Interview: the skeptic's view on Chemical recycling & advanced sorting — what would change their mind

Despite more than $7.2 billion invested globally in chemical recycling capacity between 2020 and 2025, operating plants process less than 1.2 million metric tons of plastic waste annually—representing barely 0.3% of total plastic waste generated worldwide. This stark gap between capital deployment and actual throughput has fueled skepticism among waste management professionals, environmental scientists, and lifecycle assessment experts who question whether chemical recycling represents a genuine circular economy solution or an elaborate form of greenwashing. In this synthesized expert perspective, we examine the skeptical viewpoints, the emerging evidence that might shift those positions, and what decision-makers should watch as the technology matures.

Why It Matters

The global plastic recycling crisis demands urgent attention. According to the OECD's 2024 Global Plastics Outlook, only 9% of plastic waste produced globally is recycled, while 22% is mismanaged and 19% is incinerated. Mechanical recycling—the dominant form today—faces fundamental limitations: polymers degrade with each processing cycle, contamination restricts feedstock quality, and mixed plastics remain largely unrecyclable through conventional means. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation estimates that 32% of all plastic packaging escapes collection systems entirely, leaking into natural environments.

Chemical recycling proponents argue their technologies can address these gaps by breaking polymers back to monomers or hydrocarbon feedstocks, enabling true circularity. The American Chemistry Council reports that 92 chemical recycling projects were announced in North America between 2020 and 2025, representing $8.7 billion in planned investment. Meanwhile, advanced sorting technologies using artificial intelligence and near-infrared spectroscopy have achieved purity rates exceeding 95% for target polymers—a dramatic improvement over manual sorting's 70-80% accuracy.

Yet skeptics raise legitimate concerns. A 2024 study published in the Journal of Cleaner Production found that pyrolysis-based chemical recycling consumes 14-18 times more energy per kilogram of output than mechanical recycling. The Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives documented that only 47 of 195 announced U.S. chemical recycling facilities between 2000 and 2023 ever became operational, with 11 subsequently closing. These statistics demand rigorous scrutiny of claims made by industry advocates.

Key Concepts

Understanding the debate requires clarity on terminology that is often conflated in public discourse.

Mechanical recycling involves physical processes—shredding, washing, melting, and pelletizing—to convert waste plastics into new products. It preserves polymer chains but cannot restore virgin-quality properties. Each recycling cycle shortens molecular chains, limiting most plastics to 2-3 recycling loops before quality degradation makes further processing unviable.

Chemical recycling encompasses three distinct technology families. Pyrolysis uses heat (400-600°C) in oxygen-free environments to break polymers into pyrolysis oil, which can theoretically be refined into new plastics or fuels. Gasification operates at higher temperatures (700-1,200°C) to produce synthesis gas (syngas) for chemical manufacturing. Solvolysis (including glycolysis, methanolysis, and hydrolysis) uses chemical reagents to depolymerize specific plastics like PET and polyurethane back to their original monomers.

Advanced sorting technologies have evolved dramatically. Near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy identifies polymer types by their unique spectral signatures at throughputs exceeding 3,000 items per minute. Hyperspectral imaging adds granularity by detecting additives, colorants, and contamination. AI-powered robotic sorting systems from companies like AMP Robotics and ZenRobotics combine computer vision with machine learning to identify and separate materials with superhuman speed and accuracy. Digital watermarking initiatives like HolyGrail 2.0 embed invisible codes in packaging to enable precise material identification.

Mass balance accounting allows companies to blend chemical recycling outputs with virgin feedstocks while allocating recycled content certificates to specific products. Critics argue this approach enables greenwashing by allowing products containing zero actual recycled molecules to claim recycled content. Supporters contend it enables industry transition by providing economic incentives before dedicated recycled-content supply chains scale.

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

PET depolymerization has achieved commercial viability. Eastman's molecular recycling facility in Kingsport, Tennessee, processes 110,000 metric tons of waste PET annually using methanolysis to produce virgin-equivalent PET. Loop Industries demonstrated that their depolymerization technology produces monomers indistinguishable from fossil-derived alternatives, earning FDA letters of non-objection for food-contact applications. Carbios's enzymatic recycling process, deployed at a demonstration plant in Clermont-Ferrand, France, uses engineered enzymes to break down PET at 72°C—far lower temperatures than thermal processes—with 97% monomer recovery rates.

AI-powered sorting accuracy now exceeds human performance. AMP Robotics reports their systems achieve 99% accuracy in identifying target materials at rates of 80 picks per minute—double human sorting speed. Greyparrot's computer vision systems, deployed at materials recovery facilities across Europe, have characterized over 30 billion waste items, generating datasets that improve sorting algorithms continuously. TOMRA's AUTOSORT system combines NIR sensors with deep learning to separate 28 different polymer types simultaneously.

Pre-treatment technologies are improving feedstock quality. Advanced washing systems from companies like Herbold Meckesheim remove labels, adhesives, and contaminants that previously made post-consumer flexible packaging unrecyclable. Dissolution technologies from PureCycle Technologies and APK AG selectively remove additives from polypropylene and polyethylene, producing feedstock suitable for high-value applications.

What's Not Working

Energy intensity remains a fundamental barrier. A 2025 lifecycle assessment by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology found that pyrolysis-to-plastics pathways emit 2.3-3.1 kg CO2-equivalent per kilogram of output—higher than virgin plastic production in many scenarios. Without renewable energy integration, chemical recycling's climate benefits are questionable at best.

Yield losses undermine circular economy claims. Industry data shows that pyrolysis typically converts only 60-75% of plastic feedstock into usable pyrolysis oil, with the remainder becoming char, wax, and off-gases. Of that oil, only 30-40% may ultimately become new plastic—the rest is burned as fuel. End-to-end mass yields from waste plastic to new plastic often fall below 30%, prompting critics to question whether "recycling" is an accurate descriptor.

Greenwashing concerns persist. A 2024 Reuters investigation found multiple chemical recycling facilities permitted as "manufacturing" rather than "waste processing," allowing them to bypass environmental regulations. The Beyond Plastics coalition documented cases where chemical recyclers sold pyrolysis oil as fuel rather than recycling feedstock while maintaining recycling claims.

Economic viability depends on policy support. Without recycled content mandates, chemical recycling outputs cannot compete with cheap virgin plastics. The EU's target of 30% recycled content in plastic packaging by 2030 provides demand certainty, but U.S. policy remains fragmented, with only California implementing meaningful recycled content requirements.

Chemical Recycling KPI Benchmarks

Metric	Current Industry Average	Leading Performers	Target for Credibility
Mass yield (plastic-to-plastic)	25-35%	50-60% (solvolysis)	>70%
Energy consumption (MJ/kg output)	45-70	25-35 (enzymatic)	<20
Carbon intensity (kg CO2e/kg)	2.5-4.0	1.2-1.8	<1.0
Feedstock contamination tolerance	5-10%	15-20%	>25%
Operating capacity utilization	40-55%	75-85%	>85%
Output quality (virgin equivalence)	85-92%	97-99% (PET solvolysis)	>95%

Key Players

Established Leaders

BASF (ChemCycling) operates one of Europe's largest pyrolysis oil integration programs, processing waste plastics into feedstock for its Ludwigshafen verbund site. BASF has invested over €500 million in chemical recycling partnerships and demonstrated mass-balanced production of consumer products for partners including Jaguar Land Rover and Schneider Electric.

Eastman Chemical Company committed $1 billion to molecular recycling, with its Kingsport facility representing the world's largest PET methanolysis operation. Eastman has announced a second facility in Normandy, France, with 160,000 metric tons annual capacity, supported by €150 million in French government incentives.

Plastic Energy operates commercial-scale pyrolysis plants in Seville, Spain, and Geleen, Netherlands, with partnerships including ExxonMobil, SABIC, and Total Energies. The company has licensed its technology to projects in Indonesia, France, and the U.S.

AMP Robotics has deployed AI-powered sorting systems at over 150 materials recovery facilities across North America and Europe, raising $191 million in venture funding through 2024. Their technology serves major waste management companies including Republic Services and Waste Connections.

Greyparrot provides AI waste analytics to sorting facilities processing over 40 million tons of waste annually, with customers including Veolia, SUEZ, and TOMRA. Their waste characterization data is used by regulators and policymakers across Europe.

Emerging Startups

Carbios has pioneered enzymatic recycling using engineered PET hydrolases, with commercial licensing agreements with L'Oréal, Nestlé, and PepsiCo. Their demonstration plant achieved 97% depolymerization in under 16 hours.

PureCycle Technologies developed a solvent-based purification process for polypropylene, producing near-virgin quality resin from post-consumer feedstock. Their Ironton, Ohio facility represents the first commercial-scale polypropylene purification plant.

Recycling Technologies (UK) developed the RT7000 pyrolysis unit as a modular, deployable system targeting distributed processing at materials recovery facilities rather than centralized mega-plants.

Key Investors and Funders

Closed Loop Partners has invested over $500 million in circular economy companies, including chemical recycling and advanced sorting technologies. Breakthrough Energy Ventures, backed by Bill Gates, has invested in multiple advanced recycling startups. The European Investment Bank committed €500 million to circular economy projects including chemical recycling infrastructure. The U.S. Department of Energy allocated $375 million through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for plastics recycling and upcycling research.

Examples

SABIC-Plastic Energy Partnership (Netherlands): SABIC's TRUCIRCLE initiative integrates pyrolysis oil from Plastic Energy into its Chemelot site cracker, producing certified circular polymers since 2021. The partnership has delivered circular polyethylene and polypropylene for applications including food packaging for Unilever and Tupperware. While critics note that mass balance allocation allows products with zero physical recycled content to claim recycled attributes, proponents argue this approach enables demand creation while dedicated recycling infrastructure scales.
Eastman-P&G Herbal Essences Collaboration: Procter & Gamble's Herbal Essences brand launched bottles made with 25% molecular recycled content from Eastman in 2023, demonstrating brand willingness to pay premiums for recycled content. The partnership validated market demand and provided proof of concept for consumer goods applications, though skeptics question whether voluntary brand commitments can scale without regulatory mandates.
AMP Robotics-Republic Services Deployment: Republic Services deployed AMP Cortex robotic sorters across 60+ materials recovery facilities, increasing recycling recovery rates by 15-25% while reducing labor costs and improving worker safety. The systems demonstrated that AI sorting can economically extract value from mixed waste streams previously destined for landfill, though integration challenges at older facilities highlighted the need for infrastructure upgrades alongside technology deployment.

Action Checklist

Conduct feedstock characterization studies to understand local waste composition and contamination profiles before evaluating chemical recycling technologies
Request third-party verified lifecycle assessments from technology providers, ensuring system boundaries include all energy inputs and yield losses
Evaluate mass balance certification schemes (ISCC PLUS, RSB) and their chain of custody requirements before making recycled content claims
Assess regulatory trajectories in target markets, prioritizing investments in jurisdictions with binding recycled content mandates
Engage with advanced sorting technology providers to improve feedstock quality upstream, reducing contamination that limits chemical recycling yields
Establish monitoring frameworks to track operational performance against KPI benchmarks, including mass yield, energy consumption, and carbon intensity

FAQ

Q: Can chemical recycling actually produce food-grade materials from post-consumer waste? A: Yes, specific technologies have achieved regulatory approval. Eastman's methanolysis process has received FDA letters of non-objection for PET food-contact applications. Enzymatic and solvolysis approaches that fully depolymerize plastics to monomers can produce outputs chemically identical to virgin materials. Pyrolysis-based approaches face greater challenges because outputs require extensive refining, and traceability through cracker and polymerization steps is difficult to verify.

Q: Why do skeptics call chemical recycling "advanced incineration"? A: When pyrolysis outputs are sold as fuel rather than recycled into new plastics, the process effectively converts waste plastic to CO2 emissions with extra processing steps. Critics point to facilities that permitted as recycling operations but sell most output as fuel. The distinction depends on actual end use: genuine circular outcomes require outputs to become new plastic products, not combustion feedstock.

Q: How does AI-powered sorting compare to traditional materials recovery facility operations? A: AI systems achieve 95-99% accuracy versus 70-85% for manual sorting, with throughputs 2-3 times higher. They operate continuously without fatigue and can identify materials humans cannot distinguish visually. However, AI sorting requires quality input streams and cannot recover value from heavily contaminated or degraded materials. The technology complements rather than replaces infrastructure investments in collection and preprocessing.

Q: What would make skeptics change their minds about chemical recycling? A: Skeptics consistently cite three requirements: demonstrated mass yields exceeding 70% plastic-to-plastic, verified carbon intensities below virgin production, and independent third-party auditing of recycled content claims. Projects meeting these thresholds would represent genuine circular economy contributions rather than marketing claims backed by mass balance accounting.

Q: Are there legitimate roles for chemical recycling in a circular economy? A: Most experts acknowledge chemical recycling's potential for waste streams that mechanical recycling cannot address: multi-layer flexible packaging, contaminated post-consumer plastics, and mixed polymer streams. The debate centers on whether current technologies deliver on this potential at scale. Solvolysis approaches for PET and enzymatic processes show the strongest evidence of genuine circularity, while pyrolysis pathways face more fundamental questions about energy efficiency and yield.

Sources

OECD Global Plastics Outlook 2024: Plastic Pollution and the Environmental Impacts of Plastics. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Rollinson, A., & Oladejo, J. (2024). Chemical Recycling: Status, Sustainability, and Environmental Impacts. Journal of Cleaner Production, 434, 140084.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2024). Global Commitment 2024 Progress Report. Cowes, UK.
American Chemistry Council. (2025). Advanced Recycling Project Database. Washington, DC.
Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. (2024). Chemical Recycling: A Dangerous Deception. Berkeley, CA.
European Commission Joint Research Centre. (2025). Technical Assessment of Chemical Recycling Technologies for Plastic Waste. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Closed Loop Partners. (2024). State of Circular Economy: Advanced Recycling Infrastructure Investment Report. New York.