only to polystyrene, when total life-cycle emissions are considered.48

HOW A PET BOTTLE IS MADE

PET is a type of polyester. The two primary raw materials for PET are the petrochemicals monoethylene glycol (MEG), also known as ethylene glycol, and terephthalic acid (TPA) or purified terephthalic acid (PTA).49 TPA/PTA itself is produced from paraxylene (PX), which is produced at oil refineries, generally from naphtha,50 while MEG is produced from ethylene, via the intermediate ethylene oxide.51 PET specifically and polyester more broadly represent a key end use of both TPA/PTA52 and MEG.53 TPA/PTA is reacted with MEG to produce PET resin.54 The resin is heated until molten, then injection-molded into what are known as PET preforms, which can later be blown into plastic bottles. PET resin can also be extruded into sheets that can then be formed into packaging such as cupcake trays and fruit and vegetable containers.

KEY MANUFACTURERS

Key manufacturers of both PET and TPA/PTA include Alpek (notably U.S. subsidiary DAK Americas), Indorama Ventures (IVL) and Nan Ya Plastics (a subsidiary of Formosa). Growth projections indicate that Indorama’s PET capacity could reach 6 million metric tons per year by 2024, nearly double that of its closest competitor Alpek/DAK Americas.55 Ineos Oxide is the largest producer of ethylene oxide and MEG in western Europe.56

10 THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED

PET plastic bottle production conveyor belt. ©Shutterstock

DIFFERENT WAYS OF OPERATING

Some PET producers are integrated, meaning that they produce and market petrochemicals and resin (in the form of chips or pellets), as well as PET preforms, bottles and sometimes finished bottles (with caps and closures). PET producers also sell their PET resin to packaging manufacturers, such as Amcor or Berry Global,57 that use it to make preforms, bottles, sheets, and rigid PET packaging, which are then sold to FMCG companies. Some beverage companies, however, make their own PET bottles from purchased resin, or blow-mold bottles from purchased preforms. Some large beverage companies even engage a packaging company to set up a bottle manufacturing plant within their production facility (co-location).

Thai-based Indorama is an example of an integrated petrochemical and resin manufacturer; it claims that one in five PET bottles in the world is manufactured from its resins.58 In recent years Indorama has purchased key petrochemical inputs from fossil fuel companies Chevron Phillips (ethylene), ExxonMobil (PX, ethylene), Ineos (ethylene), SABIC (MEG) and Shell (MEG).59 Indorama reportedly secured a long-term contract to purchase ethane and propane feedstock from Targa Resources in 2016, for its hydrocarbon cracking facility (“cracker”) in Louisiana.60 Targa has natural gas fractionation facilities at Mont Belvieu, Texas,61 and owns gas gathering and

processing infrastructure across the U.S., including in the

Permian Basin, at the heart of the U.S. fracking boom. Indorama stated as recently as 2019 that Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Procter & Gamble were three of its four main customers.63 As of 2018, Nestlé had also been a major customer.64 Indorama’s supplier relationships with Coca- Cola,65 PepsiCo66 and Nestlé67 have been corroborated in the press and through research by Greenpeace USA.

OTHER PLASTIC PACKAGING

Just as with the PET bottle, almost every type of plastic packaging is the end product of its own multi-stage production process that begins with a fossil fuel – oil, gas or coal. While these processes differ in their details, the overall business relationships are similar. Some of the world’s largest resin producers, such as ExxonMobil, Shell and Chevron Phillips, are vertically integrated fossil fuel/petrochemical companies that make their own petrochemicals from their oil and gas operations – sometimes purchasing additional key inputs from other companies – and then produce and market plastic resin. Some of these companies, including ExxonMobil, produce and market resins specifically designed for particular packaging applications, such as films, wraps and pouches.68 These resins are purchased by packaging manufacturers such as Amcor and Berry Global Group Inc.; such companies are known as “converters,” as they convert the resin into products.

THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED 11

62

16 January 2017. Plastic waste collected from a river in Germany. © Dennis Reher / Greenpeace

12 THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED

As demonstrated through the public LinkedIn accounts of self-identified current and former ExxonMobil Chemical employees, the company (like some other fossil fuel and petrochemical companies with significant plastic interests) likely has connections with large FMCG companies, including Mars, PepsiCo, and Unilever.69

In our investigation, we also found evidence that some of the FMCG companies on which we focused have received shipments of plastic resin produced by large integrated resin manufacturers. For example, Colgate- Palmolive has received shipments of Chevron-branded high-density polyethylene (HDPE) resin from a Chevron distribution division.70

Frequently, however, FMCG companies are supplied by specialist packaging manufacturers without significant upstream interests, among the most notable of which is Amcor. Amcor is a global business manufacturing flexible and rigid packaging, specialty cartons and closures, polyethylene film and bags; the vast majority of its sales are of flexible packaging (accounting for 78% of its revenue in 2020).71 Amcor designs and manufactures flexible packaging for many large FMCG companies, including all nine highlighted in this report: Coca-Cola, Colgate-Palmolive, Danone, Mars, Mondelēz, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble and Unilever.72 PepsiCo is one of Amcor’s largest customers: 8% of Amcor’s revenue was attributable to PepsiCo as of July 2021.73 Amcor has a plant co-located with a PepsiCo Gatorade factory in Mountaintop, Pennsylvania,74 and also manufactures PET containers for PepsiCo’s Lipton tea in Central America.75 Amcor and Nestlé have partnered to create recyclable pet food pouches and candy packaging;76 about 5% of Amcor’s revenue is attributable to Nestlé.77 Approximately 1.8% of Amcor’s revenue is attributable to Unilever,78 with Amcor supplying products such as home laundry packaging to Unilever in India.79 Danone provides about 1.5% of Amcor’s revenue,80 with products including PET yogurt jars for Danone’s La Serenisima brand in Argentina.81 Mondelēz and Amcor have partnered to produce chocolate tray packaging for Mondelēz’s Cadbury brand.82 Amcor’s resin suppliers include ExxonMobil Chemical, Borealis, Alpek/ DAK Americas, Indorama and Dow.83 Thus, all nine of the consumer goods companies featured in this report have indirect supply chain connections through Amcor to Alpek/ DAK Americas, Borealis, Dow, ExxonMobil and Indorama. Many global shipments of polyethylene and polypropylene films originate at Amcor’s Italy plant, which is adjacent to a large Eni facility.

Berry Global is another major global manufacturer and marketer of plastic packaging products. Berry has claimed to be the largest resin buyer among plastic packaging manufacturers, procuring approximately 3.2 million metric tons of resin annually (mostly polyethylene and polypropylene).84 The company’s suppliers of resin include Total and SABIC,85 and it has received plastic closures from Shell.86 Berry also recently entered into a supply agreement with Borealis.87 Berry’s known customers include Coca-Cola, Colgate-Palmolive, Mondelēz, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble and Unilever.88

Alpla is a privately owned company headquartered in Austria, and one of the largest packaging producers in Europe. It specializes in blow-molded bottles and caps, injection-molded parts, preforms and tubes. Alpla has received HDPE resin from Braskem and Ineos, and both HDPE and polypropylene from SABIC.89 Alpla has also received PET from Indorama.90 Alpla’s known customers include Coca-Cola;91 Colgate-Palmolive;92 Procter & Gamble, for which it produces bottles for Head & Shoulders shampoo with up to 25% “beach plastic”;93 PepsiCo, for which it produces 50% recycled PET bottles;94 and Unilever, for which it makes bottles for Dove bodywash.95 Thus, Coca-Cola, Colgate-Palmolive, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble and Unilever have indirect supply chain connections via Alpla to Braskem, Indorama, Ineos and SABIC. Similar indirect connections between FMCG and fossil fuel/petrochemical companies were identified via a number of other packaging manufacturers.

The only petrochemical companies included in the graphic for which we found no links with the nine FMCG companies we focused on were Formosa and Eni/Versalis. Given Formosa’s ranking as the sixth-largest chemical company96 and tenth-largest producer of propylene97 in the world, and in view of its operations’ reported health impacts on communities, the lack of supply chain information about the company is particularly concerning.

Unsurprisingly, FMCG companies tend not to advertise their reliance on the industry that poses the number one threat to the global climate. This lack of transparency allows FMCG companies to evade accountability for any environmental and human rights violations committed by the companies that supply the plastic or fossil feedstocks for their plastic packaging, and to trumpet climate commitments that ignore their role in enabling the fossil fuel industry’s pivot to expand production of petrochemicals that are used to make plastic.

THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED 13

9%

OF ALL PLASTIC WASTE EVER CREATED HAS BEEN RECYCLED

WHAT SOME OF THOSE SYMBOLS REALLY MEAN

ONLY

14

THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED

The Der Grune Punkt symbol does not mean a pack is recyclable. It does mean the brand has paid a fee towards unrelated costs of recycling

Typically downcycled into carpet or synthetic clothing

Versions of throwaway plastic that are difficult to recycle; usually sent to an incinerator or landfill

BIG BRANDS AND THE

FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY

It is clear that plastics recycling cannot resolve the plastic pollution problem and is being used as a smokescreen by industry to divert attention away from the systemic changes that are needed. Globally, as of 2015, only 9% of all plastic waste ever created had been recycled.98 One study estimated that less than 1% of plastic has been recycled more than once.99 The vast majority of plastic packaging ends up either “downcycled” into lower-grade products or in a landfill, in the environment or incinerated.100 One analysis reported the 2018 U.S. domestic plastic recycling rate at just 2.2%,101 and similarly abysmal rates can be found around the world. Recent Greenpeace USA research shows that much of the plastic packaging used by food and beverage companies in the U.S. has so little chance of being recycled by municipal systems that the “recyclable” labels on the products in question appear not to meet the legal requirements for such claims, putting the companies at risk of legal challenge for deceptive marketing.102

To take one company-specific example, in 2020 Mondelēz reported to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation that 93% of its total packaging, including a significant proportion of its plastic packaging, was “designed for the future of recycling,” but conceded that most of its plastic packaging “is not currently recycled ‘in practice and at scale’ as is required to be considered recyclable under the [Foundation’s own] Global Commitment103 definition” – in fact, the proportion that actually met that definition was a mere 2%.104 Mondelēz also makes the 93% recyclability claim on its website but without clarifying that in reality just 2% of its plastic packaging is actually recyclable.105

Some types of packaging are effectively unrecyclable because of their design – for example, sachets and pouches that typically consist of layers of different materials (also known as “flexibles”).106 These are widely used in the global North for products from snacks to pet food, and are ubiquitous in India and parts of Southeast Asia as a means of marketing personal care and other products, especially to low-income households.107 Though Unilever claims to have developed a process to recover the polyethylene (the main constituent) from such sachets, this has not been proved commercially viable.108 Another flexible waste recycling project (Materials Recovery

for the Future) has found collected material to be of insufficient quality for like-to-like recycling.109 Regardless of the technological shortcomings, the logistics and economics of collecting flexible plastic waste make its recycling unviable at scale.

“CHEMICAL RECYCLING”

“Chemical recycling” is the next act of a decades-long effort by the fossil fuel and consumer goods industries to convince the public that recycling can mitigate the massive environmental costs of single-use plastic despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Currently, commercial-scale technologies promoted by industry as “chemical recycling” or “advanced recycling” involve one of two related “plastic-to-fuel” processes: gasification and pyrolysis. Both use heat to break down the polymer, not into its constituent monomers, but respectively into either a hydrogen-rich gaseous mixture called “syngas” or a cocktail of various gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons. While either of these outputs can then in theory be further processed to create olefin monomers from which new plastic can be produced, in practice they tend not to be of sufficient quality.110 They can more readily be refined into fuel111 – which is then burned with the emission of just as much GHG as the equivalent conventional fossil fuel,112 making nonsense of the “recycling” claim. The fact that the U.S. petrochemical sector’s front organization, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), in arguing for light-touch regulation of chemical recycling, states that “Advanced recycling facilities … receive plastic feedstock that is converted to valuable fuels and petroleum products” and that “regulations should identify companies that manufacture fuels and petroleum products from post-use plastics feedstock as producers of alternative energy”113 shows clearly where the industry’s priorities lie. One major pyrolysis proponent, Dow Chemical, has even admitted to the National Recycling Coalition that its program “is not recycling.”114

Moreover, even when the output of plastic-to- fuel plants is further processed into new plastic, the energy-intensive multi-stage process entails high GHG emissions. Studies have exaggerated plastic-to-fuel’s

USE RECYCLING AS A SMOKESCREEN

THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED 15

MYTH

Between January and July 2018, Malaysia imported 754,000 metric tons of plastic from countries including the United States, Japan, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, France, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.© Nandakumar S. Haridas / Greenpeace

REALITY

©Shutterstock

16 THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED

emissions performance by assuming that the plastic processed would otherwise have been incinerated and subtracting the corresponding emissions,115 and by arguing that the pyrolysis process can generate most of its own energy, though this is only made possible by burning some of the hydrocarbons produced in the process – effectively incinerating a percentage (often a considerable one) of the waste plastic feedstock. Thus the less external energy input the plant uses, the greater the GHG emissions from the plant itself and the lower its output of olefins.116

When gasification uses municipal solid waste as a feedstock, its global heating potential is up to seven times that of virgin plastic production if “avoided emissions” from waste incineration are ignored.117 The oil produced by pyrolysis is so impure that it can only be cracked to make olefins if it is first subjected to energy- and carbon-intensive purification, or mixed with a much larger quantity of virgin feedstock, further undermining the technology’s low-carbon pretensions. Moreover, pyrolysis and gasification emit carcinogens and other toxins.118

Finally, the economics of “chemical recycling” appear not to be viable without heavy government subsidies due to the low value of the recovered feedstock.119 It is therefore unsurprising that, according to the ACC’s own figures, shale gas-driven investment in U.S. petrochemical facilities is currently outpacing investment in “chemical recycling” by over 12 to 1.120 Rather than limiting plastic production, “chemical recycling” appears if anything to be providing an excuse to increase it.121 In any case, as with mechanical recycling, it would not be in the fossil fuel industry’s interest for “chemical recycling” to be so successful that it began to threaten virgin plastic production.122 Furthermore, the need to earn a return on the capital investments in facilities using such technologies will necessitate a steady plastic waste stream, and so could be used to justify a ramping up of virgin plastic output.

BIG BRANDS’ COLLABORATION WITH THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY

Despite the failures of plastic recycling, FMCG companies have been working in partnership with the fossil fuel, petrochemical and packaging sectors to promote recycling, oppose legislation that would restrict single-use packaging and/or adopt so-called “chemical recycling” as part of their “circular economy” commitments.

The petrochemical industry has been aware of doubts about the economic viability and technical limitations of recycled plastic for decades.123 Initially oil companies set up their own recycling projects, but more recently the industry has relied on targeted investment in existing local infrastructure and research and development,124 along with lobbying for public-sector investment.125 At the end of the 1980s industry players also began a successful lobbying campaign to persuade state legislatures that the

international recycling symbol should be made mandatory on all plastic packaging. By this means, industry largely succeeded in convincing the public that all plastic is recyclable and thus environmentally acceptable, protecting its highly profitable core business of selling virgin, non-recycled plastic.126 Though there is growing public skepticism as to whether material of all kinds sent for recycling is actually recycled, and confusion around plastic recyclability, recycling participation rates remain high.127

Despite knowing the economic and technical shortcomings of plastic recycling, the fossil fuel/petrochemical sector and FMCG companies frequently collaborate to promote recycling as the primary solution to the plastic crisis and lobby against restrictions on single-use plastic. Such alliances can trace their inspiration back to Keep America Beautiful, an organization set up in the 1950s to promote the idea that litter was consumers’, not companies’, responsibility – and still going strong today with board membership including BlueTriton Brands (formerly Nestlé Waters North America128), Mars, PepsiCo and Dow Chemical.129 In the late 1980s, faced with the threat of anti-plastic legislation at the state and even federal level, the U.S. plastic industry reportedly embarked on a multimillion-dollar PR campaign.130 The industry front group Society of the Plastics Industry (later to become the Plastics Industry Association, or PLASTICS131) set up the Council for Solid Waste Solutions,132 which reportedly involved fossil fuel and plastic companies, including Amoco, Chevron, Dow, DuPont, Exxon and Mobil, as well as FMCG major Procter & Gamble.133 Even though many in the industry had long been aware that the economic and technical viability of plastic recycling was doubtful,134 the Council, the Society and the wider industry proceeded to campaign successfully across the U.S. to avert the threat of restrictions on plastic packaging by promoting recycling.135 Companies including Amoco and Mobil even set up short-lived recycling projects themselves,136 although the public sector soon began to shoulder most of the cost of plastic recycling.137

In a 2020 investigative report by the National Public Radio, Larry Thomas, former president of PLASTICS, underscored the apparent intent behind the industry’s recycling playbook, saying “If the public thinks that recycling is working, then they are not going to be as concerned about the environment.” Thomas continued, “You know, they were not interested in putting any real money or effort into recycling because they wanted to sell virgin material. Nobody that is producing a virgin product wants something to come along that is going to replace it. Produce more virgin material — that’s their business.”138

A newer front group pushing a similarly disingenuous message is the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, formed in 2019 – this time with the involvement of two FMCG majors, PepsiCo and Procter & Gamble, alongside dozens of fossil fuel and plastic companies.139 The Alliance sponsors projects aiming to improve recycling infrastructure and develop “chemical recycling” technologies,140 but has yet to announce any significant achievements. Its highly publicized project with Renew Oceans

THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED 17

to recycle plastic waste from India’s River Ganges recently closed after allegedly collecting just one metric ton of waste.141 The Alliance’s status as a charity obscures the fact that it was set up as a project of the ACC,142 which represents nearly 150 chemicals, plastic and packaging companies.143 The ACC itself was an early opponent of anti-plastic bag laws,144 spending more than $9m between 2007 and 2010 on obstructing bans in California and Seattle alone.145

Other ACC front groups include the misleading Wrap Recycling Action Program, which encourages U.S. consumers to drop off wrappers, bags and flexible packaging at stores, even though they will mostly end up being downcycled – if they are recycled at all;146 and Materials Recovery for the Future (MRFF), a research initiative whose FMCG members and supporters include Johnson & Johnson, KraftHeinz, Mars, Mondelēz, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, SC Johnson, Unilever and Walmart.147 MRFF is supposedly aiming to pioneer recycling of post-consumer flexible packaging, but in practice appears focused mainly on downcycling opportunities.148

Most recently the ACC has lobbied the U.S. government to oppose anti-plastic legislation in Kenya in order to expand U.S. export markets,149 was an early opponent of domestic plastic bag laws (through its front organization the Progressive Bag Alliance)150 and has promoted so-called “advanced recycling.”151 At the same time it has pledged to ensure that all plastic packaging is “re-used, recycled or recovered” – but not until 2040,152 a date hardly consistent with the 45% global emissions cut needed by 2030 to keep within the 1.5 °C barrier.153

The Society of the Plastics Industry’s successor, PLASTICS, has continued to lobby across the U.S., along with the ACC, successfully pressuring state legislators to introduce preemptive laws against plastic bans.154 PLASTICS does not disclose its membership, although Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and SC Johnson are known to have been members until they left in 2019 following public pressure.155 FMCG companies, including PepsiCo and Unilever, have joined with the ACC, PLASTICS and others in supporting the US RECOVERY Bill, which proposes a $500m boost for recycling while restricting funds for incineration – but does not address the need to reduce single-use plastic production.156 The Recycling Partnership, with members including PepsiCo, Colgate-Palmolive, Nestlé and Procter & Gamble, as well as the ACC,157 is reportedly pursuing a similar agenda, calling for investment in recycling while failing to support the introduction of state-level legislation requiring refundable deposits on plastic bottles (even though such legislation and the resultant collection infrastructure have been shown to increase collection rates massively).158 Such lobbying activity is not confined to the U.S.: Coca-Cola, Danone,L’OréalandNestlé,alongwithanumberofplastic and packaging companies including Alpla and Greiner, are members of an Austrian group called Packaging With a Future159 which encourages reliance on plastic packaging160

and has opposed the introduction of minimum quotas for the proportion of reusable packaging sold by retailers.161

In addition to joint lobbying, FMCGs have been partnering with fossil fuel companies to push “chemical” or “advanced recycling” to justify their continued reliance on single-use plastic. One FMCG major, Procter & Gamble, has even developed its own process to purify and recycle contaminated polypropylene using a gas solvent.162 It has licensed this to a company called PureCycle,163 which has in turn partnered with Nestlé to develop new packaging164 and signed a supply agreement with L’Oréal.165 It has also partnered with two FMCG packaging suppliers: petrochemical giant Total, with which it has a strategic partnership encompassing a U.S. supply agreement and a commitment to explore the feasibility of a plant in Europe;166 and packaging company Aptar, with which it has formed a product development partnership.167 In May 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed alleging PureCycle executives made false and misleading statements, including overstating the effectiveness of the company’s technology.168

Coca-Cola,169 Danone,170 L’Oréal171 and PepsiCo172 all signed supply agreements for recycled bottles with Loop Industries, a Canadian startup developing a new low- heat, pressureless depolymerization project in partnership with plastics giant Indorama.173 The company claimed the process could produce virgin-quality, food-grade PET resin from inputs “of any color, transparency or condition,” including ocean-degraded plastic.174 As of 2020, PepsiCo and L’Oréal were still citing their involvement with Loop (described in PepsiCo’s case as a “partnership”) as evidence of their environmental commitments.175 However in late 2020 Loop faced accusations from investment research firm Hindenburg that it had grossly exaggerated the efficacy and financial viability of its technology.176 Two weeks later, Coca-Cola canceled its agreement with Loop after the company failed to deliver by the agreed date.177 Soon afterward an “independent review” commissioned by Loop apparently confirmed the technical viability of its process,178 but Hindenburg responded by pinpointing numerous flaws in the review’s scientific methodology and noted that in any case its failure to address questions concerning the process’s yield and economic viability made it “largely meaningless.”179 Loop is now facing a class- action lawsuit alleging securities fraud.180

While Loop was at least purporting to offer a plastic- to-plastic technology, FMCG companies have also partnered with fossil fuel and technology companies to develop pyrolysis (“plastic-to-fuel”) plants – for example, Mars and Nestlé with Total and Recycling Technologies.181 Buyers of pyrolysis-derived plastic from Saudi Aramco subsidiary SABIC’s TruCircle range182 include Unilever, which has used it for its Knorr183 and Magnum184 brands, and Mars, which has begun to use it in pet food packaging.185 Procter & Gamble has announced it will use chemically recycled resin from Indorama.186

THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED 19

AB

C

A

B

C D

E

D

2 June 2018. Youngsville, Louisiana, USA. Melinda Tillies watching the installation of the Bayou Bridge Gas Pipeline next to her home.
© Julie Dermansky / Greenpeace

19 March 2015. Karnes County, Texas, USA. Lynn Buehring lives near three different hydrofracking wells, flaring since 2011. She suffers from severe reactions to the chemicals and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas released from the wells. © Les Stone / Greenpeace

15 January 2001 Cemetery next to the Taft Carbide Plant in Lousiana. © Les Stone / Greenpeace
10 July 2021 © Thailand. Explosion at expanded polystyrene (EPS) factory Ming Dih Chemical

on 5 July affecting residents in Samut Prakan area. The Factory has since been told by the Thai Industry Ministry to relocate to a less populated location

10 July 2021. Thailand. Explosion at expanded polystyrene factory Ming Dih Chemical on 5 July severely damaged the facility.

and E ©Greenpeace/ChanklangKanthong

20

THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED

DE

THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY IS EXPANDING PLASTIC PRODUCTION THREATENING CLIMATE AND HUMAN HEALTH

The cross-sector promotion of recycling (and “advanced recycling”) is enabling fossil fuel and petrochemical companies to appear committed to addressing the plastic pollution crisis while continuing to invest massively in new infrastructure to extract oil and gas to make virgin plastic.187 The fact that fossil fuel companies are investing hugely both in new fossil exploration and production188 and in new ethane crackers189 and associated virgin plastic production strongly suggests that they do not envisage a wholesale shift to recycled plastic. Indeed, a study from the Minderoo Foundation found that none of the world’s largest 100 polymer producers procures more than 2% of its feedstock from recycled or bio-based materials.190

If business as usual continues, industry estimates predict that plastic production could double by 2030- 2035 and triple by 2050, in comparison to 2015.191 One conservative estimate predicts that by 2050 the sector will have used up between 10% and 13% of the world’s 1.5 °C carbon budget (the remaining allowance of carbon emissions that must not be exceeded if we are to stay within the 1.5°C carbon budget).192

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS

The expansion of plastic production, if allowed to continue, won’t only impact our climate and environment. The toxic and carcinogenic pollutants that fossil fuel extraction and plastic production emit193 alongside GHGs will continue to threaten the health of more communities close to the new facilities (in the U.S. a burden disproportionately borne by low-income communities and communities of color).194

Fossil fuel extraction sites,195 refineries196 and petrochemical plants197 all emit a range of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals into the air, putting nearby communities as well as local ecosystems at risk. In the case of fracking, surface and groundwater pollution can also besignificant.198Arecentcompendiumofscientificstudies “uncovered no evidence that fracking can be practiced in a manner that does not threaten human health.”199

As of 2010 in the U.S., 17.6 million people (6% of the population) lived within a mile of an active oil or gas extraction site.200 According to the recent report Fossil Fuel Racism by Greenpeace USA, the Gulf Coast Center for Law & Policy and the Movement for Black Lives,201 56% of the “toxic burden” of U.S. refineries is borne by people of color (who make up 39% of the country’s population) and 19% by low-income people (who make up 14% of the

population). The petrochemical sector’s impact on people of color is even worse: they bear 66% of the toxic burden, while 18% falls on low-income people. For both refineries and petrochemical facilities, a majority of toxic burden falls in areas that have both above-average populations of color and below-average income.202

Turning to end-of-life impacts, toxic emissions from incineration of plastic and other waste materials (including so-called “waste-to-energy”) also threaten the health of nearby residents.203 In the U.S., approximately 80% of waste incinerators are located in low-income communities, communities of color, or both.204 Incinerators being built in the UK are following the same pattern: they are three times more likely to be built in the poorest communities than in the wealthiest ones. Moreover, existing UK incinerators tend to be located in areas with above-average populations of people of color.205 Landfills often present similar environmental injustices.206

The plastic waste trade also particularly impacts communities in the Global South – where historically much of Europe and North America’s plastic waste has been exported, supposedly for recycling. China used to take the bulk of this waste, but since it banned plastic imports in 2018, plastic waste streams have been redirected, first toward Southeast Asian and African countries207 and more recently to Turkey as well.208

A series of investigations has revealed exported waste from countries in the Global North being illegally dumped and polluting local environments. For instance, Greenpeace investigators from Italy, UK, and Malaysia found household plastic from countries including the UK,209 Italy210 and Germany211 at multiple illegal dump sites in Malaysia, while a BBC investigation found British plastic waste being burned near communities in Turkey.212 A 2019 Frontline/NPR investigation found plastic waste exported from the U.S., supposedly for recycling, being dumped in Indonesian communities.213 Greek and Liberian authorities remain at loggerheads about an illicit shipment of plastic waste from Greece to the West African nation in late 2019.214

Such disputes can drag on for years. Between 2013 and 2014, 103 shipping containers of mixed municipal waste from Canada, including unrecyclable plastics, were illegally dumped215 in the Philippines. Although 69 containers were eventually repatriated in 2019 after numerous campaigns for their return, the contents of 26 containers were dumped in open landfills and eight remain unaccounted for to this day.216

THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED 21

29 March 2021, Balongan Oil Refinery, West Java, Indonesia. The fire broke out at the Balongan refinery, run by state oil firm Pertamina in Indramayu. Five people were seriously injured and 1,000 were evacuated. © Panji Purnomo / Greenpeace

18 April 2012. Bradford County, Pennsylvania, USA. “Waste water associated with shale gas extraction can contain high levels of total dissolved solids, fracturing fluid additives, metals, and naturally occurring radioactive materials” EPA

© Les Stone / Greenpeace

22 THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED

WHERE THE EXPANSION IS HAPPENING AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE

There is limited publicly available data regarding which companies are expanding and where plastic production is set to increase. However, recent analysis from the Minderoo Foundation shows that of the companies we examined for this report, Exxon, Shell, Saudi Aramco, Formosa and Borealis are among the top producers planning to add virgin polymer capacity between 2020 and 2025.217 According to the analysis, Exxon is one of three producers adding the most capacity, and Shell is notably expanding capacity at a rate of 145% over the same five-year period.

In terms of where in the world new plastic production facilities are likely to be built, we know that currently Asia, North America and Europe are the biggest producers; within Asia, China is the major player, producing an estimated 31% of the world’s plastics, according to PlasticsEurope.218

Data on future expansion is difficult to find, however projected ethylene production offers a reasonable proxy for future plastic expansion, and here data are available. Industry analysts identify India,219 North America, the Middle East, China and Southeast Asia220 as key regions looking to expand ethylene production capacity. Factors expected to drive expansion in these regions include cheap ethane (North America221 and the Middle East), low capital costs (China) and unmet demand for ethylene derivatives along with the desire to balance trade and generate employment (China, India and Southeast Asia). However, China and North America are expected to continue to be the largest drivers of global ethylene demand growth as they add production capacity for ethylene and derivatives.222

THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED 23

PLASTIC INDUSTRY

EXPANSION PROJECTS

AND THE PIPELINE INFRASTRUCTURE

OIL AND GAS FIELDS

CONNECTING THEM TO GLOBAL

This expansion has serious implications both for the communities near the facilities and for the climate. Following are three snapshots from around the world, showing how the fossil fuel/petrochemical sector is ignoring both the climate imperative and public health in pursuit of increased plastic profits.

24

THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

OWNER FACILITY CRACKER DOWNSTREAM DATES

OWNER FACILITY CRACKER DOWNSTREAM DATES

OWNER FACILITY CRACKER DOWNSTREAM DATES

OWNER FACILITY CRACKER DOWNSTREAM DATES

OWNER FACILITY CRACKER DOWNSTREAM DATES

OWNER FACILITY CAPACITIES

DATES

OWNER FACILITY CRACKER DOWNSTREAM DATES

West Coast Olefins Prince George, BC, Canada 1.0 ethylene
Unspecified capacity PE. Start-up due 2024

ExxonMobil / SABIC – Gulf Coast Growth Ventures San Patricio County, Corpus Christi, Texas, USA 1.8 total
1.3 PE, 1.1 monoethylene glycol (MEG).

Due to open in Q4 2021

Total / Borealis
Bayport Polymers (Baystar) and Port Arthur, Texas 1.0 total
0.625 PE.
Cracker due to open 2021, downstream 2022

Chevron Phillips Chemical / Qatar Petroleum Gulf Coast / Orange, Texas
2.0 total
2.0 PE.

Start-up projected for 2024, on hold – COVID

Formosa Plastics
Sunshine Project, St James’ Parish, Louisiana Phase 1, 1.2 total. Phase 2, 1.2 total
Phase 1, 0.8 PE., 0.6 PP. Phase 2, 0.8 PE.
Phase 1, 2025 and Phase 2, 2028, on hold – COVID

Nova Chemicals
Sarnia, Ontario, Canada
Existing cracker capacity to increase by over 0.4 ethylene, plus new 0.45 PE. unit. Start-up due late 2022

Shell
Monaca, Pennsylvania
1.5 total
1.6 PE.
Due for completion early 2020s

8. 8  OWNER FACILITY CRACKER PDH UNIT

   DATES

9. 9  OWNER FACILITY PDH UNIT

   DATES

10. 10  OWNER FACILITY PDH UNIT

    DOWNSTREAM DATES

11. 11  OWNER FACILITY

    CRACKER DOWNSTREAM DATES

12. 12  OWNER FACILITY CRACKER

    DOWNSTREAM DATES

13. 13  OWNER FACILITY

    CRACKER DOWNSTREAM DATES

Ineos
Antwerp, Belgium
1.25 ethylene
0.725 propylene
Cracker start-up due 2025. PDH unit start-up originally due 2023, but postponed in Jan 2021

Borealis
Kallo, near Antwerp, Belgium
0.74 propylene
Start-up end 2022, but likely to slip due to Covid

Grupa Azoty Polyolefins
Police, West Pomerania Province, Poland 0.429 propylene
0.437PP.
Start-up originally scheduled for Q4 2022 but postponed until Q1 2023 due to Covid

RusGazDobycha
Baltic Chemical Complex, Ust-Luga, Leningrad Oblast, Russia
2.8 ethylene
2.88 PE.
Start-up due 2023 and 2024

BUA Group
Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria unspecified propylene 0.285PP.
Completion due 2024

Carbon Holdings
Tahrir Petrochemical Complex, Ain Sokhna, Suez Governorate, Egypt
1.35 ethylene, 1.0 propylene
1.35 PE, 0.7 PP. etc
Start-up projected for 2023, may have slipped.

14 OWNER FACILITY CRACKER

DOWNSTREAM DATES

15 OWNER FACILITY CRACKER

DATES

16 OWNER FACILITY

CRACKER DOWNSTREAM DATES

17 OWNER FACILITY

CAPACITY DOWNSTREAM DATES

18 OWNER FACILITY CAPACITY

DATES

19 OWNER FACILITY

CRACKER DATES

20 OWNER FACILITY CAPACITY

DATES

Saudi Aramco / Sabic
Yanbu, Al Madinah Province, Saudi Arabia unconfirmed – “world-scale” unconfirmed
tbc

Nizhnekamskneftekhim (NKNK)
Ethylene-600, Nizhnekamsk, Tatarstan, Russia 0.6 ethylene, 0.27 propylene.
Start-up due second half of 2023

Gazprom
Gazprom Neftekhim Salavat, Salavat, Republic of Bashkortostan, Russia
1.0 ethylene
0.416 PE, 0.617 PP.
Completion due between 2023 and 2025.

PJSC Sibur / Gazprom
Novy Urengoy Gas Chemical Complex, Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Area, Siberia, Russia 0.42 ethylene
0.4 PE.
Start-up due mid-2020s

Dehloran Sepehr PC Dehloran, Ilam Province, Iran Cracker: 0.5 ethylene Completion due 2024

Gachsaran Petrochemical Company (PC) Gachsaran Ethylene Plant, Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province, Iran
1.0 ethylene

Completion due by 2022 or 2023

Ganaveh-Dashtestan PC Ganaveh, Bushehr Province, Iran 0.5 ethylene
opens latest 2025

21 OWNER FACILITY CAPACITY

DATES

22 OWNER FACILITY

CAPACITY DATES

23 OWNER FACILITY CRACKER

DOWNSTREAM DATES

24 OWNER FACILITY CRACKER

DOWNSTREAM DATES

25 OWNER FACILITY CRACKER

DOWNSTREAM DATES

26 OWNER FACILITY

CRACKER DOWNSTREAM DATES

27 FACILITY

CRACKER DOWNSTREAM DATES

Saudi Aramco / Total
Jubail, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia 1.0 ethylene
Completion due 2024

Bushehr PC
Assaluyeh Ethylene Plant, Assaluyeh
(aka Assaluyeh/Asalouyeh), Bushehr Province, Iran 1.0 ethylene
Completion due by 2022

Qatar Petroleum / Chevron Phillips Chemical Ras Laffan, Qatar
1.9 ethylene
1.68 PE.

Start-up due late 2025

Abu Dhabi National Oil Co / Borealis
Borouge, Ruwais, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates 1.8 ethylene, unspecified propylene
unspecified PE and PP.
Start-up due 2023

OQ
Liwa Plastics Industries Complex, Sohar, Oman 0.88 total or more
0.8 PE, 0.215 PP.
Cracker start-up due by 2026; downstream units possibly already operational

OQ / Kuwait Petroleum International Duqm Refinery and Petrochemicals Company, Duqm, Oman
1.6 ethylene

unspecified PE and PP. Not yet announced

Sepehr Makran Chabahar Ethylene Plant, Chabahar, Sistan and Baluchestan Province, Iran
1.35 ethylene
1.2 PE, unspecified PP.

Completion due by 2030

“…many of our

products are already

helping reduce our

customer’s carbon

emissions”

JIM FITTERLING, CEO DOW CHEMICALS
Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley” is a region along the lower

TAFT, ST CHARLES

Mississippi River that acquired its nickname in the 1980s as a result of suspected cancer clusters that locals believed stemmed from toxic pollution from nearby chemical plants.223 The region currently has nearly 150 oil refineries and plastics and chemicals facilities.224 It is also home to an above-average Black/African American population225 whose human rights are severely threatened by the concentration of polluting industries, according to the UN.226 One study found that census tracts with the highest risk of toxic air pollution exposure were predominantly located in two parishes, East Baton Rouge Parish and Orleans Parish, which had Black/African American populations of 84% and 60% respectively.227 According to the EPA’s 2015 National Air Toxics Assessment map, seven out of the 10 census tracts with the highest levels of air pollution-related cancer risk in the U.S. are located in St. John the Baptist Parish,228 another of the 11 parishes that make up Cancer Alley.229 As the founder of environmental justice group RISE St. James puts it, polluting industries “come to Black communities because they think no one’s going to say anything.”230

RISE St. James is based in another Cancer Alley parish, St. James. Taiwanese company Formosa Plastics aims to build an enormous plastic production complex in St. James Parish – a project driven, as the firm acknowledges, by growing plastic demand and the falling cost of gas,231 but also consistent with the company’s reported desire to develop production overseas due to opposition to air and water pollution in Taiwan.232 According to opponents, among other things the complex will produce resins and petrochemicals to be used for single-use plastic packaging.233 The complex is to be located next to a predominantly Black/African American community and just a mile from an elementary school,234 yet the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) gave it approval to emit high levels of multiple carcinogens and other harmful pollutants,235 on the basis of state-level standards that campaigners say ignore current science from the U.S. EPA.236 EPA data show that another Formosa plant, in Baton Rouge, breached the Clean Air Act every quarter between 2009 and 2018.237 Toxic pollution aside, the new complex, due to be fully operational by 2029 (but with its first

THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED 27

VAST OIL AND

Oil Refineries
Gas Processing Plant Ethylene Cracker HGL Gas Pipeline
Oil pipeline
Gas pipeline
Oil/Gas Field
Water

GAS EXPANSION:

INDUSTRIAL SCALE CLIMATE EMERGENCY DENIAL

28

THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED

Although Europe favors naphtha as a petrochemical feedstock (as was the case in the U.S. until the fracking boom), significant amounts of natural gas liquids (ethane, propane and butane) are also used, and naphtha’s importance as a feedstock in Western Europe was projected to fall by more than 25% between 2010 and 2020.254 The EU is keen to diversify its energy supplies, and

Oil Refineries Ethylene Cracker Oil pipeline
Gas pipeline Oil/Gas Field

in 2018 European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker pledged to support infrastructure investment to facilitate liquefied natural gas imports from the U.S., which was eager to boost gas exports.255 This trend, along with the low price of U.S. shale gas, is likely to help drive a switch to ethane as a petrochemical feedstock in Europe, along with the associated development of facilities.

The Port of Antwerp in Belgium is the world’s second-largest petrochemical cluster after Houston and sits at the heart of the Western European pipeline network, with dedicated pipeline systems for naphtha, ethylene and propylene, among others,

256

However, Anglo-Swiss chemical giant Ineos is the European company that is likely investing most heavily in plans reliant on U.S. fracking. Ineos, which claims to be Europe’s largest ethylene producer,260 has its own fleet of tankers (the so-called Dragon ships) that began importing U.S. shale gas-derived ethane to Europe in 2016. Ineos states that it has invested $2 billion in its U.S. ethane supply chain, including the ships and infrastructure in the U.S. and Scotland, and it has signed 15-year contracts for U.S. ethane.261 In October 2020, Ineos announced that it will also import U.S. butane to Antwerp.262 In 2020, the company itself obtained its first permits to drill in the Texas shales.263 Ineos’s founder has predicted a “shale gas revolution” in the UK264 and has said “Shale gas economics has revitalized U.S. manufacturing. When U.S. shale gas arrives in Europe, it has the potential to do the same for European manufacturing.”265 The company attributes its switch to U.S. shale gas to historic high feedstock prices and poor availability in Europe.266

In 2019, Ineos announced a £3 billion ($4.1 billion) investment in a new ethane cracker – supposedly the first in Europe for 20 years – and a propylene plant at Antwerp, specifically citing the need to compete with the fracking- driven U.S. petrochemical expansion. Both plants are intended to process U.S. shale gas shipped by Ineos.267 Ineos presents the cracker as a low-carbon alternative to crackers that use naphtha, and claims that the two plants’ huge processing capacity will not equate to new plastics production capacity but will simply enable the firm to replace more carbon-intensive feedstock – while also justifying virgin plastic production as necessary to boost the performance of recycled plastic.268 However, in the wake of a delay caused by legal action,269 and facing a poor economic outlook along with the wider petrochemical sector, Ineos suspended construction of the propylene plant in January 2021.270

serving a multitude of sites.
or upgrading their cracking capacity in the region to take advantage of cheap gas feedstocks – including Total, which has upgraded its Antwerp plant in part to enable one cracker to use ethane imported from Norway;257 and Borealis, which has been sourcing U.S. ethane for its cracker in Sweden since 2016258 and is building what will be one of the world’s largest propylene plants at Antwerp.259

A number of firms are expanding

THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED 31

Huizhou Petrochemical Complex, Huizhou, Guangdong Province, China. From http://www.xinhuanet.com/ english/2020-04/22/c_138999462.htm

beSouth Korea is also predicted to be a leader in the construction of new crackers,280 with three such facilities expected to be completed in 2021. GS Caltex is building a mixed-feed cracker with capacity to produce 700,000 metric tons per year of ethylene and 350,000 metric tons per year of propylene. It is expected to be fully operational sometime in 2021 and will have an integrated 500,000 metric tons per year of polyethylene capacity.281 Korean petrochemical firm LG Chem’s second cracker at Yeosu began operating in June 2021 after a technical issue forced the new plant to shut down for several days. The cracker is intended to have 800,000 metric tons per year of ethylene capacity and 800,000 metric tons per year of fully integrated polyethylene capacity.282 Hyundai Oilbank and Lotte Chemical are involved in a joint venture in Daesan which includes building a steam cracker and downstream units capable of producing 850,000 metric tons per year of polyethylene and 500,000 metric tons per year of polypropylene. It is expected to be operational by the end of 2021.283

India is also a potential focus for expansion, with the government having recently announced a raft of new petrochemical projects. Around 11 projects worth about $17 billion are scheduled to be completed by 2024, and new projects under consideration are worth a potential total of $87 billion. These include Nayara Energy’s proposed $20 billion complex at Vadinar in Gujarat, which as reported may include a cracker and downstream units for polypropylene and polyethylene. There are also proposals to invest an additional $10 billion in expanding production of polypropylene, polyethylene and PVC at the already vast Reliance Industries-owned Jamnagar site in Gujarat.284 These proposals are

part of plans to more than double the megacomplex’s conversion of crude to chemicals to 35%, at the expense of fuel production.285

Ethylene production capacity in Southeast Asia has increased by 43% in the last 10 years, with growth driven both by increasing regional demand for ethylene and derivatives and by the region’s proximity to the Chinese market.286 Large olefins and derivatives complexes have been constructed in Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia in the last decade,287 and new capacity is planned for the coming years in Indonesia,288 Vietnam289 and Brunei.290

In Thailand, after many delays petrochemical producer PTT Global Chemical (PTTGC) is reported to have started commercial operation of its fifth cracker at Map Ta Phut – a naphtha cracker with the capacity to produce 500,000 metric tons per year of ethylene and 260,000 metric tons per year of propylene – in March 2021.291

In 2019 Malaysia’s state- owned Petronas started up a 1.29 million metric tons per year cracker complex at Pengerang in a JV with Saudi Aramco. However, production has twice been halted by explosions and is not set to resume until the fourth quarter of 2021.292

In Indonesia, a JV between Russia’s Rosneft and state-owned PT Pertamina (known as PT Pertamina Rosneft Pengolahan dan Petrokimia or PRPP) is developing an integrated refinery and petrochemical complex at Tuban, one of several new facilities planned for the island of Java. Scheduled to be completed by 2025, it reportedly aims to produce 1.2 million metric tons per year of polypropylene products, 1.3 million metric tons per year of paraxylene and 650 metric tons per year of polyethylene.293

These are just a few examples of the many expansion projects currently under way or planned around the world — more of which are detailed on the global map.

“(China is)…an environment that enables ExxonMobil to continue our strategic long-term investments” DARREN WOODS, CEO EXXONMOBIL

THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED 33

HIDDEN EMISSIONS, OBVIOUS IMPACTS

C

BD

ANE

L

K

MO

R

1 TON

F

QG

OF PLASTIC =

5TONS P C02e

34

THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED

A

B C D

E F

Whether new ‘virgin’ plastic or part- recycled, plastic production causes huge emissions of C02e, invisible to consumers. However, the impacts on the climate become more obvious daily.

22 April 2020. Biebrza National Park, Poland, firecrews fight

its largest fire in the history of the park, caused by drought. © Rafal Wojczal Greenpeace

17 July 2021. Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany. Extremely heavy rain causing widespread damage. © Bernd Lauter / Greenpeace
15 July 2021, Bad Neuenahr, Germany. Flooding streets, destroyed houses and infrastructure. © Dominik Ketz / Greenpeace

15 Nov, 2020, Rodriguez, Philippines. Aftermath of Typhoon

Vamco residents queue to receive relief materials. © Basilio H. Sepe / Greenpeace

24 October 2019, California USA, a house burns during the Tick Fire. © David McNew / Greenpeace

17July2020,Siberia,Russia.ForestfiresintheTiaga.©Julia Petrenko / Greenpeace

I

G 4 September 2017, Port Arthur, Texas, Homes next to flooded oil storage tanks. © Aaron Sprecher / Greenpeace

H 5 November 2011, Bangkok, Thailand. People sleeping at the evacuation center after the worst flooding in 50 years.

© Athit Perawongmetha / Greenpeace
I 7 February 2020, Mwingi, Kitui County, Kenya. The largest

locust invasion in 70 years caused by severe droughts and

floods creating favourable breeding conditions. © Greenpeace / Paul Basweti

J 20 September 2020, California. Firefighters at the Bobcat Fire in Southern California, a widfire which burned over 100,000 acres of forest. © David McNew / Greenpeace

K 17August2020,Lábrea,Amazonasstate,Brazil. Deforestation and forest fires. © Christian Braga / Greenpeace

L 21 May 2020, Migori and Homa Bay Counties in Kenya. These floods left hundreds dead, thousands displaced, crops destroyed and livestock killed.© Bernard Ojwang / Greenpeace

M Doritos plastic chip bags – Doritos is owned by Pepsico. © Tonelson Productions / Shutterstock.com

N Take away food delivered in plastic packaging. © Shutterstock.com

O UK. Tesco own-brand plastic food packaging. © Hamilton / Greenpeace

P MaPET single-use Coca Cola bottles. © Bramanyuro / Shutterstock.com

Q PET bottles of energy drinks, soda, soft drinks. © Abdul Razak Latif / Shutterstock.com

R Indonesia.Plasticfoodsaucesachets. © Sukarman S.T / Shutterstock.com

JH

BIG BRANDS MUST SHIFT TO REUSE TO STOP THE PETROCHEMICAL EXPANSION AND MEET CLIMATE GOALS

Clearly, given the detrimental impacts to communities and the need to keep climate change below 1.5 °C, the fossil fuel industry cannot be allowed to continue expanding petrochemical production to make plastic.

The consumer goods sector has a clear choice to make: Companies can rapidly move away from single-use plastic and seriously invest in reuse and packaging-free based delivery systems, or they can continue to enable the fossil fuel industry’s attempts to ramp up plastic production behind the smokescreen of recycling.

Among progressive businesses, governments and nongovernmental organizations, there is already a consensus that our current linear economic model with its “take, make, dispose” philosophy must be abandoned in favor of a circular model that decouples economic activity from the consumption of finite resources and designs waste out of the system. Reuse will be central to such a slow circular economy, with recycling confined mainly to dealing with reusable packaging that has reached the end of its life.

However, while some major FMCG companies have acknowledged the need to either avoid packaging altogether or replace single-use packaging with containers that can be reused a large number of times,294 to date not one has committed to targets for large-scale reuse or significant reduction of single-use plastic packaging. For instance, big brands like Coca-Cola, Nestlé and PepsiCo

have all made high-level pledges to tackle plastic pollution that focus on recycling, while in reality these companies and others in the sector have made very little progress on reducing throwaway plastic. In fact, a 2020 review of action by companies signed up to the Ellen McArthur Foundation Global Plastics Commitment found that plastic packaging use by signatories actually grew by 0.6% in 2019 and that reusables accounted for just 1.9% of their packaging, up just 0.1% from the previous year.295

Instead, most brands continue to propose plastic recycling as the central solution to the plastic pollution crisis, even though there is abundant evidence of its failure. This is despite the fact that multiple studies have shown that reusing packaging is far less carbon-intensive than relying on single-use packaging. For instance, one life- cycle assessment study estimated that if the glass bottles used in the food and drinks packaging sector were reused by up to three times, it would save approximately 50,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. 296

It’s time for these big brands to shift direction – to reduce both their dependence on oil and gas and their plastic footprints and move beyond the throwaway culture that single-use plastic exemplifies – by investing in reuse- and packaging-free–based delivery systems and other innovations. Governments must encourage, assist and, where necessary, compel them to act.

THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED 35

GREENPEACE IS CALLING ON FMCG COMPANIES TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING STEPS:

MOVE QUICKLY TO ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY SYSTEMS BASED ON REUSE

• Set reuse targets of at least 25% reusable packaging by 2025 and 50% by 2030.297 Sectors for which a switch to reuse is comparatively easy – such as soft drinks, mineral water, alcoholic beverages and coffee chains – should set more ambitious targets than this.

  PHASE OUT ALL SINGLE-USE PLASTIC

• Phase out all single-use plastic (packaging298 and products299), not just “virgin” or “new” plastic.
• Prioritize elimination of unrecyclable/hard-to-recycle plastics300 and produce a roadmap for phasing them out by the end of 2022.

  WORK TOGETHER

• Collaborate with packaging manufacturers and retailers (and, pre-competitively, with other FMCG companies) to standardize reusable packaging and build shared reuse systems and infrastructure (e.g. return logistics, washing facilities, tracking technology).
• Publicly share learnings on reuse for the benefit of other companies in the sector and other stakeholders (e.g. packaging manufacturers, retailers, legislators).
• Collaborate to address the drivers of single-use packaging. Promote shorter supply chains and seasonal produce, and challenge use of excessive packaging for

marketingpurposes,alongwiththewasteful“convenience” culture exemplified by the “on-the-go” market.

BE TRANSPARENT AND CONSISTENT

• Implement annual public reporting of independently verified and comprehensive data about the company’s packaging, including its single-use packaging climate footprint (taking account of the entire life cycle of the plastic used), reduction of packaging and uptake of reusable packaging.

• Ensure that packaging reduction and reuse commitments are enacted consistently across all markets in which the company (and its subsidiaries) operates.

ADVOCATE FOR POLITICAL ACTION

• Advocate for an ambitious Global Plastics Treaty that will address the entire plastics life cycle and emphasize the need to reduce plastic production and eliminate single-use plastic.

• Advocate for ambitious regional and national legislation to promote the slow circular economy and extended producer responsibility, ban single-use plastic and fast-track reuse and packaging-free systems.

• Avoid and/or terminate alliances with companies or organizations that lobby against action to eliminate single-use plastic.

20 December, 2020 Lenasia, South Africa. Reusable glass and plastic Coca-Cola bottles. © Dillion Jacobs / Greenpeace

3 March 2021, Washington DC. A supermarket with bulk items, an effort to reduce single use plastics. © Tim Aubry / Greenpeace

36 THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY UNPACKED

16 April 2019, Italy, Stop plastic action at San Pellegrino Nestlé Plant.
© Francesco Alesi / Greenpeace

GREENPEACE IS CALLING ON LOCAL AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING STEPS:

ADVOCATE FOR INTERNATIONAL ACTION

• Support development of an ambitious Global Plastics Treaty that will address the entire plastics life cycle and emphasize the need to reduce plastic production and eliminate single-use plastic.
• Support bans on the plastics waste trade.
  MOVE TOWARD A ZERO-WASTE ECONOMY
• Adopt a zero-waste approach that progressively • reduces waste generation. Act to reduce landfilling
  of waste and eliminate its incineration and export altogether. •
• Make building a zero-waste, reuse-centered economy a central part of plans for a green recovery • from the coronavirus pandemic, starting with investments enabling the creation of stable, high- quality employment and ensuring a just transition for • workers in the fossil fuel, petrochemical/plastic and waste sectors (including waste-picker communities where present).

ENCOURAGE A PHASE-OUT OF SINGLE-USE PLASTIC VIA LEGISLATION AND POLICY MEASURES

• Set legally binding, time-bound national/local targets to phase out all single-use plastic, with the exception of essential single-use medical supplies.
• Design and implement extended producer responsibility legislation that prioritizes packaging reduction and uptake of reusables by financially penalizing companies that continue to sell single-use products and incentivizing the transition to reuse and packaging-free models.

• Ensure Black, Brown, Indigenous, low-income and other frontline communities impacted by any stage in the plastic production process (including fossil fuel extraction and refining), or by plastic recycling, incineration and disposal, have opportunities to contribute to the design of a slow circular economy and to benefit from that economy. When anti-plastic and pro-reuse legislation is developed in countries with informal waste-collection sectors, it is important that it be context-specific and actively include waste- picker communities in its development.