As plastic waste piles up, companies are racing to market new ways to turn it into fuel or raw materials. But not all of these so-called innovations are what they seem. 

A recent TikTok from Ohio Valley Allies (@ohio.valley.allies) takes aim at one of the industry's most talked-about "solutions": chemical recycling. 

In a clip from the podcast Exposure, environmental attorney James Yskamp of Earthjustice calls out pyrolysis and gasification plants — aka facilities that claim to recycle plastic through high-heat processes into new plastics or just fuel — as "false solutions" to the plastic crisis. 

@ohio.valley.allies Do you think burning plastic is the solution to the plastic problem? In this explosive episode of Exposure, we speak with environmental attorney James Yskamp of Earthjustice to uncover the truth behind so-called chemical recycling facilities—also known as pyrolysis and gasification plants. Marketed as green solutions to the plastic crisis, these facilities are often toxic incinerators in disguise, operating under "minor source" loopholes that allow them to pollute with little oversight. ⚠️ ACTION ALERT: Submit Public Comment Altera's air permit is up for renewal. Submit your comment to oppose the permit and protect Akron residents. 📝 Permit Number: P0133062 📬 Mail to: Laura Miracle, ARAQMD Summit County Public Health 1867 W. Market St., Akron, OH 44313 #fyp #plastic #Exposure ♬ original sound - Ohio Valley Allies

"It's burning plastic," Yskamp says in the video. "Unless you think burning the plastic is the solution to the problems, then no, it is a false solution. It is not recycling in my opinion, either."

"It's not a cure to the plastic crisis," agreed Jill Hunkler, a fracking refugee and host of the podcast. 

It's important to note the distinction between this and the recycling of just about everything else commonly collected for recycling: glass, aluminum, and paper. There are flaws with many products that prevent them from being as cleanly recyclable as others, mainly if they are coated or lined with plastic or wax, and no form of recycling comes without some downsides over energy use or additional pollution. So reducing and reusing are always more important than recycling, but those materials are generally worth recycling compared to throwing away and making a virgin product.

When it comes to plastic recycling, though, there isn't much upside, and the plastic in most plastic products can only be recycled a handful of times before degrading anyway. Generally, plastic's sheer existence and original production in the first place is the biggest problem, since something has to be done with it, and plastic floating in the ocean and waterways is a critical problem to address. But the point is that people should not use plastic liberally with the assumption that the "chasing arrows" symbol on there will make it magically non-polluting to do so.

Chemical recycling has been promoted by the plastics and petrochemical industries as a way to deal with mounting plastic waste, but research shows the process releases dangerous and reportedly carcinogenic chemicals like benzene and dioxins while using more energy than it produces. Critics argue the technology functions more like incineration than recycling, a label the industries actively resist, enabling them to greenwash continued plastic production by giving it all an appearance of being less wasteful than it really is.

"They don't like being called incinerators," he says. "They claim that's defamation … but it doesn't work if they can't operate cheaply, and it doesn't work if it's burning plastic waste."

Many of these facilities operate under "minor source" air permits, which Yskamp explains allow them to release toxic pollutants with limited oversight. This classification helps them avoid the stricter monitoring and public scrutiny that come with being officially regulated as incinerators. 

Commenters under the post echoed those concerns. 

"When fuel made from plastic is burned the fumes are carcinogenic … also takes exponentially more energy to produce than it creates," one user wrote.

Others called out the dangers of plastic in general and the growing frustration surrounding similar technologies as distractions from real progress on plastic reduction. 

"The worst environmental damage ever invented is plastic! The fact that we're still using it is wild," another commented.

The clip adds to mounting scrutiny of industry-backed "recycling" schemes and a broader push to move beyond false fixes toward policies that cut plastic production at the source. 

Should companies be required to help recycle their own products? Definitely 👍 No way 👎 It depends on the product 🤔 They should get tax breaks instead 💰 Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.

Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.