Plastic Chemical Recycling Debate_Law firm Veat Gukmyeongsu Attorney

Recently, a heated debate has emerged surrounding the methods and environmental impact of plastic chemical recycling. Law firm Veat’s partner attorney, Gukmyeong-soo, who has participated in various renewable energy and environmental projects, has noted this debate and, through the Chungcheong Times Net Zero column, has provided an explanation of the types of plastic recycling methods and the environmental impact of each method, including mechanical recycling (MR), chemical recycling (CR), thermal recycling (TR), and the recycling priority according to the Promotion of Circular Economy Transition Act.

The Chemical Recycling Debate of Plastic

Chungcheong Times Net Zero Column _Attorney Gukmyeong-soo

Currently, plastic recycling is largely divided into three methods: mechanical recycling (MR), chemical recycling (CR), and thermal recycling (TR). Mechanical recycling is a method of physically recycling waste plastic, which has low energy costs and low carbon emissions, but has concerns about property degradation and pollution. Chemical recycling is a method of reverting plastic to a raw material state through heat or catalytic reactions, which has relatively high energy and carbon emissions, but has the advantage of maintaining quality similar to new products. On the other hand, thermal recycling is a method of burning plastic as fuel to recover energy.

According to the Promotion of Circular Economy Transition Act, the priority of plastic recycling is Reuse > Regeneration > Energy Recovery, which is also evaluated in an appropriate order from a carbon emission perspective. According to this priority, thermal recycling should be considered as a last resort, but there is a dominant opinion that it is difficult to definitively assert the superiority of mechanical recycling versus chemical recycling.

Recently, a greenwashing controversy has erupted surrounding chemical recycling. Following the withdrawal of a domestic conglomerate from a waste plastic pyrolysis oil business, the Attorney General of California has filed a lawsuit against the US petrochemical company ExxonMobil, which claimed chemical recycling but actually used it as fuel. Some interpret this as an expansion of the claim that chemical recycling is so-called greenwashing.

The advantage that chemical recycling can regenerate contaminated plastic into a new product state is undeniable, and the need for chemical recycling is further highlighted when mechanical recycling is difficult. As international discussions are actively taking place, the UN Plastics Treaty Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) to be held in Busan in November will draft an international treaty to prevent plastic pollution, and attention is being paid to how chemical recycling will be reflected.

Attorney Gukmyeong-soo has provided advice related to the establishment and operation of a renewable energy development-type private equity fund with the largest private RPS business operator in Korea as an anchor investor, equity investment in a 60MW brackish farmland solar power generation company, the establishment and operation of a specialized private equity fund investing in waste recycling and resource utilization industries, and other similar projects. He has participated in various renewable energy and environmental projects, including investment in waste upcycling companies using robotic technology and investment in carbon resource companies converting greenhouse gases into hydrogen.

Law firm Veat is providing professional legal advice in the environmental and recycling industry, focusing on partner attorney Gukmyeong-soo. If you need legal advice related to plastic recycling and the environmental industry, please contact Law firm Veat, and for those interested in the full text of attorney Gukmyeong-soo’s related column, please refer to the link below.

[Go to] The Chemical Recycling Debate of Plastic - Chungcheong Times (cctimes.kr)​

Thank you.
Law firm Veat