Greenpeace has released a new analysis revealing that five of the world’s largest oil and chemical companies, who are part of the Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW), have produced over 1,000 times more plastic than the waste they have managed to eliminate. These companies—ExxonMobil, Dow, Shell, TotalEnergies, and ChevronPhillips—are among the leading contributors to global plastic pollution.
Formed in 2019, the AEPW promised to divert 15 million tons of plastic waste from entering the environment by 2023, primarily through enhanced recycling and waste management initiatives. However, according to Greenpeace’s findings, the five companies produced a staggering 132 million tons of plastic in just five years, vastly outpacing their efforts to clean up waste, which totaled only 118,500 tons.
The Stark Reality of Plastic Production vs. Waste Management
The Greenpeace report, which relies on data from Wood Mackenzie, focuses on polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP)—two widely used types of plastic. These plastics are found in everyday products such as food packaging, bottles, and bags. The 118,500 tons of waste diverted by AEPW pales in comparison to the 132 million tons of new plastic produced during the same period, demonstrating a massive discrepancy in the scale of production versus waste management. Additionally, this analysis excludes other commonly used plastics like polystyrene, which would likely make the disparity even more significant.
In fact, the original target set by the AEPW of 15 million tons of diverted plastic waste was quietly abandoned as “too ambitious,” signaling a disconnect between the stated goals of the initiative and the reality of its achievements.
Greenpeace Accuses AEPW of Greenwashing
Greenpeace has sharply criticized the AEPW’s efforts, calling them a prime example of greenwashing. Will McCallum of Greenpeace UK likened the alliance’s actions to trying to “scoop up water with a teaspoon while leaving the tap running,” arguing that the real solution lies in drastically reducing plastic production. The environmental group suggests that these companies are using the AEPW as a public relations strategy rather than genuinely addressing the plastic crisis.
Environmental activist Bill McKibben echoed these concerns, describing the AEPW’s efforts as a textbook case of misleading the public about the true impact of plastic production and recycling. According to McKibben, the oil and gas sector, which plays a central role in plastic manufacturing, has long concealed the harmful effects of excessive plastic production while pretending to take steps toward sustainability.
AEPW Defends Its Efforts Amid Criticism
In response to Greenpeace’s allegations, a spokesperson for the AEPW defended the alliance, claiming that its work focuses on accelerating innovation and supporting scalable solutions to reduce plastic waste. However, the alliance has faced significant scrutiny for its lobbying efforts, particularly during ongoing United Nations negotiations aimed at creating a global treaty to combat plastic pollution.
The AEPW has lobbied against global caps on plastic production, which many environmental organizations argue are essential to halting the plastic crisis. Recently, the UK, under its Labour government, called for the inclusion of production reduction targets in the treaty, a view now supported by the United States under President Biden. The UN talks are nearing a conclusion, and the treaty is expected to address issues across the entire plastic lifecycle, from production to disposal.
Experts Stress the Need for Reduced Plastic Production
Environmental experts agree that a meaningful reduction in plastic pollution can only occur by addressing the root cause: excessive plastic production. Professor Steve Fletcher of the University of Portsmouth’s Revolution Plastics Institute emphasized that reducing the production of primary plastic, also known as “virgin plastic,” is critical. Without tackling this issue, other efforts, such as recycling, will have little impact on the overall plastic crisis.
The AEPW was formed after the American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, sought to shift the narrative around plastic waste. The group’s lobbying efforts have been aimed at promoting long-term solutions like chemical recycling, while downplaying the need for stricter regulations on plastic production.
Plastic Production Continues to Escalate Globally
Plastic production continues to surge worldwide, with global output more than doubling between 2000 and 2019. By 2019, the world produced 460 million tons of plastic, of which only 9% was recycled, according to an OECD report. Despite the efforts of organizations like the AEPW, plastic waste continues to accumulate, raising concerns about the effectiveness of current strategies to mitigate the environmental impact.
While the AEPW promotes its efforts to create a circular economy and increase recycling, critics argue that these measures are insufficient without curbing plastic production at its source. Reducing plastic production must become a central part of the global conversation on how to address the growing plastic waste crisis.
What Lies Ahead: Will the Industry Shift Its Approach?
As negotiations for a global plastic treaty approach their conclusion, the question remains whether plastic production should be capped. While the AEPW and its supporters argue that such measures are unnecessary, many governments and environmental groups believe they are essential for tackling the crisis effectively.
The outcome of these discussions will determine whether the plastic industry adapts its strategies to meet the urgent need for change, or whether it will continue to prioritize production and recycling efforts without addressing the scale of the problem.
What are your thoughts on how the plastic pollution crisis should be tackled? Do you think capping production is the right solution, or should the focus remain on improving recycling? Share your opinions in the comments below!
