“Reduce, reuse, recycle”: these three words have become as ubiquitous as the plastic waste they attempt to combat. Once seen as a simple roadmap toward sustainability, this mantra now conceals a far more complex and troubling reality. While these principles serve as a starting point for environmental action, they also have a deceptive history rooted in the petrochemical industry’s effort to avoid accountability. The truth is, no matter how diligently we sort our waste products, individual actions alone cannot solve the growing crisis of plastic pollution.
The ubiquity of plastic in modern life makes recycling seem like a moral imperative. From straws and bags to take-out containers, single-use plastics crowd landfills and clog waterways. And the crisis is accelerating. Legal scholar Roberta Mann warns that by 2050, plastic in the ocean could outweigh fish. The United States led the world in plastic waste in 2016, Mann writes, generating over 42 million metric tons. The COVID-19 pandemic further fueled plastics consumption, with a spike in single-use personal protective equipment and packaging from online shopping.
But here’s the catch: research suggests that our dependence on recycling as a solution isn’t only ineffective—it’s based on a carefully crafted illusion. The narrative that recycling can meaningfully counteract the plastic crisis was constructed by the oil and gas industry to maintain public demand for plastic and delay regulation of its production.
As an investigation conducted by NPR and PBS Frontline unearthed in 2020 and reported in a Frontline episode called “Plastic Wars,” oil companies have known for decades about the inability to recycle plastics throughout the US. Tracing the history of the issue, the Center for International Law outlines how in the 1950s and ’60s the fossil fuel, petrochemical, and packaging industries began convening on the issue of plastic pollution as reports emerged of the plastics’ inability to decompose in the natural environment. In 1973, a National Academy of Sciences workshop reported that polystyrene spherules and poly-chlorinated biphenyls were being found in abundance in marine environments. The concept of decomposability was soon weaponized as one of plastic’s biggest strengths: plastic began to be marketed as the only material perfect for landfill linings and pollution containment.
More to Explore
You’ll Never Believe Who Invented Curbside Recycling
By also marketing plastic as recyclable, the entangled industries shifted the burden of responsibility onto individual consumers. A Time magazine advertisement from 1989 demonstrates how the Society of Plastic Industry (comprising fossil fuel companies Exxon, Mobil, Dow, DuPont, Chevron, and Phillips 66) emphasized recycling as a moral duty, all while knowing that the existing recycling infrastructure was inadequate and unprofitable.
Not much has changed in the last thirty-plus years. As Dave Dennison muses, recycling only occurs under conditions where it’s ”cheaper for waste-hauling companies to [do it than to] send baled waste to landfills.” As a representative from Keurig admitted in “Plastic Wars,” there’s currently no way of effectively recycling K-Cups, even though approximately eleven billion K-cups are produced per year. In fact, the creation of the recycling symbol on plastic products, utilizing the 1–7 polymer grade scale, was a push from industry as a bargaining chip to stop state governments from instituting plastic bans and creating mandatory recycling standards. As long as customers believe plastics producers are doing their part—and keep consuming plastic—the producer need not be concerned that their waste products aren’t recycled, Dennison suggests.
Weekly Newsletter
That doesn’t mean recycling should be abandoned altogether. With so much plastic already in our ecosystems, recycling and remediation remain critical. Certain uses of plastic, such as medical supplies or assistive tools for disabled individuals, are currently irreplaceable. But we should also think about a fourth “R”: replace, as in: replace petroleum-based products with sustainable alternatives whenever possible. Plastics are known to cause endocrine disruption in living organisms, with links to cancers and other illnesses, writes Mann. Recycling, while important, can be understood as a harm-reduction tool—not a final solution. The search is on for additional approaches that will offer a deep mitigation of plastic without positioning the oil and gas industry at the heart of the solution. Real progress likely depends on systemic change: bold regulations to limit plastic production, major investments in alternative materials, and the will to challenge an industry that has polluted our planet for decades.
Support JSTOR Daily! Join our membership program on Patreon today.
