At last week’s hearing of the House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, titled “Beyond the Blue Bin: Forging a Federal Landscape for Recycling Innovation and Economic Growth,” lawmakers and industry representatives discussed how federal policy might support the future of recycling.
To support President Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda, Subcommittee Chairman Gary Palmer emphasized the need to strengthen the U.S. domestic supply chain of critical manufacturing materials and highlighted the importance of improving the nation’s recycling system to help achieve that goal.
AMBR strongly agrees that national investments in our recycling systems are key to reducing reliance on material imports. Unfortunately, the conversation largely centered on scaling up plastic packaging and technologies that are already failing our communities. Once again, industry is trying to redefine “innovation” to mean more plastic, more false recycling solutions, and more systems that externalize environmental and financial costs—particularly onto frontline communities, local governments, and residents.
Flexible & Film Plastic Packaging
The hearing included repeated endorsements of flexible and film plastic packaging—pouches, wrappers, bags, etc.
Flexible packaging is the fastest-growing type of plastic packaging and one of the least recyclable materials on the market. When these materials end up in the curbside recycling bin, they are prohibitively costly to sort, contaminate other material streams, and clog sorting equipment. Even if they could be collected and sorted, there are no viable end markets at scale for the material.
Yet companies continue to promote flexible packaging because it’s cheap to produce and light to ship—ignoring the costs passed downstream.
Chemical Recycling Is Not a Solution
The hearing was also an opportunity for industry to, yet again, claim “chemical recycling” as the innovative solution to solving the plastic pollution problem and our nation’s low recycling rates–especially for flexible and film packaging. This included the request for Congress to reclassify “chemical recycling” technologies as “manufacturing” rather than regulating the facilities under solid waste laws. This change would shield chemical recycling from critical environmental oversight and make it easier for producers to claim their materials are “recyclable,” regardless of actual outcomes.
The reality is that “chemical recycling” technologies, such as pyrolysis and gasification, are not new innovations, and they are not recycling. These processes are energy-intensive, produce toxic air pollution and hazardous byproducts, and often result in fuels or chemical feedstocks—not new plastic. Additionally, the majority of “chemical recycling” facilities are located in low-income and BIPOC communities, where they are often co-located with existing petrochemical facilities, increasing cumulative impacts.
Stop the Greenwashing – Fund What Actually Works
If Congress is serious about addressing the plastic crisis and creating real economic opportunity through recycling, it must stop propping up false solutions like chemical recycling and instead invest in systems that actually reduce waste and support people and communities.
Scale Reuse and Refill Systems
The most effective way to reduce plastic pollution is to stop producing so much of it in the first place. Federal policy should prioritize investments in reuse and refill infrastructure. These systems reduce demand for single-use packaging, slash upstream emissions, and create local green jobs.
Ensure Equitable Access to Recycling to Boost Recycling Rates
Every household deserves access to high-quality, affordable recycling services. Congress should support programs that expand residential recycling access in underserved communities, improve collection for multifamily housing, and support public education to reduce contamination and increase participation.
Develop Strong Domestic End Markets
Federal investment should prioritize building end markets that are local, transparent, and accountable—ones that turn recyclable materials back into new products, not waste or fuel. That means supporting glass-to-glass, paper-to-paper, and aluminum recycling systems that create steady demand and good jobs within regional economies. Responsible end markets must exclude toxic technologies like chemical recycling, reject misleading accounting practices like mass balance, and prioritize environmental health, labor protections, and public oversight.
Hold Producers Accountable Through EPR for Packaging and Paper
Yes, the U.S. recycling system needs investment—but not to accommodate the most wasteful and toxic materials. We need to stop chasing false solutions and start funding real ones. That means investing in strategies that reduce waste at the source, expand reuse and refill systems, and redesign packaging to be truly recyclable. Recycling infrastructure should focus on improving access and performance for materials that can be recycled—such as aluminum, paper, cardboard, and glass—not on propping up industries that profit from pollution.
Congress should pass Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation for packaging and paper that centers people and the planet — not corporate interest. Any EPR program must include enforceable and meaningful waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and post-consumer recycled content targets. Producers should pay for the full costs of managing their packaging waste, but in ways that elevate service quality, worker safety, and environmental outcomes—not just their bottom line.