• 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
Share on FacebookShare on XwitterShare on Linkedin

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…
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
  • Skype
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky

Join our list

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously

Related Posts

Electric Vehicles (EVs)

Gavin Newsom Is Seething After Congress Repealed California’s Gas Car Ban

May 27, 2025
Energy

Congress Resurrects Fight Against The Climate Cult’s Regulatory Assault

May 27, 2025
Health

No, Climate Change Isn’t Behind Britain’s Mosquito Fears

May 27, 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

  • Gavin Newsom PresserGavin Newsom Is Seething After Congress Repealed California’s Gas Car Ban
    May 27, 2025
    Gov. Newsom is steamed after Congress repealed a Biden EPA waiver letting California ban gas-powered cars and said he'll fight back. […]
  • Capitol Hill DCCongress Resurrects Fight Against The Climate Cult’s Regulatory Assault
    May 27, 2025
    Congress eyes bills to rein in climate overreach, challenge secret science, and expose hypocrisy fueling the elite-driven climate change narrative. […]
  • mosquitoNo, Climate Change Isn’t Behind Britain’s Mosquito Fears
    May 27, 2025
    The Guardian asserts that climate change will make the UK more hospitable to mosquito-borne diseases, ignoring established drivers. […]
  • wind turbine blades landfill‘Green’ Waste Piles Up As Solar Panels And Wind Turbines Pollute Landfills
    May 27, 2025
    Solar and wind waste is piling up with no clear plan for disposal, raising new questions about the cost of going green and the myth of net zero. […]
  • new orleans blackoutMISO Ignored Warnings Before Holiday Blackout Left Blue City In The Dark
    May 27, 2025
    Nearly 100,000 lost power in New Orleans after MISO cut the grid, raising alarm over blackout risk tied to green energy replacing coal and gas. […]
  • protest FFF world on fire‘Doomed From Birth’: How Climate Alarmism Is Stoking An Epidemic Of Youth Anxiety
    May 26, 2025
    Hollywood heirs like Ramona Sarsgaard and Violet Affleck are spiraling into climate panic—fueled by activism, media hype, and elite institutions. […]
  • Biden touting green economyGOP’s Big, Beautiful Bill Would Rescind $500 Billion In Green Energy Handouts
    May 26, 2025
    The House-passed BBB would repeal $500B in green handouts, slash subsidies, and undo key parts of the inaptly named Inflation Reduction Act. […]
  • humpback whale ny coastHow Climate Buzzwords Hijacked The Language To Hide Environmental Harm
    May 26, 2025
    Climate buzzwords like ‘carbon footprint’ and ‘green energy’ mislead the public and mask real environmental damage. […]
  • north sea oil rigTrump Urges UK To Cut Sky-High Bills With More Drilling, Less Renewables
    May 23, 2025
    Trump urged the UK to slash sky-high energy bills by expanding oil and gas drilling, embracing fracking, and ditching costly renewables and imports. […]
  • Ocean waves near pierMeteorologist Slams CNN For Stoking Debunked Fears Of A Collapsing AMOC
    May 23, 2025
    CNN pushes debunked AMOC collapse claims to fuel coastal flooding and economic panic—ignoring data, expert doubts, and real insurance cost drivers. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email either instantly or daily. Check your Junk folder for any verification emails upon subscribing.

Submit a tip

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

Books We Like

very convenient warming

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

Share via
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
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