Chemical industry seduces politicians: “Nobody would buy chemical recyclates without compulsion”

The world is looking for a solution to its plastic waste. The EU will set recycling quotas for packaging from 2030. The chemical industry in particular has been committed to this; it senses a new business with so-called chemical recycling. Industry expert Christian Schiller assumes companies like BASF in “Climate Laboratory” from ntv against lobbying that will harm Germany: “The industry is essentially creating its own sales market because only it can carry out chemical recycling,” says the founder of the Hamburg recycling company Cirplus. According to him, the decades-old process is expensive, produces toxic byproducts and has never worked properly. “Without coercion, no one would buy these recyclates,” says Schiller. He fears that the German chemical industry will repeat the mistakes of the German car manufacturers.

ntv.de: How is plastic waste currently recycled?

Christian Schiller: Mostly not at all. Two thirds of German plastic waste is recycled into energy. That’s a euphemistic term for burned. Strictly speaking, petroleum is burned here, as 99 percent of all plastics are made from petroleum.

What happens to the other third?

This is collected, washed, chopped up and then melted down again. It can then be used again for plastic products. However, in most cases it is “down-cycled”, meaning that the shampoo bottle becomes a less high-quality product because recycling often does not meet the high packaging requirements. It would be possible for us to recycle plastics to a high quality. The best example is the deposit bottle that we return to the supermarket. It is crushed, melted and poured into a new bottle – with food approval. The material can be moved in a circle eight to ten times. How well we recycle depends less on the plastic and more on how we handle it: the deposit bottle is already very clean when it goes back into the cycle.

The problem is consumers who don’t separate their waste properly?

This is a very convenient argument from the industry. In reality, no one can recognize the different types of plastic with the human eye. But there are technologies that could do this and we could design products so that they are easier to recycle. About three different types of plastic are glued into a car center console. You can’t actually recycle any of it. This would require changing the product design. But it is simply much cheaper to use new plastic than to recycle. This is the chemical industry’s business model: its refineries have to run all year round and bring new plastic to the market.

Is there an economic argument for recycling?

From an economic perspective, yes, the EU Commission and the Federal Government have also recognized this. That’s why the national circular economy strategy is coming now. We are a continent poor in raw materials, but we have an incredible amount of petroleum products in Europe in the form of packaging, automobiles, etc. Why don’t we take advantage of this and continue to make ourselves dependent on economies that control oil and natural gas?

But is recycling not economically worthwhile for the chemical industry?

If the business model is to turn petroleum into petrochemical products such as gasoline or plastic, there is little interest in circulating the products multiple times. This is the domain of waste management. There is no added value in this area for chemical companies.

Is that why the chemical industry wants to prevent circular legislation in this direction?

In any case, she wants to slow down the legislation. But the chemical industry has realized that it cannot continue like this. That’s why she now relies on so-called “chemical recycling”. Behind this are many technologies that have been known since the oil crisis in the 1970s and have never worked, but interestingly enough are always sold as future technologies. But they are interesting for the chemical industry because only it can carry out this chemical recycling. To put it simply, old plastic chains are broken up under high pressure, with a lot of energy and with relatively many toxic by-products in order to make new plastic out of them. So far there are only pilot systems.

What exactly is the industry’s plan?

Normally, industry associations are not in favor of regulation, but in this case the chemical industry is pushing for recycling quotas because they know that chemical recycling is extremely expensive and there is actually no market for these recyclates. Nobody would buy them without coercion. The EU packaging regulation is due to be finalized in November. This actually stipulates minimum recycled content quotas. From 2030, there will be different requirements depending on the type of packaging – one area is theoretically only met by chemical recycling, for example for food packaging. The industry is essentially creating its own sales market because packaging companies would then have to use a minimum proportion of chemically recycled products.

Can we already say how much more expensive this packaging would be later?

For normal consumer goods, the packaging price accounts for between five and ten percent. So when packaging becomes twice as expensive, consumers definitely feel it.

Is there a sensible alternative to chemical recycling?

Mechanical recycling is massively superior to chemical recycling, both ecologically and energetically. It requires much less energy and has been tried and tested on the market for much longer. The chemical industry also claims mechanical recycling is a priority. But it invests so little that it is still in its infancy technologically – also because it is cheaper to produce new plastic. And now the industry wants to invest billions in chemical recycling. This is my criticism of the chemical industry.

Isn’t it understandable that the industry invests where it sees a market?

I come from Hamburg, where the approach of the honorable businessman exists. He takes care of his product, not only from production to use, but also after use. My opinion is that the chemical industry must take responsibility for the substances that it brings onto the market and say: We will not just continue to operate large chemical plants, but rather use the capital that we have as highly profitable companies in technologies that are most ecological Investing benefits in circular management. But she doesn’t do that. Why? Most of the industry’s capital is tied up in its large chemical parks. These systems have to run.

Would a functioning circular economy jeopardize these profits?

We will continue to use plastics in the future. But these will increasingly be recycled plastics and those that are not made from petroleum. These are the two future fields of the chemical industry.

But German companies don’t play a role in these?

At least not the ones they could play. BASF is the world’s largest chemical company, but is of little importance in German waste management. The world’s largest company in this field is the French Veolia. If we recognized this future market, we could take technological leadership. I expect an industry that knows its business model is coming to an end to reposition itself.

It almost sounds as if the chemical industry is repeating the mistakes made by car manufacturers with diesel.

I see this danger. The industry ties up capital in chemical recycling. This is a technology that either doesn’t work at all or, if it does, is so environmentally disadvantageous that we ultimately don’t want it. That’s why, with the circular economy strategy, we have to bring economic interest into this old industry to circulate carbon as ecologically as possible. This will allow you to earn good money in the future. The packaging regulation provides for massive quotas for the use of recyclate in Europe. Anyone who does not meet this recycled content is not allowed to sell their product. That’s a sharp sword and a big market: India has passed similar legislation that will apply from 2025. This is an incredible opportunity for the German chemical industry. But that means moving away from old business models.

Spoke with Christian Schiller Clara Pfeffer and Christian Herrmann. The conversation has been shortened and smoothed for better clarity. You can watch the entire conversation in the podcast “Climate Laboratory” listen.