Industry consultants Esteban Sagel and Howard Rappaport assessed the impact of the removal of funding for advanced recycling. Sagel, principal with Chemical & Polymer Market Consultants in Houston said managing plastics at the end of their useful life “is a complex issue” for several reasons, including inefficient waste management systems, lack of material recovery facilities and mismatched recycling regulations.

“Chemical recycling has limitations, but in general is one of the best options to manage complex/mixed plastic waste,” he added.

At early developmental stages, technologies require a lot of capital and a long-term vision and strategy, according to Sagel. Unfortunately, he said, the existing system for private capital allocation “gives prevalence to short-term results over long-term gains.”

“This may be a controversial opinion, but it is in instances such as the development of novel technologies that governments can provide the necessary financial support to allow for these technologies to survive the initial developmental stages and be scaled,” Sagel said.

“Regrettably, as the federal government slashes funding for advanced recycling, we may not see many promising technologies take off. This will be unfortunate, not just for the industry, but for all of us.

“Without solutions such as chemical recycling, plastics will remain hard to recycle and therefore our standing with consumers will continue to erode,” he added. “Petrochemical companies have a responsibility to work on end-of-life solutions for our products. But, with the current incentives of our capital allocation systems, this may be a mirage. And with reduced governmental support, I feel we may not be able to reach the necessary circularity our industry needs.”

Rappaport, a market analyst with StoneX in New York, described the loss of the Eastman grant as “disappointing” and that it “could not have come at a worse time from an industry standpoint.”

“Petrochemical and plastics producers are coming off an extended earnings trough, brought on after a period of significant capacity build in North America (and elsewhere),” Rappaport said. “Add to that the overwhelming barrage of negative media surrounding plastics waste (litter), microplastics contamination (questionable science) and various health related concerns (mostly speculation).”

He added that even as the industry is making large commitments and investments in mechanical and chemical recycling, “the naysayers are even questioning the validity of plastics recycling in general.”