Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Chips are the new oil. There are no reserves.

News Feed
Wednesday, September 28, 2022

Getty Images/iStockphoto Computer chips are ubiquitous, but they’re only made in a few places. In a single day, we interact with hundreds of computer chips, most no larger than a penny. These tiny circuits power everything from smartphones and laptops to medical devices and electric vehicles, and they’re largely responsible for our increasingly computerized lives. But in recent months, the world’s dependence on these chips has also put them at the center of mounting tensions between the United States and mainland China over Taiwan. Taiwan is located just 100 miles from China’s eastern coast, and it produces the vast majority of the advanced chips used in today’s electronics. The island is a democracy with its own government, and is home to more than 20 million people. Officials in Beijing, however, claim Taiwan as part of China and have repeatedly threatened to invade and “reunify” the island with the mainland. The US does not officially recognize Taiwan’s independence, though President Joe Biden has suggested that he would send American troops to defend the island against an invasion. As a result, there’s fear that a blockade around Taiwan could create a humanitarian and trade crisis, ultimately cutting off the world’s access to tons of critical technology. “If Taiwan chipmaking were to be knocked offline, there wouldn’t be enough capacity anywhere else in the world to make up for the loss,” explains Chris Miller, an international history professor at Tufts and the author of Chip War. “Even simple chips will become difficult to access, just because our demand outstrips supply.” The world is so reliant on chips produced by Taiwan that they’ve become the new oil, according to Miller. Recent military exercises along the Taiwan Strait, the critical waterway that separates Taiwan and mainland China, have raised the possibility that China might eventually block exports out of the island, which would disrupt all sorts of technology production, though some experts say there are plenty of reasons to think that a war won’t actually happen. The chair of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, which makes nearly all of the world’s most advanced chips, has already warned that a war would leave its factories “not operable.” The US is trying to get a few steps ahead of this scenario. Earlier this summer, Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act, a massive package that invests tens of billions of dollars to build new semiconductor factories across the US. Other countries with a history of chip manufacturing, including South Korea, Japan, and some European Union member states, have started scaling up their production capacity, too. An Apple supplier even said in February that it would start using semiconductors made in India, which is also developing its own chip industry. Still, Miller argues that these efforts won’t be enough to dull the impact of a war — a war the US and Taiwan aren’t guaranteed to win. As the past few years have painfully demonstrated, depending on a single region for critical supplies can backfire. Amid the war in Ukraine, Russia has cut off much of Europe’s access to gas, creating an energy crisis that has forced countries to restart coal plants and abandon their renewable energy goals. In the early weeks of the Covid-19 pandemic, China — which was home to half of the world’s mask manufacturing capacity — limited exports of medical equipment. And when the vaccine was first rolled out, the US and other rich nations prioritized inoculating their own citizens before sending supplies to other countries. As Russia’s war in Ukraine continues, the world is slowly transitioning away from oil. But the same isn’t true for chips, which will only become more critical as new technologies become more popular and require even more computing power. Electric vehicles, for example, require twice the number of chips used by traditional internal combustion vehicles, and the rise of 5G — the technology that could make remote surgeries and self-driving cars a reality — will create a surge in demand for semiconductors, too. That means the stakes are only getting higher. Recode spoke with Miller recently about the growing importance of chips in global politics. This conversation has been edited for clarity and length. Rebecca Heilweil You argue that chips are the new oil. How ubiquitous are chips today, and to what extent do we depend on them in our daily lives? Chris Miller Almost anything with an on-off switch today has a chip inside. That’s true not only for things like smartphones or computers, but also for dishwashers and microwaves and cars. As we put more computing power in all sorts of devices, that requires more chips to convert signals from the real world into digits that can be processed and remembered. The typical person in the US will end up touching several hundred chips a day. The typical person hardly ever sees a chip in their entire life unless they take apart a computer, but the reality is we touch them and rely on them more than ever before. Rebecca Heilweil The computer chip was invented in the US. Taiwan now manufactures much of the world’s semiconductors and almost all of the advanced chips that governments are most interested in. How did that happen? Chris Miller Over the course of the past 50 years, but especially over the past couple of decades, the semiconductor supply chain has gotten much more specialized. So when the first chips were made by Texas Instruments, for example, or Fairchild Semiconductor in Silicon Valley, these companies did almost everything in-house. They designed chips. They produced them. They produced the machines that were needed to design chips. As chips have gotten more complex — and as the engineering needed to produce ever more semiconductors has become more specialized — you had firms emerge that focus on a specific part of the production process. Japanese firms, for example, play a major role in chemicals. US firms are particularly influential in the design of chips, as well as the production of machine tools that produce chips. Taiwan has specialized in the manufacturing of chips themselves. Companies will take a design and send it to a Taiwanese firm for production. Contract manufacturing is not unique to chips, but several decades ago, the biggest Taiwanese chipmaker, TSMC, realized that there was a potentially huge market for contract and manufacturing services. It began investing very, very heavily in trying to attract customers from Silicon Valley and offered to produce chips for them. That combination of scale investment in R&D has proven just impossible to compete with. Rebecca Heilweil So how does that play into the risks regarding China and the world’s supply of chips? Chris Miller Today, Taiwan produces, depending on how you calculate, 90 percent of processor chips. In aggregate, Taiwan is one of the biggest producers of chips in the world, so companies like Apple, for example, rely fundamentally on TSMC to produce the chips that power iPhones, iPads, or PCs because no one else can produce the chips that they need. It’s not as though they have second sources in most cases. It’s TSMC or else, which means that they’re highly reliant on peace in the Taiwan Strait. Over the past couple of years, as the military balance has shifted really dramatically in China’s direction, I think the assumption of peace going forward is being tested. The entire world economy would be dramatically hit if China were to attack Taiwan for a whole number of reasons, chips being just one of them. It’s easy to look at the biggest customers of TSMC and say the companies are most exposed — and maybe that’s true. But whether it’s autos or aviation or even chips in a dishwasher or microwave, many of these are also produced in Taiwan. Rebecca Heilweil The recent CHIPS and Science package allocates tens of billions of dollars to produce more chips in the US partly because of the risks you’re talking about with China. Will that be enough for an American chip comeback? Chris Miller It’s certainly going to have an impact in terms of getting more leading-edge production of the most advanced processor memory chips in the US. But it’s not nearly enough to dramatically reduce our reliance on Taiwan. Part of the reason why there’s more concern today — justifiably — is that unlike in prior decades, it’s now much less clear who would win a war on the Taiwan Strait. Therefore, we’re now much less certain than we were in the past that China wouldn’t attack because it’d be too costly for China to do so. Now, that’s an open question. Rebecca Heilweil Is this risk set to get worse because of the rise of 5G and electric vehicles and other emerging technology? The world is going to need more chips in the coming years and decades. Chris Miller Our reliance on Taiwan is not going to decrease. It will be a little bit less than it otherwise would have been thanks to the CHIPS Act, but the reality is we’re going to be dependent on Taiwan. The Chinese government is pouring many tens of billions of dollars — far more than CHIPS Act funding — into its own chip industry. Although the Chinese remain far behind the leading edge in terms of the technological level of chips they can produce, they’re going to vastly increase the capacity in producing what’s called lagging-edge chips: the types of chips you might find in a car or a consumer device. We’re going to continue to be reliant on chips from Taiwan, but also there’s a risk that we might rely more on chips from China in the future, too. Rebecca Heilweil Chipmaking isn’t exactly the most environmentally friendly production process. How should we be thinking about the environmental impacts of chip manufacturing, especially as companies try to scale up? Chris Miller One of the factors that led to the shifting of chipmaking offshore of the US was actually that the US imposed stricter environmental rules over time. There are a lot of really toxic chemicals that you use in chipmaking, and mitigating that is expensive. The bigger challenge is electricity and water consumption, because chipmaking requires a ton of both. On top of that, the more chips you have, the more devices you have that require electricity as well. Rebecca Heilweil For decades, we’ve seen chips getting more advanced. Is Moore’s Law — loosely, the idea that transistors’ chips will keep getting smaller and smaller, which allows chips to become more and more powerful over time — coming to an end? And what would that mean for the future of tech? Chris Miller What we can say is that Moore’s Law faces cost pressures that it hasn’t faced in a long time. It’s got at least a half-decade, probably a decade, to run in terms of further transistors shrinkage before we hit real, potential physical limits as to how small transistors can get. But then in terms of how much computing power you can get out of the individual piece of silicon, there are things you can do besides shrinking transistors to get more computing. There are all sorts of innovations in how you package chips together that will make them faster and more energy intensive, without necessarily relying solely on transistor shrinkage. Right now, there are so many people who have built up their careers and expertise around how to make silicon chips work really, really well. There are a couple of places where you could say there’s change happening. The big cloud computing firms like Microsoft, Amazon, and Google are all designing their own chips now, which they hadn’t previously done. Because so much of computing today is hosted on Amazon’s or Google’s cloud, the reality is that now everyone is becoming a user in some way of Amazon chips or Google chips. The second shift that’s underway is electric vehicles. If you look at a Tesla, for example, they’ve got a lot of chips in the car and a lot of complicated, cutting-edge chips. We’re gonna see more and more cars with more and more cutting-edge chips, doing more and more things in the future. Rebecca Heilweil We keep hearing about semiconductors and technology in the news. What should people understand about this industry? Chris Miller Making chips is an extraordinary manufacturing process that requires lots and lots of really complicated machine tools to actually move atoms around in a way that lays out a billion or ten billion transistors on a chip. Most of us don’t think enough about the materiality of the manufacturing behind the digital world. Some of the tooling here is really, really extraordinary and doesn’t fit into our mental model of how the digital world works. But in fact, the digital world works only because we’ve got this extraordinary control over the material world, at least as it relates to silica. This story was first published in the Recode newsletter. Sign up here so you don’t miss the next one!

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Baytown plant with troubled track record could receive up to $332 million from federal government to lower emissions

Federal regulators found at least 25 air quality violations at the ExxonMobil Baytown Olefins Plant over the last five years. However, the facility could receive millions in federal funding as part of a national decarbonization initiative.

This Friday, Oct. 13, 2017, photo taken from upper Galveston Bay shows the Exxon Mobil Baytown refinery and chemical plant in Baytown, Texas.A Baytown power plant with a track record of federal air quality violations could get up to $332 million from the U.S. Department of Energy as part of a national decarbonization initiative. On Monday, the U.S. Department of Energy announced $6 billion in funding for 33 decarbonization projects across the country — including six projects specifically in Texas. One of those projects could grant up to $331.9 million to the ExxonMobil Baytown Olefins Plant to “enable the use of hydrogen in place of natural gas” for ethylene production, with the goal of cutting down the plant’s total emissions by more than half. However, environmental advocacy groups say they’re skeptical. Luke Metzger, the executive director of Environment Texas, said the hydrogen that Exxon would use would likely be produced using natural gas, which would add to the plant’s omissions and nullify the benefits of the project. “Ultimately, it could be a wash in terms of the emissions impact and further delaying the transition towards clean, renewable energy,” Metzger said. “This hydrogen scheme, I worry, is not actually going to be a net positive for public health or the environment.” Over the last few years, the Baytown plant has repeatedly violated federal standards. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s website, several “high priority” air quality violations were found during at least 12 separate inspections before May 2022 — a total of 25 violations have been found over the last five years. ExxonMobil operates a multi-facility complex in Baytown comprised of the olefins plant, along with a chemical plant and refinery. In total, the ExxonMobil complex has seen at least 60 federal violations over the last five years and has been penalized at least $442,451 for significant violations, according to the EPA. Additionally, at least four workers were injured in an explosion at the ExxonMobil refinery in 2021, which resulted in a $10 million lawsuit against the company. In 2019, more than 30 people were injured in another explosion at the refinery. Environment Texas was among a trio of environmental nonprofits that sued ExxonMobil back in 2010 for violating the EPA’s Clean Air Act for multiple years. The courts kicked the case around for more than a decade, but ultimately ruled against Exxon in March 2021, hitting the company with more than $14 million in fines — a ruling that Exxon is currently appealing. Both ExxonMobil and the U.S. Department of Energy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Deer Park Shell chemical plant flaring that started Thursday still active, could last days longer

Flaring during an emergency is normally a good sign that emergency systems are working as they should, and burning materials that would otherwise be released into the community, but flaring incidents still have physical and mental impacts on nearby communities, County Judge Lina Hidalgo said.

Gregory Bull/APFILE: Thursday, Aug. 31, 2017, a flame burns at the Shell Deer Park oil refinery in Deer Park, Texas.Flaring at a Shell chemical plant in Deer Park that started after a power outage around 3:45 p.m. Thursday was still going on Monday morning, and could last days longer, according to the Deer Park Office of Emergency Management. In a statement Friday, Shell said it’s taking steps to minimize any noise, light or smoke associated with the flaring activity that’s expected to last until power is fully restored. An Environmental Duty Representative at Shell Deer Park said there is no threat to community members or industry neighbors. “As you know, the flares play a key role in keeping our planet safe,” according to Shell. “Once flared, the hydrocarbon has been safely treated and potential emissions have been reduced by at least 98 percent. We want to apologize for any inconveniences this activity may cause.” “The flares are currently very high in the air, which means there is low risk for contaminants to reach the community,” County Judge Lina Hidalgo said in a statement.” Hidalgo said the Harris County Office of Emergency Management and Pollution Control are continuing to monitor the situation, despite having unanswered questions surrounding it. “Unfortunately, Harris County Pollution Control has not received specific answers as to which chemicals are involved in the incident or why the flaring will last so long,” Hidalgo said. “Although that disclosure is not required by state law, Shell owes it to our community to let our regulatory department know which chemicals are being released.”   Flaring during an emergency is normally a good sign that emergency systems are working as they should, and burning materials that would otherwise be released into the community, but flaring incidents still have physical and mental impacts on nearby communities, she said. “We also don’t want to accept incidents like this as ‘business as usual,” Hidalgo said. “We are doing everything in our power to understand what the potential impact to the community might be.”

Yellowstone fish still under scrutiny months after derailment

Nine months after a train accident spilled asphalt into the Yellowstone River, officials debate the safety of its fish for consumption.Brett French reports for The Billings Gazette.In short:State officials are evaluating the safety of consuming fish from a section of the Yellowstone River affected by a train derailment that released asphalt.Various fish species tested showed high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), raising health concerns.Efforts are underway to further assess the spread of PAHs and decide on the continuation of the fish consumption advisory.Key quote:“The agencies are developing a plan for additional sampling in the spring to help delineate the extent of PAHs for human consumption concerns and confirm whether continuing the advisory is warranted.”— Moira Davin, public relations specialist for the Montana Department of Environmental QualityWhy this matters:Train derailments can be toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms, leading to reduced populations or even local extinctions. The contamination of water and soil can affect the entire food chain. Smaller species that are directly exposed to pollutants can be consumed by larger predators, causing bioaccumulation of hazardous substances in wildlife. Public health can also be affected, as residents of East Palestine found after a Norfolk Southern train derailed carrying an array of toxic chemicals.

Nine months after a train accident spilled asphalt into the Yellowstone River, officials debate the safety of its fish for consumption.Brett French reports for The Billings Gazette.In short:State officials are evaluating the safety of consuming fish from a section of the Yellowstone River affected by a train derailment that released asphalt.Various fish species tested showed high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), raising health concerns.Efforts are underway to further assess the spread of PAHs and decide on the continuation of the fish consumption advisory.Key quote:“The agencies are developing a plan for additional sampling in the spring to help delineate the extent of PAHs for human consumption concerns and confirm whether continuing the advisory is warranted.”— Moira Davin, public relations specialist for the Montana Department of Environmental QualityWhy this matters:Train derailments can be toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms, leading to reduced populations or even local extinctions. The contamination of water and soil can affect the entire food chain. Smaller species that are directly exposed to pollutants can be consumed by larger predators, causing bioaccumulation of hazardous substances in wildlife. Public health can also be affected, as residents of East Palestine found after a Norfolk Southern train derailed carrying an array of toxic chemicals.

Biden's $6 billion industrial carbon offensive

The Energy Department plans to award up to $6 billion across 33 projects to wring carbon dioxide from heavy industries like metals, chemicals, and cement.Why it matters: It's the "single largest industrial decarbonization investment in American history," DOE boss Jennifer Granholm told reporters.Industrial processes create roughly a fourth of U.S. CO2 emissions — and even close to a third — depending on how you slice the national pie.It's also the Biden administration's latest in a multi-pronged effort to tame domestic carbon emissions.State of play: The projects are funded largely through the Democrats' 2022 climate law, with some cash from the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law, too.They would together provide yearly emissions cuts that match the annual CO2 output of 3 million gasoline-powered cars, the agency estimates.It's a federal cost-share with companies, so officials see over $20 billion in total investment.Monday's announcement also touts efforts to use union labor and tackle environmental justice — both key Democratic policy priorities.Data: Rhodium Group; Chart: Axios VisualsThe big picture: Making heavy industries climate-friendly is a tough nut to crack, as these sectors often need massive energy inputs and extremely high heat. And unlike the electricity system, a similarly large CO2 source, solutions are often lacking at commercial scale.Zoom in: Examples of the 33 projects include...Converting a Constellium aluminum plant in West Virginia to use furnaces that can run on cleaner fuels including hydrogen.Installing a CO2 capture and storage system at a Heidelberg Materials cement plant in Indiana.Slashing process heat emissions from Kraft Heinz facilities in nine states by using various electrification technologies.Yes, but: These are initial decisions subject to more grant negotiations. And if funded, a project faces "go/no-go" decision points at various phases, where the agency weighs progress and community benefits.What's next: Officials hope this spurs use of cleaner tech in these industries more widely — in the U.S. and worldwide."The solutions that we are funding are replicable, and they're scalable," Granholm said.

The Energy Department plans to award up to $6 billion across 33 projects to wring carbon dioxide from heavy industries like metals, chemicals, and cement.Why it matters: It's the "single largest industrial decarbonization investment in American history," DOE boss Jennifer Granholm told reporters.Industrial processes create roughly a fourth of U.S. CO2 emissions — and even close to a third — depending on how you slice the national pie.It's also the Biden administration's latest in a multi-pronged effort to tame domestic carbon emissions.State of play: The projects are funded largely through the Democrats' 2022 climate law, with some cash from the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law, too.They would together provide yearly emissions cuts that match the annual CO2 output of 3 million gasoline-powered cars, the agency estimates.It's a federal cost-share with companies, so officials see over $20 billion in total investment.Monday's announcement also touts efforts to use union labor and tackle environmental justice — both key Democratic policy priorities.Data: Rhodium Group; Chart: Axios VisualsThe big picture: Making heavy industries climate-friendly is a tough nut to crack, as these sectors often need massive energy inputs and extremely high heat. And unlike the electricity system, a similarly large CO2 source, solutions are often lacking at commercial scale.Zoom in: Examples of the 33 projects include...Converting a Constellium aluminum plant in West Virginia to use furnaces that can run on cleaner fuels including hydrogen.Installing a CO2 capture and storage system at a Heidelberg Materials cement plant in Indiana.Slashing process heat emissions from Kraft Heinz facilities in nine states by using various electrification technologies.Yes, but: These are initial decisions subject to more grant negotiations. And if funded, a project faces "go/no-go" decision points at various phases, where the agency weighs progress and community benefits.What's next: Officials hope this spurs use of cleaner tech in these industries more widely — in the U.S. and worldwide."The solutions that we are funding are replicable, and they're scalable," Granholm said.

Paused Ohio chemical recycling plant puts spotlight on Appalachia as “prime target” for the controversial practice

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio — On a bright, cold day in February, Akim Lattermore stood in front of her house gesturing toward the site of a proposed facility that would convert old tires, electronic waste and plastic into fuel.The site, owned by SOBE Thermal Energy Systems, is currently home to crumbling old buildings and a natural-gas-powered steam heat generating unit. It’s less than half a mile from Lattermore’s home, visible from her front yard, which bears a sign with a picture of a black plume of smoke and the message “Stop SOBE. We have enough toxic air pollution.”“I’m a two-time cancer survivor,” Lattermore told Environmental Health News (EHN). “I believe that our environment has a lot to do with it.”Youngstown has a long industrial history and is still home to numerous sources of industrial pollution, including a steel plant and other metal fabricators, a concrete plant and a hazardous waste processing facility. Youngstown’s polluting industries released 80,600 pounds of toxic chemicals into air and water in 2022, including carcinogenic heavy metals like lead, nickel and chromium compounds, and possible carcinogens like ethylbenzene, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Toxics Release Inventory. Residents like Lattermore fear that SOBE’s proposed chemical recycling plant — currently on hold after the city passed a one-year moratorium — will only add to this toxic burden. “I’m a two-time cancer survivor. I believe that our environment has a lot to do with it.” - Akim Lattermore, Youngstown, Ohio, residentThere are proposals in the works for similar chemical recycling plants across the country. According to a 2023 report by the nonprofit organization Beyond Plastics, 11 such facilities had already been constructed in the U.S. as of September 2023, with one closing this year. Proposals for projects similar to SOBE’s throughout the Ohio River Valley have also met with community resistance — but more are likely on the way. “Appalachia is definitely a prime target for chemical recycling,” Jess Conard, Appalachia director of the nonprofit Beyond Plastics, told EHN. “There are often big tax subsidies available for these kinds of industries in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia, and it’s part of the culture of this region that people feel like they have to make health sacrifices to put food on the table, as we’ve seen with extractive industries like coal mining and fracking.”At least two other chemical recycling plants in Ohio have received state or local subsidies, according to a 2023 Beyond Plastics’s report. Alterra, located in Akron, Ohio, received a $1.6 million state loan and support from the city of Akron in the form of various discounts, including a $1 per year property lease in return for “a percentage of the project’s future cash flow,” while Purecycle in Ironton, Ohio, received $250 million in revenue bonds from the Southern Ohio Port Authority. Chemical recycling facilities may also receive federal subsidies through numerous programs, including the Department of Energy’s $25 million Strategy for Plastic Innovation, grants and loans from the Department of Defense and the Department of Agriculture, and the federal Inflation Reduction Act. While these projects plow ahead promising an answer to the plastics crisis, communities are concerned about the impacts. “Right now there’s no proof that this is safe,” Tom Hetrick, president of Youngstown City Council, which passed the year-long moratorium, told EHN. Chemical recycling controversy Chemical recycling is an umbrella term for processes that use heat, chemicals or both to break down plastic waste into component parts for reuse as plastic feedstocks or as fuel. These processes are different from conventional or mechanical plastic recycling, which breaks down plastic waste physically but not at a molecular level. Only 5 to 6% of plastic waste gets recycled in the U.S., and proponents of chemical recycling say it could help create a truly circular economy. “We’re not going to create circularity for plastics with one single solution,” Chris Layton, director of sustainability for specialty plastics at Eastman Chemical Company, told EHN. “We’re going to have to eliminate some plastics we really don't need, figure out ways to reduce and reuse and maximize what we can do for mechanical and advanced recycling.” However, opponents say chemical recycling facilities worsen climate change and emit toxic chemicals like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins and other persistent pollutants; volatile organic compounds and heavy metals. Lattermore worries about the cumulative effects. “So many other members of my family who have lived in this house have also had cancer. My grandma, my dad, my sister,” Lattermore said. “I have four grandkids, two daughters. How are they going to survive living so close to that type of waste?” The American Chemistry Council is advocating for relaxed environmental regulations for these types of facilities, encouraging states to reclassify them from solid waste facilities to manufacturing facilities, which requires less rigorous permitting applications, reduces regulatory oversight of air emissions and toxic waste and allows them to seek additional taxpayer subsidies. Ohio is one of 24 states that have already done this, along with Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky and Mississippi — a grouping that encompasses most of the Ohio River Valley and much of Appalachia. “We’re not going to create circularity for plastics with one single solution.” Chris Layton, Eastman Chemical CompanyMeanwhile, environmental advocates are fighting to stop these plants from being constructed. “Even if all of the advanced recycling plants in the U.S. were functioning at full capacity with no issues, they would only be managing 1.3% of global plastic waste we currently have,” Conard said. “The plastic industry is pushing this technology as a solution so they can continue manufacturing new plastic.”Environmental justice concerns Lattermore was among a group of local residents who fought to stop SOBE’s plant in Youngstown. They distributed fliers, called policymakers and knocked on doors to gather hundreds of petition signatures. Eventually, they garnered support from Youngstown City Council. “I think one of my primary concerns is the location,” Hetrick said. “It's in a busy neighborhood. There are residential neighbors, two popular bars right there, a restaurant caddy corner, a church on the other side, a five or six story jail a half block in the other direction, and a bunch of Youngstown State University student housing right there.” “It’s also an environmental justice area, and in terms of environmental risks and hazards it just seems like a terrible place to put this kind of operation,” he explained. In September, a representative from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a letter to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency noting that the project “raises potential environmental justice concerns” because Youngstown ranks in the 80th percentile in the state for pollution from include ozone, diesel particulate matter, air toxics cancer risk, traffic proximity, lead paint, Superfund site Proximity, Risk Management Program (RMP) facility proximity, hazardous waste proximity, underground storage tanks and wastewater discharge. “The population living in the area around the facility is significantly comprised of people of color, linguistically isolated households (Spanish language), those with low income, those with less than a high school education and a high unemployment rate,” the letter noted, before advising the Ohio EPA to “conduct a more thorough environmental justice analysis of appropriate scope to inform the permitting decision.” In December, Youngstown City Council unanimously voted to adopt a one-year moratorium on pyrolysis, gasification or combustion of tires, plastics and electronic waste. Council said they intended to spend the year further researching these types of facilities. "In terms of environmental risks and hazards it just seems like a terrible place to put this kind of operation.” - Tom Hetrick, president of Youngstown City CouncilWhen Hetrick researched other facilities, he found stories about dangerous accidents and fires at a chemical recycling plant in Ashley, Indiana, which amplified his concerns. In a statement about the moratorium on its website, SOBE said the company “respects this cautious approach and is committed to working closely with city officials and community members.” SOBE did not respond to a request for an interview. In February, the Ohio EPA issued an air permit for SOBE’s proposed plant, prompting outcry from the community. “I am deeply disappointed in the Ohio EPA and their decision to grant a permit to SOBE,” Hetrick said in a statement after the announcement. “It’s clear to me that the Ohio EPA spent months copying, categorizing and calculating the hundreds of comments from concerned Youngstown residents, but not actually listening to us or responding in any meaningful way.”

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio — On a bright, cold day in February, Akim Lattermore stood in front of her house gesturing toward the site of a proposed facility that would convert old tires, electronic waste and plastic into fuel.The site, owned by SOBE Thermal Energy Systems, is currently home to crumbling old buildings and a natural-gas-powered steam heat generating unit. It’s less than half a mile from Lattermore’s home, visible from her front yard, which bears a sign with a picture of a black plume of smoke and the message “Stop SOBE. We have enough toxic air pollution.”“I’m a two-time cancer survivor,” Lattermore told Environmental Health News (EHN). “I believe that our environment has a lot to do with it.”Youngstown has a long industrial history and is still home to numerous sources of industrial pollution, including a steel plant and other metal fabricators, a concrete plant and a hazardous waste processing facility. Youngstown’s polluting industries released 80,600 pounds of toxic chemicals into air and water in 2022, including carcinogenic heavy metals like lead, nickel and chromium compounds, and possible carcinogens like ethylbenzene, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Toxics Release Inventory. Residents like Lattermore fear that SOBE’s proposed chemical recycling plant — currently on hold after the city passed a one-year moratorium — will only add to this toxic burden. “I’m a two-time cancer survivor. I believe that our environment has a lot to do with it.” - Akim Lattermore, Youngstown, Ohio, residentThere are proposals in the works for similar chemical recycling plants across the country. According to a 2023 report by the nonprofit organization Beyond Plastics, 11 such facilities had already been constructed in the U.S. as of September 2023, with one closing this year. Proposals for projects similar to SOBE’s throughout the Ohio River Valley have also met with community resistance — but more are likely on the way. “Appalachia is definitely a prime target for chemical recycling,” Jess Conard, Appalachia director of the nonprofit Beyond Plastics, told EHN. “There are often big tax subsidies available for these kinds of industries in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia, and it’s part of the culture of this region that people feel like they have to make health sacrifices to put food on the table, as we’ve seen with extractive industries like coal mining and fracking.”At least two other chemical recycling plants in Ohio have received state or local subsidies, according to a 2023 Beyond Plastics’s report. Alterra, located in Akron, Ohio, received a $1.6 million state loan and support from the city of Akron in the form of various discounts, including a $1 per year property lease in return for “a percentage of the project’s future cash flow,” while Purecycle in Ironton, Ohio, received $250 million in revenue bonds from the Southern Ohio Port Authority. Chemical recycling facilities may also receive federal subsidies through numerous programs, including the Department of Energy’s $25 million Strategy for Plastic Innovation, grants and loans from the Department of Defense and the Department of Agriculture, and the federal Inflation Reduction Act. While these projects plow ahead promising an answer to the plastics crisis, communities are concerned about the impacts. “Right now there’s no proof that this is safe,” Tom Hetrick, president of Youngstown City Council, which passed the year-long moratorium, told EHN. Chemical recycling controversy Chemical recycling is an umbrella term for processes that use heat, chemicals or both to break down plastic waste into component parts for reuse as plastic feedstocks or as fuel. These processes are different from conventional or mechanical plastic recycling, which breaks down plastic waste physically but not at a molecular level. Only 5 to 6% of plastic waste gets recycled in the U.S., and proponents of chemical recycling say it could help create a truly circular economy. “We’re not going to create circularity for plastics with one single solution,” Chris Layton, director of sustainability for specialty plastics at Eastman Chemical Company, told EHN. “We’re going to have to eliminate some plastics we really don't need, figure out ways to reduce and reuse and maximize what we can do for mechanical and advanced recycling.” However, opponents say chemical recycling facilities worsen climate change and emit toxic chemicals like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins and other persistent pollutants; volatile organic compounds and heavy metals. Lattermore worries about the cumulative effects. “So many other members of my family who have lived in this house have also had cancer. My grandma, my dad, my sister,” Lattermore said. “I have four grandkids, two daughters. How are they going to survive living so close to that type of waste?” The American Chemistry Council is advocating for relaxed environmental regulations for these types of facilities, encouraging states to reclassify them from solid waste facilities to manufacturing facilities, which requires less rigorous permitting applications, reduces regulatory oversight of air emissions and toxic waste and allows them to seek additional taxpayer subsidies. Ohio is one of 24 states that have already done this, along with Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky and Mississippi — a grouping that encompasses most of the Ohio River Valley and much of Appalachia. “We’re not going to create circularity for plastics with one single solution.” Chris Layton, Eastman Chemical CompanyMeanwhile, environmental advocates are fighting to stop these plants from being constructed. “Even if all of the advanced recycling plants in the U.S. were functioning at full capacity with no issues, they would only be managing 1.3% of global plastic waste we currently have,” Conard said. “The plastic industry is pushing this technology as a solution so they can continue manufacturing new plastic.”Environmental justice concerns Lattermore was among a group of local residents who fought to stop SOBE’s plant in Youngstown. They distributed fliers, called policymakers and knocked on doors to gather hundreds of petition signatures. Eventually, they garnered support from Youngstown City Council. “I think one of my primary concerns is the location,” Hetrick said. “It's in a busy neighborhood. There are residential neighbors, two popular bars right there, a restaurant caddy corner, a church on the other side, a five or six story jail a half block in the other direction, and a bunch of Youngstown State University student housing right there.” “It’s also an environmental justice area, and in terms of environmental risks and hazards it just seems like a terrible place to put this kind of operation,” he explained. In September, a representative from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a letter to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency noting that the project “raises potential environmental justice concerns” because Youngstown ranks in the 80th percentile in the state for pollution from include ozone, diesel particulate matter, air toxics cancer risk, traffic proximity, lead paint, Superfund site Proximity, Risk Management Program (RMP) facility proximity, hazardous waste proximity, underground storage tanks and wastewater discharge. “The population living in the area around the facility is significantly comprised of people of color, linguistically isolated households (Spanish language), those with low income, those with less than a high school education and a high unemployment rate,” the letter noted, before advising the Ohio EPA to “conduct a more thorough environmental justice analysis of appropriate scope to inform the permitting decision.” In December, Youngstown City Council unanimously voted to adopt a one-year moratorium on pyrolysis, gasification or combustion of tires, plastics and electronic waste. Council said they intended to spend the year further researching these types of facilities. "In terms of environmental risks and hazards it just seems like a terrible place to put this kind of operation.” - Tom Hetrick, president of Youngstown City CouncilWhen Hetrick researched other facilities, he found stories about dangerous accidents and fires at a chemical recycling plant in Ashley, Indiana, which amplified his concerns. In a statement about the moratorium on its website, SOBE said the company “respects this cautious approach and is committed to working closely with city officials and community members.” SOBE did not respond to a request for an interview. In February, the Ohio EPA issued an air permit for SOBE’s proposed plant, prompting outcry from the community. “I am deeply disappointed in the Ohio EPA and their decision to grant a permit to SOBE,” Hetrick said in a statement after the announcement. “It’s clear to me that the Ohio EPA spent months copying, categorizing and calculating the hundreds of comments from concerned Youngstown residents, but not actually listening to us or responding in any meaningful way.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.