Why California is suing ExxonMobil for ‘falsely promoting’ plastic recycling

California is going after ExxonMobil in what it calls a “campaign of deception” about plastic recycling.

The Golden State filed a lawsuit against the oil giant this week, alleging that it has misled consumers for years by marketing recycled plastic as a way to prevent plastic pollution. Plastic is difficult and expensive to recycle, and very little of it is ever recycled, but the industry has marketed recycling as a potential solution.

That’s why California wants to hold ExxonMobil accountable for the role it says the company played in filling landfills and waterways with plastic. Plastics are made from fossil fuels, and California says ExxonMobil is the largest producer of single-use plastic polymers.

ExxonMobil defended itself in an emailed response The Vergehe wrote: “California officials have known for decades that their recycling system is not working. They failed to do something, and now they want to blame others. Instead of suing us, they could have worked with us to fix this problem and stop plastics from landfills.”

The Verge spoke with California Attorney General Rob Bonta about plastic recycling and the allegations against California in the landmark case.

This interview has been slightly edited for length and clarity.

I think most people my age grew up thinking that recycling plastic is a good thing. Why should you follow ExxonMobil over renewables?

It’s hard to face the truth, especially since ExxonMobil and others have been so successful at perpetuating lies.

A 14-year-old boy I met yesterday is frustrated because he chooses all the plastic items carefully to make sure they have darts and then makes sure that after using them, he puts them away carefully. and actively in the green container for recycling – that 95 percent of the time, that item was not recycled. Instead, it went into a landfill, into the environment, or was incinerated. So he had a hard time, and I’m sure he’s not alone, and others will have the same difficulty finding the real truth.

It is very important for us, in my opinion, to face the problems. You need to face problems to fix them. One of them is the huge problem caused by ExxonMobil. They perpetuated the myth of renaissance. They have engaged in a decade-long campaign of deception in which they have tried to convince the public that recycling plastics, including single-use plastics, is sustainable if not sustainable. When they know that only five percent is recycled [in the US].

How could they say that if they knew it wasn’t true? Well, because it increases their profit. It makes people buy more. If people buy plastics and believe that no matter how much they use, how often they use it, if they live a life of throwing things away, they are still good stewards of the environment because everything can be reused and will be used again. somewhere in someone’s house like a plastic product – they are more likely to buy more. And that’s exactly what happened.

Your office says it has found “unprecedented documents” as part of its investigation into the role oil companies play in causing plastic pollution. Can you provide examples of your findings? Did anything surprise you?

Some of the new documents that have never been seen before are this type of green washing by ExxonMobil called Advanced recycling.

The documents reveal that this new, latest, so-called massive form of recycling is neither advanced nor recyclable. Old technology. They heat the plastic to melt it into its smallest components, and that was used before Exxon and Mobil merged. Each one tried it and then decided not to continue with it.

And the process doesn’t actually recycle plastic into another plastic, which is what people think they mean when their plastic is recycled. But 92 percent of that is advanced recycling that turns plastic waste into transportation fuel and other chemicals and resins and building materials. It is the fuel for your car, the fuel for your boat, the fuel for your plane. It is burned once and released into the air, into the environment. That is not recycling.

What will California gain by winning this case?

Right now, the damage to California from ExxonMobil’s lies and deception and the myth of recycling is trillions of dollars a year in taxpayer-funded cleanups and damages in terms of the plastic pollution problem we face.

Here are the things we can get if we win this case, and we believe we will. We will receive an order saying that ExxonMobil can no longer lie and can no longer perpetuate the myth of renewables. That they need to tell the truth going forward — they can’t say things can be recycled when they can’t.

We will also have a reduction fund, which will be funded by billions of dollars from ExxonMobil. It will pay for the ongoing plastic pollution in California that is harming our people, our environment, our natural resources. It will pay for a recycling education campaign so that people learn that recycling is only 5 percent of plastic waste, 95 percent is not recycled. It can also be used to further research microplastics, which are invisible plastic particles in our bodies, air, food, water, and to see what the human impact of that is.

We will also receive disgorgement, which means that any profits wrongly protected by ExxonMobil due to its lies will have to be answered. And we have certain civil penalties and certain fees that we want.

He is the first Filipino American attorney general in California, the state with the most FilAms in the US. I was staying Long Beach, California, where there is a large Southeast Asian population and a lot of air pollution from all the shipping and truck traffic around the port in that place. Is this ever personal to you – the impact of pollution from oil and gas operations unlike immigrant communities?

My oldest daughter, when she was in high school, came up to me and said, “Dad, is this weird?” He said, “My friends and I have been talking, and we decided that we don’t want to have children because we don’t want to bring new life to this dying planet.” And I will always remember that. That was a gut.

That really got me thinking. It made me worry. It kept me up at night. It made me wonder if we were at the stage of fulfilling our duty as elected officials, to pass on to the next generation a better society and world than what we had. I thought we might be behind schedule and perhaps at risk of failure when it comes to protecting our climate and ensuring there is a planet for tomorrow. So, that’s personal.

Our lived experiences, our values, drive us. But we will also always fulfill our duty, our ethical obligations, and ensure that we bring strong and sound cases, based on facts and legality. It is consistent with my values, my lived experience. The law and the facts all point in the same direction in this case.