A newsletter from POLITICO for leaders building a sustainable future.

Get the POLITICO Long Game newsletter

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or updates from POLITICO and you agree to our privacy policy and terms of service. You can unsubscribe at any time and you can contact us here. This sign-up form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Craig Cookson thinks advanced recycling is one way to reuse plastics. | Photo Courtesy of Craig Cookson

Advanced recycling is on the rise — and Craig Cookson is forging ahead. Cookson, senior director of plastics sustainability at the American Chemistry Council, sees advanced or chemical recycling as a way to encourage the reuse of plastics — which have an abysmal recycling rate of less than 10 percent in the U.S.

The process of advanced recycling typically involves dissolving or heating up plastic to break it down to its original raw components. Chemical companies bill it as a new source that can help manufacturers avoid the need for virgin plastic. It's also a way to break down mixed plastics and foam food containers that aren't economic to recycle via conventional methods.

There are seven commercial-scale advanced recycling facilities operating in the U.S., and 20 states have passed laws regulating it. But the definition of advanced recycling is a point of controversy. Environmental groups argue it should be considered incineration of solid waste, while ACC wants more states to count it as manufacturing.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

It seems like red states are more likely to embrace advanced recycling. Why do you think that is?

I think everybody, both Republicans and Democrats, wants to see greater amounts of plastics recycled as well as more types of plastics recycled in their communities. Plastics are going to be an important part of a lower-carbon economy. But we have to do a better job of recycling and recovering those plastics after use. I think that’s a very commonsense bipartisan discussion that we’ve been having.

The other thing I think as we see more products on the marketplace derived from advanced recycling, it won’t feel as new. McDonald's and Wendy’s and Warby Parker are examples of companies out there or brands that are on the marketplace right now that are selling packaging or products made with recycled plastics derived from advanced recycling.

What are you hearing from state lawmakers who may be hesitant to regulate advanced recycling?

There’s concerns over what are the emissions of these facilities, what are the types of materials they are taking in, what are the byproducts, what types of plastics can they process?

The questions we get from policymakers are actually excellent questions. They really are hungry to learn more. And the challenge is there’s about seven operational facilities around the country. So oftentimes a lot of these lawmakers don’t have the opportunity to visit a facility to learn more.

In some states like New York, California and Rhode Island, including advanced recycling in extended producer responsibility bills that require companies to pay into the recycling system has been a red line of sorts, particularly for environmental justice groups.  

In states like Oregon and Colorado, there are most definitely pathways for advanced or chemical recycling to count as recycling. In New York, the bill that said advanced recycling wouldn’t count as recycling didn’t end up passing. We’ve seen states like Colorado and Oregon recognize that if you want to hit these higher rates of recycling, and also get more recycled content in packaging and products, you’re going to have to have advanced recycling.

Who do you actually partner with in the states where you're pushing for advanced recycling regulation?

They tend to be the Chamber of Commerce, or state manufacturers and other groups that want to bring jobs and continue to stay ahead of innovation. We partner very well with in-state groups. And then there’s also companies that are looking at these states.

New York is a great example. If we just took not even all the plastics that are currently going to landfills in New York, you can have about $500 million in annual economic opportunity. And so in places like Upstate New York in Syracuse or Utica, that’s a big deal.

It’s not all going to happen there. But politicians are looking to improve the recycling situation in their communities, and also at the same time, attract new and innovative businesses that are going to hire workers, pay them a good wage, pay taxes, create other economic development.

What is the ACC looking for in an EPR proposal?

Our members want to get more plastic out of the landfills and incinerators, and use them as a raw material so that they can then sell this recycled content or plastics to their downstream customers that are demanding it. So that’s the demand side. Producer responsibility is the supply side. And so right now we don’t have an optimized system in the U.S. in most states.

So producer responsibility that we’re looking for is something that will help build up a much better collection and access infrastructure. Pretty simple: Carts and bins and trucks and the outreach and education so people are more informed about what they can and can’t recycle.

Our members can’t process plastic if they can’t even get them into the system. So it’s really about helping grow that front-end supply of plastics that are in the system. Then on the back end, we’re looking to really allow the free market and innovation to take over. Allow the competition to flourish.

The paper industry opposes being included in EPR programs because it argues it has higher recycling rates and doesn't need more regulation. Why shouldn't EPR programs just apply to the plastics industry?

Most communities in the United States have single-stream recycle. Paper and metal and glass and aluminum and steel and plastic are all in the bin together.

Where we don’t have access to recycling, the other materials don’t as well. Or, I should say, people don’t have access. ... They tend to have less access to recycling. So that’s a shared part of the system. That’s our view. And that’s also the view of the aluminum and steel industry, as well as glass.

On the back end, our members are investing in the innovation to sort and process these plastics into new products, just as the paper industry is. So that’s why we think that any sort of producer responsibility scheme should focus on just that front-end collection access infrastructure piece.

Why do you think paper has recycling rates so much higher than plastics?

Plastics recycling is a little bit more in its infancy compared to paper and aluminum and steel. So we are catching up. And again, our members are investing over $7 billion in domestic reclamation for the recycling of plastics.

But producer responsibility would just be for that part where we are sharing — it’s single-stream, so all the materials are commingled together. If we all want our materials collected and people to have access, then that’s a shared responsibility.

In terms of a federal EPR proposal, are you supportive of that in principle?

In principle, yes. We like to call it an American-designed, producer responsibility system that helps build up that basic education outreach access collection infrastructure to get material into the system. Yes, it’s an important and critical part of the equation.

Congress very well may flip. Do you feel like you’ll have the political will to move forward on a federal EPR system next session assuming it doesn't happen this year?

I think we have a real opportunity here. And again, the way we’ve designed our proposal, is we think we have a very bipartisan, sensible proposal that appeals to members of both parties. And definitely to the pragmatists of both parties.

I think there’s more than folks give credit for of lawmakers who want to come together and seek sensible solutions. So yes, we’re very optimistic.

INTRODUCING POWER SWITCH: The energy landscape is profoundly transforming. Power Switch is a daily newsletter that unlocks the most important stories driving the energy sector and the political forces shaping critical decisions about your energy future, from production to storage, distribution to consumption. Don’t miss out on Power Switch, your guide to the politics of energy transformation in America and around the world. SUBSCRIBE TODAY.

GAME ON — Welcome to the Long Game, where we tell you about the latest on efforts to shape our future. We deliver data-driven storytelling, compelling interviews with industry and political leaders, and news Tuesday through Friday to keep you in the loop on sustainability.

Team Sustainability is editor Greg Mott, deputy editor Debra Kahn and reporters Lorraine Woellert and Jordan Wolman. Reach us all at [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] and [email protected] .

Want more? Don’t we all. Sign up for the Long Game. Four days a week and still free!

LISTEN TO POLITICO'S ENERGY PODCAST: Check out our daily five-minute brief on the latest energy and environmental politics and policy news. Don't miss out on the must-know stories, candid insights, and analysis from POLITICO's energy team. Listen today.

— Bloomberg has this double whammy: The country is one hurricane away from another price surge at the pump, highlighting the need for refineries, while a small but growing movement looks to stop new construction of gas stations in the U.S.

— The NYT's opinion section takes a dim view of corporate net-zero promises.

— The inevitable challenges to the SEC's climate disclosure rule might be more political than anything, Bloomberg writes.

— Italy has some generous offers to convince you to lower the carbon footprint of your home. How generous? Try 110 percent of the cost.