• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Lawmakers ‘Break Free From Logic’ With Anti-Plastic ‘Climate’ Legislation

by Angela Logomasini
May 27, 2021, 10:21 AM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 5 mins read
A A
5

plastic industryIn an effort to address the so-called “climate crisis,” members of Congress have proposed legislation so extreme that it could destroy the entire U.S. plastics industry, forcing the United States to rely on China and other nations to meet the demand for various plastic products.

For U.S. consumers, that means fewer jobs, higher prices, and the potential for product shortages, including shortages of medical supplies and packaging necessary to protect our food supply.

The bill’s supporters might call this interpretation extreme, but the details speak for themselves. Let’s take a look.

The proposal in question is a relatively short provision buried inside two larger pieces of legislation: The Break-Free from Plastics Act (H.R. 2238), sponsored by Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-CA), and the Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for our Nation’s (CLEAN) Future Act (H.R. 1512), sponsored by Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ).

Both bills would “pause” approval of any new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Air Act permits for plastics manufacturing plants, advanced plastics recycling facilities, and any facility that produces ethylene and propylene “for the purposes of plastics production.”

Ethylene and propylene are the petrochemicals necessary to produce most plastics. The Break Free from Plastics Act would also halt Clean Water Act permits.

The word “pause” is just a polite way of saying “moratorium,” which will effectively undermine the rights of these companies to freely conduct business.

Since industrial facilities cannot operate without Clean Air Act permits, the impact could be severe and would grow in severity every day the moratorium remains in effect, which could be a long time.

Before the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could lift the moratorium, it would have 18 months to conduct, or commission the National Academy of Sciences to conduct, a study on the impact of plastics on the environment, after which it would have to issue new Clean Air Act regulations based on the study findings.

Both bills give the EPA three years to complete these tasks, but given the fact that regulatory agencies are slow-moving and often miss statutorily determined deadlines, it would likely be much longer.

The two proposals focus the moratorium on “new permits,” which means that it might allow the EPA to renew existing permits.

If courts somehow determine that permit renewals would constitute “new permits,” then the legislation would shut down the plastics industry within five years, since permits must be renewed every five years.

Even if these provisions allow renewals, any changes to operations might require new permits—and any new facilities certainly would. Such limitations would likely have crippling effects on the plastics industry at large.

Petrochemical companies would feel the pain as well because they produce ethylene and propylene as a byproduct of oil refining and natural gas processing, much of which is sold for plastics production.

It’s possible that petrochemical companies would not be allowed to get new permits for modifications or expansions if they planned to sell ethylene and propylene for plastics production.

Without those markets for these secondary chemicals, petrochemical industry costs would rise and so would consumers’ energy bills.

Whether the petrochemical industry could find other markets for those chemicals remains to be seen, but if not, much of these valuable chemicals could become waste products.

Meanwhile, the supply of ethylene and propylene for plastics production would dwindle, dealing yet another blow to plastics manufacturing.

By destroying the plastics industry and making fossil fuels more expensive, these policies would cause many U.S. job losses, as the plastics industry employs nearly a million people directly and about half a million indirectly, producing $451 billion in shipments annually, according to the Plastics Industry Association.

But perhaps more troubling is the potential for shortages and high prices for products with critically important applications.

As more and more of our plastics manufacturing shifts overseas to places like China, the impact would affect everything from the food industry and essential medical device manufacturing to untold numbers of consumer products and more.

For example, without sufficient access to plastics for food packaging, the stability of our food supply would be at risk, and food would be more expensive.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) points out on its Plastics Makes it Possible website how essential plastics are in ensuring a safe and long-lasting food supply.

Food packaging of all kinds is vital to preventing contamination of food during transport and marketing, protecting the food from physical damage, and reducing food waste by preserving food for longer periods of time.

Plastics are particularly good at performing these functions and are less expensive than alternatives—metal, glass, and paper—because they require less energy to make and transport.

These attributes explain why plastics have become so pervasive in food packaging, which is why even reduced use will involve major tradeoffs.

And ironically, because plastic packaging is lighter and highly effective in food preservation, plastics have a better environmental profile than alternative products and unpackaged food.

For example, a 2015 study conducted in Europe found that fresh food, such as produce, packaged in plastics has a lighter “environmental footprint” than unpackaged food because there is more food waste without the use of packaging.

ACC explains:

Even though more packaging is being used, less food is being wasted, leading to a lower overall carbon footprint.

The study’s project leader said: “Food packaging can make an important contribution to environmental protection, especially if it is the right packaging for the right application.”

Ironically, the study also concludes that plastic food packaging also produces less “greenhouse gas emissions,” which means the Break Free from Plastics Act and the CLEAN Future Act legislation would undermine their stated goals.

Similarly, if lawmakers passed the moratorium, we would have to rely on foreign sources for essential medical supplies, making our medical needs less secure.

Consider the fact that plastics are used very widely for IV tubing, blood bags, gloves, medical devices, syringes, prosthetic devices, as components in masks, and much more.

Replacing even some of these plastic products would not be an easy task, since alternatives don’t perform as well.

Consider plastic tubing used for intravenous administration of fluids and drugs. This tubing is transparent so hospital staff can easily confirm what fluids are being administered and that they are flowing correctly. It is flexible, does not kink, and is affordable.

What non-plastic material could perform those functions?

Similarly, plastic packaging that keeps medical supplies sterile until opened for use is essential to controlling the spread of diseases in hospital settings.

The plastic containers that hold fluids—including the nation’s blood supply—are also not easily replaced even with glass, which is heavier and has much greater potential for breakage.

If plastic production in the United States were slowed or halted, medical facilities would likely experience shortages of these essential medical supplies, and many people could die as a result.

In that case, medical facilities would have to rely on imported products. If the COVID-19 pandemic taught us anything, it is that we need to be prepared with domestic supplies of such critical items.

Yet even during the best of times, if we cripple our domestic plastics industry, we will make medicine much more expensive and less accessible for many people.

Clearly, these proposals to “break free” from plastics and shut down the industry—even if just for a few years—are irresponsible.

Rational lawmakers need to pay attention and ensure that such provisions don’t pass on their own or get slipped into a larger piece of legislation.

If somehow this foolish proposal did become law, the ramifications would be severe, and many Americans would suffer dearly.

h/t Rúnar O.

Read more at CEI

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…

Popular Posts

Electric Vehicles (EVs)

The ‘Green’ Scam Of The Century: How ‘Renewables’ Increase Fossil Fuel Demands

Oct 23, 2024
News and Opinion

Antarctica Is Colder, Icier Today Than At Any Time In 5,000 Years

Apr 15, 2024
Energy

30-Plus Signs That The Climate Scam Is Collapsing

Apr 09, 2025

Comments 5

  1. Spurwing Plover says:
    4 years ago

    You had to guess it would be the Democrats who would sponsor t his stupid Bill only the Stupid Jackass Party(Liberal Democrats)Would sponsor a stupid law like this

  2. Chaamjamal says:
    4 years ago

    Climate change is a global issue that requires a coordinated global climate action to reduce global fossil fuel emissions. There is no opportunity here for climate heroism of nation states because the nations of the world are connected by trade. Nation by nation emission reductions will be offset by corresponding increases in emissions by their trading partners. Please see
    https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/02/23/renewable-energy-statistics/

  3. Gumnut says:
    4 years ago

    Somewhere in between smothering the World in plastic and legislating it out of existence is a sensible middle ground.

    This is nonsense.

  4. David Lewis says:
    4 years ago

    There is a problem with the article’s title, “Lawmakers Break Free From Logic.” That implies law makers have been using logic.

    My daughter made the comment about the plastic used in electric vehicles. I wonder what their range would be if the manufactures had to replace the plastic with metal. The reality is even if the US stopped making plastic we wouldn’t stop using it. It would be imported from China. That would add to the cost and there could be complications that would create shortages. Financially the company I work for is barely surviving. Our products require heavy duty plastic to provide significant strength. A moderate increase in the cost of plastic would put my company out of business.

  5. Spurwing Plover says:
    4 years ago

    Con-Gress up to being a bunch of total idiots and run by the Stupid Jackass Party(Liberal Democrats)we have traitors and China Sellouts in Con-Gress and they belong in Prison for Treason along with Biden,Obama and both the Clintons

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • COP30 Amazon17 Republican AGs Urge Trump Admin To Skip COP30 Over Green Energy Policies
    Oct 24, 2025
    The attorneys general say attending COP30 would back costly, unreliable wind and solar and risk U.S. energy security. […]
  • severe storm over cityClimate Expert Reveals Latest Scandal Tied To Billion-Dollar Disasters
    Oct 24, 2025
    Climate Central takes over the Billion-Dollar Disasters tabulation, sparking fresh controversy over its methods and motives. […]
  • ocean sun cloudsNew Study Finds 75% Of Rising Ocean Heat Likely Natural, CO2 Not A Factor
    Oct 24, 2025
    Study shows ocean warming driven mostly by natural cycles, not greenhouse gas emissions, challenging mainstream global warming narratives. […]
  • LNG terminal in germanyU.S. And Qatar Push Back On EU’s Climate Mandates That Threaten LNG Exports
    Oct 24, 2025
    U.S. and Qatari officials warn that the EU’s latest climate regulations under CSDDD could endanger Europe’s access to affordable natural gas. […]
  • marines trainingCrazy Hill Op-Ed Demands Generals Respond To Climate Change ‘National Security’ Threat
    Oct 23, 2025
    The Hill warns of climate Armageddon unless U.S. generals join the fight against ‘Mother Nature,’ now deemed a national security threat. […]
  • Shipping port near power plantEurope’s Energy Crisis Shows Net Zero Dogma Comes At A Cost
    Oct 23, 2025
    While China’s rare earth threat exposes U.S. supply chain risks, Europe’s energy crisis shows how net zero policies backfired spectacularly. […]
  • wind farm climate outDemocrats Ditch Climate Messaging As Rising Utility Costs Hit Voters
    Oct 23, 2025
    As Democrats struggle with climate messaging, voters feel the pinch from rising utility bills and the party's costly green energy policies. […]
  • Protest system change not climate changeLead Attorney Admits Real Goal Of Climate Lawsuits: Backdoor Carbon Tax
    Oct 23, 2025
    A top lawyer spearheading climate lawsuits says the quiet part out loud: litigation is a backdoor carbon tax on oil companies and consumers. […]
  • WMO reportHow The World Meteorological Organization Lies To You—Using Your Taxes
    Oct 22, 2025
    The WMO’s 2025 greenhouse gas report hides key data that undercuts the so-called climate 'crisis' narrative—funded by your tax dollars. […]
  • Hurricane generating ocean waves2025 Hurricane Season Is Flopping As Alarmist Predictions Fail
    Oct 22, 2025
    The 2025 hurricane season so far has seen no major U.S. landfalls, exposing alarmists’ failed predictions of catastrophic storms. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Subscribe to receive a digest of daily stories, or get emailed once they're published. Check your Junk/Spam folder for a verification email.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books You May Like

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch

 
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky
Share via
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky