Converting plastic waste into fuel is no longer a laboratory novelty. Over the past five years, a handful of companies and pilot plants have built commercial-scale operations that heat mixed plastic waste in low- or no-oxygen conditions (a process called pyrolysis) to produce oils and gases that can be refined into diesel, gasoline or used as chemical feedstock. Proponents call this “advanced” or “chemical” recycling and say it helps treat plastics that mechanical recycling cannot handle. Critics call it a way to burn plastics while pretending to recycle them. Both sides point to real examples and studies — which means the answer is not simply “yes” or “no,” but a careful, evidence-based balance. According to Lux Research, pyrolysis capacity announcements surged in 2024, but actual production often lagged behind promises.
How the Process Works and Why It Divides Experts
Pyrolysis breaks long plastic polymers into smaller hydrocarbons by heating the material without oxygen. Different reactor designs, temperatures, catalysts and pre-treatment steps change the mix of outputs: light gas, liquid “pyrolysis oil,” and a solid char. The liquid fraction can be refined into fuels or fed back into petrochemical plants to make new plastics; the gases can power the process or be captured. The technical literature shows the basic chemistry is well understood, but scaling it in the real world is complex — contamination, variable feedstocks, energy use and by-products matter a lot. A broad review of pyrolysis studies lays out those technical trade-offs and the many reactor types now in use.
That technical complexity is one reason life-cycle assessments (LCAs) reach different conclusions. Some peer-reviewed LCAs find that pyrolysis can cut greenhouse gas emissions compared with landfilling or incineration, and may approach the footprint of mechanical recycling when the oil replaces virgin fossil feedstocks — but those outcomes depend on local energy sources, whether by-products are valorised, the level of plastic contamination, and how the outputs are used. A study published in Science of the Total Environment found that pyrolysis of mixed plastic waste can show favourable climate outcomes in some scenarios, but mechanical recycling remains preferable where feasible. Similarly, a 2023 review by the European Joint Research Centre emphasised that mechanical recycling should be prioritised wherever possible, and that chemical recycling (including pyrolysis) should play a role only for plastics that cannot be mechanically recycled.
Projects, Claims — and Real Controversies
There are many real-world pilots and commercial projects to point to. Major industry players and startups have poured money into advanced recycling. ExxonMobil, for example, has invested in expanding advanced recycling capacity in Texas; Agilyx and other firms have signed partnerships to source and process difficult plastic waste. These investments show the sector is moving beyond lab benches. A Reuters report described Exxon’s multi-hundred-million-dollar expansion plans announced in late 2024.
But real projects have also revealed practical problems and produced community pushback. In the United States, media coverage documented delays in getting plants running, stockpiles of unsorted plastic accumulating at sites, and local protests over air pollution risks from a new pyrolysis facility, illustrating that the promise of tidy “circular” solutions can collide with on-the-ground realities. InsideClimate reported on plastic waste piling up at facilities that lacked permits, and the San Francisco Chronicle covered community protests and permit disputes around a Bay Area plant using microwave-powered pyrolysis.
Small-scale and community projects also exist. In Mexico, an enterprise called Petgas built a pyrolysis unit that converts collected plastics into diesel and gasoline; the team uses the fuel locally and runs collection drives — a concrete example of local problem-solving, though experts told the Associated Press the approach is more of a temporary relief than a long-term systemic fix.
The scientific and NGO literature has not been uniformly kind. Environmental campaigners and some researchers argue that chemical recycling can become a form of greenwashing if companies use optimistic LCA assumptions, fail to account for toxic additives and emissions, or allow outputs to be burned rather than turned into new plastics, which returns carbon to the atmosphere rather than closing material loops. IPEN’s 2023 briefing and other critical reports label chemical recycling as a “dangerous deception” when it’s promoted as a silver-bullet recycling solution.
What the Evidence Recommends — and What You Can Do Next
The balance of evidence and expert advice suggests three clear points for policymakers, companies, and citizens.
Mechanical recycling should remain the priority whenever plastics are clean and sorted enough to be reprocessed into similar-quality products. It almost always has a lower footprint and fewer toxic chemical risks. A European technical review and multiple LCAs support this conclusion.
For mixed, contaminated, or multilayer plastics that are unsuitable for mechanical recycling, chemical recycling — including pyrolysis — can play a pragmatic role in reducing landfilling and incineration. That role, however, must be tightly regulated: independent LCAs, transparent operating data, strict emission controls, and requirements that output oils displace virgin feedstocks (rather than being burned for energy) are essential. Companies such as Plastic Energy publish LCAs and operational claims that point to greenhouse-gas savings in some configurations; these claims require independent verification and public reporting to be credible.
Chemical recycling should also not serve as an excuse to continue producing limitless single-use plastics. Global policy bodies such as UNEP stress that the real priority is reducing production, designing safer plastics (avoiding problematic additives), and improving waste-collection infrastructure — measures that minimise the need for end-of-life fixes. A 2023 UNEP technical review on chemicals in plastics highlights the health and environmental risks posed by chemical additives across the life cycle and supports policies that drastically reduce problematic plastics at the source.
Practical Advice for Different Audiences
For governments and regulators: require transparent, third-party LCAs before granting permits; mandate continuous emissions monitoring and public reports; set rules that favour reuse and mechanical recycling first; and ensure that chemical recycling plants have plans for residuals and worker safety. Evidence from community opposition to new plants shows that permitting without public engagement can fail socially even when technology passes initial screening.
For companies and investors: push for verified claims. Industry LCAs are useful, but investors and buyers should ask for independent, peer-reviewed assessments and for proof that recovered oils will substitute virgin fossil feedstocks, not simply be burned, and that performance is robust under real feedstock variability. Reports from Lux Research and other analysts warn that announced capacity often outstrips operational reality, so cautious underwriting and staged scaling are prudent.
For communities and civil society: demand transparent information about emissions, storage of feedstock, and emergency plans. The stories from Houston and California show the consequences when plastic piles and permitting gaps meet neighbourhoods. Engage regulatory bodies early and insist on independent monitoring data.
For everyday consumers: the most effective actions remain reducing single-use plastic, choosing products with clear reuse or mechanical-recycling pathways, and supporting policies that expand collection and sorting infrastructure. Small recycling wins matter, but systemic reduction of plastic production is the most climate- and health-positive route. UNEP’s road map for cutting plastic pollution highlights production limits and reuse systems as primary levers.
Conclusion
So — is converting plastic into fuel real recycling or greenwashing? Short answer: it can be both. The technology is real and can have environmental benefits in carefully defined circumstances, especially for plastics that mechanical recycling cannot handle. But without strict oversight, transparent data, independent verification and a hierarchy that prioritizes reduction and mechanical recycling, chemical recycling risks becoming a convenient label that lets companies continue “business as usual.” The long view that scientists and international agencies recommend is clear: invest first in cutting production and improving collection and mechanical recycling; allow chemical routes where they demonstrably reduce harm and replace virgin feedstocks; and require public, independent evidence for every plant and corporate claim. That approach keeps the promise of circularity honest and protects communities and the climate.
