🐘 Europe may be about to kill Advanced Recycling before it even scales.

Hundreds of millions in projects from  ExxonMobil,  Dow,  Neste  and  Ravago are already on ice. The culprit isn’t technology or investment $ — it’s Brussels’ myopic approach to mass balance accounting. By proposing to exclude molecules that end up in fuel streams, the Commission is setting rules that make most advanced recycling projects uneconomic.

♻️ Two recycling paths, two very different bets:

1) Mechanical Recycling:  flakes → washed → pellets

·       Works with clean, sorted plastic.

·       Economically proven / modest returns, widely adopted.

·       Backed by: NOVA Chemicals, LyondellBasell (JV), KW Plastics, Plastipak, Veolia, SUEZ.

2) Chemical / Advanced Recycling: mixed plastics → pyrolysis oil or monomers → virgin-quality resin

·       Can handle mixed plastic streams that mechanical cannot.

·       Attractive returns — but only if regulators allow full mass balance credit.

·       Backed by: Dow, ExxonMobil, Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, Shell, Eastman, SABIC, BASF.

⚖️ Policy: the make-or-break factor

Advanced recycling doesn’t fail in the lab. It fails when policymakers declare that certain outputs “don’t count.” Excluding fuel fractions ignores industrial reality: co-products exist in every process, including refining and steam cracking. 

If Europe locks in this narrow definition, it won’t just stall projects in Germany or France — it will set a precedent. And what starts in Europe rarely stays in Europe. If U.S. states, Canada, or Asian markets adopt the same restrictive rules, advanced recycling could be written off everywhere.

📌 The takeaway:

Mechanical recycling will continue to expand steadily. But advanced recycling — the only scalable route for mixed plastic waste — hangs by a policy thread. Unless regulators broaden their perspective, the “circular economy” risks shrinking before it ever expands.

💬 What’s your take — is Europe safeguarding integrity, or choking off innovation?