Cement kilns are key to the growing plastics credit sector and burn waste for energy (TANG CHHIN Sothy/AFP/AFP)
By AFP - Agence France Presse
“What would you like us to do?"The problem of plastic credits
Sara HUSSEIN
Twice a day, sirens sound in the Chip Mong Insee cement kiln in Cambodia, warning that limestone will soon be extracted from the karst mountain that dominates the extensive industrial area.
White smoke billows from its silver chimney, visible only at night against the dark sky, and dust covers much of the surrounding area, where residents complain of persistent respiratory illnesses that have arrived along with the kiln.
The factory may seem like an unlikely poster child for the fight against plastic pollution, but cement kilns are key to the growing sector of plastic credits, in which buyers pay for the collection and disposal of plastic waste.
The credits aim to combat the scourge of plastic pollution and increase the supply of recycled plastic.
But they don't impose any obligation on buyers to stop producing or using non-recyclable plastic that ends up in the environment.
An investigation by AFP and SourceMaterial shows that the sector relies heavily on the polluting cement industry to burn collected plastic waste as an alternative fuel despite concerns about health risks and carbon emissions.
This technique, known as co-processing, can send toxic chemicals into neighboring communities, often in countries less equipped to monitor and deal with the problem.
“The burden... is borne by the community, and the benefit is borne by these companies,” said Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, a public health scientist.
“You have a complete divorce between who benefits and who is harmed.”
Around the Chip Mong Insee kiln, half a dozen residents describe the same health problems.
“We're always coughing,” said Pheara, who, like all the locals, asked to be identified only by her first name.
“Before, when we got sick, we took a little medicine, but now we have to take several medicines and even change doctors to get better.”
The oven has brought jobs to the area, but it hasn't improved the lady's life.
“I don't want to live here because it's too dusty,” she said.
“But I don't know who would buy my house.”
- 'Lazy solution'
There is little debate about the problem of plastic pollution - at least 22 million tons were dumped into the environment in 2019, according to the OECD.
Most affected are developing countries with limited waste management, such as Cambodia, where plastic clogs streets, fields, and streams.
Plastic credits aim to direct funds towards this problem.
They are generated by projects that collect and process waste, usually one ton per credit.
Buyers can then claim this ton to “offset” or cancel part of their plastic footprint or to demonstrate environmental action.
But the sector, concentrated mainly in Asia, Latin America, and Africa, has no universal rules.
Self-appointed auditors certify credits based on various standards, with little government oversight.
Buyers include subsidiaries of Colgate-Palmolive, PepsiCo, and Mondelez, and although the market is still small, BloombergNEF projects that revenues could reach $4.2 billion by 2050.
For some, this is not good.
It's a “lazy, lazy solution,” said Piotr Barczak, manager of the ACEN Foundation's circular economy program.
“It allows plastic-producing companies to continue with their business model.”
The companies that offer and certify credits recognize that buyers are not obliged to change.
But they claim that buying credits, which cost around $140 to $670 each, increases the cost of business as usual.
“You start to reach a break-even point, where the economic incentive (is) to take more action,” said Sebastian DiGrande, CEO of leading credit registry PCX Markets.
- 'No one is testing.'
The sector relies heavily on co-processing, where plastic replaces coal in cement kilns, and some remaining ash is used in cement production.
An analysis by AFP and SourceMaterial of four major credit markets revealed that only around a quarter of the credits issued were for projects that recycle.
More than two-thirds went to co-processing and other forms of incineration.
This is partly because a large proportion of plastic waste is not recyclable.
However, co-processing also offers the cement sector, which accounts for around 8% of global emissions, the rare chance to boast “circular” credentials.
Although co-processing is regulated and monitored in developed countries, oversight elsewhere is often limited, according to Jorge Emmanuel, an expert on environmental and health issues at Silliman University in the Philippines.
“Often, you may even have laws in place, but they can be completely meaningless because they are not enforced,” he said.
“No one is monitoring emissions,” he added, and testing for dioxins in co-processing plants is rare because of the cost.
- Bottled water
Cement kilns operate at high temperatures, which should prevent the release of persistent organic pollutants such as dioxins linked to cancer and PFAS or “eternal chemicals”.
However, Emmanuel warned that there are times when dioxins are produced, including when temperatures fluctuate during start-up or cooling or when blended fuel is fed in.
Even in rich countries, systems generally do not continuously monitor these pollutants.
“When you introduce waste... you're bringing in a whole new cocktail of contaminants,” explained Lee Bell, policy advisor for the NGO International Pollutants Elimination Network.
These contaminants “end up in cement kilns that are not designed to filter them out”.
Even without co-processing, cement production is linked to pollution and health risks, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency.
Local communities face risks ranging from cancer to heart and lung problems and adverse birth outcomes, Rotkin-Ellman said.
Outside the oven wall, 56-year-old Kongthy said the smell of burning plastic regularly reaches her roadside cafe.
Like her neighbors, she has stopped collecting rainwater, pointing to the dust that settles on the surfaces around the factory.
“We don't dare collect it. Instead, we have to drink bottled water.”
- 'Something perfect'
Several workers at the kiln said they were not worried about safety, citing the annual health checks and protective equipment offered by the company.
They said the kiln burns everything from oil and used clothes to plastic bags and even water bottles, which are usually recyclable.
“They have filters,” said Vork, who operates machinery in the oven.
“It's not like they're burning it in a field.”
Chip Mong Insee did not respond to requests for comment.
It receives plastic from Tontoton, a company that generates credits bought by companies such as Celebrity Cruises and EY, formerly known as Ernst & Young.
Neither company responded to requests for comment, while Tontoton declined to answer questions about its operations.
Its credits are sold on an exchange operated by Zero Plastic Oceans, whose co-founder Vincent Decap said that co-processing is simply the best option for plastic waste in many countries.
“We're trying to do something better,” he said.
“We're not trying to do something perfect. If you try to make something perfect, you won't do anything.”
- Invisible pollutants
Cambodia has one of the world's highest levels of plastic along its coastline, according to a study last year, and waste, including plastic, is regularly burned in the open.
AFP and SourceMaterial placed air quality monitors around the Chip Mong Insee kiln and at a reference site away from industry and roads.
The monitors showed that levels of PM2.5 - fine particles that can penetrate the lungs - were higher at the reference site, probably due to the seasonal burning of plantations.
However, experts warn that air quality monitors cannot detect the most harmful pollutants caused by burning plastic, and tests to detect them are expensive and not widely available.
Cambodia's Ministry of Environment said that the burning of plastic in ovens is regulated and monitored.
It also said that open burning of plastic is prohibited.
- Coal calculations - Co-processing is often described as a coal production process.
Co-processing is often described as reducing emissions by displacing coal, but some experts consider this calculation to be simplistic.
Emissions from burning coal and plastic are practically the same, but any comparison must consider the complete life cycle of both materials.
This includes the plastic production process and transportation emissions if coal is imported.
“Burning plastic waste will replace coal mining,” said Ed Cook, a researcher in circular economy systems for plastic waste at the University of Leeds.
But this is not recycling, and “we must avoid and seek alternatives to burning fossil fuels, whatever the source,” he added.
DiGrande said that critics of plastic credit often ignore the reality of plastic pollution.
He acknowledged fears about co-processing and said that credits using this technique are decreasing over time at PCX Markets as money flows to recycling facilities.
But he urged critics to “compare the health concerns associated with co-processing with the health concerns associated with open burning”.
“In an ideal world, we wouldn't have any of these single-use plastics; we wouldn't have any of this old waste,” he said.
“Until then, my question is always: what would you like us to do with them differently?”
This presents a “false binary”, according to Neil Tangri, senior fellow at the Center for Environmental Public Policy at UC Berkeley's Goldman School.
For him, co-processing is “bad waste management that presents itself as a waste management system” and doesn't address the real issue: reducing production.
Plastic waste is expected to triple by 2060, according to the OECD, and less than a fifth of it is recycled.
Last year, negotiations to reach the world's first agreement on plastic pollution ended without agreement.
suy-sah/tym
Comments