From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jack McPherrin and H. Sterling Burnett

In recent years, corporate coalitions have increasingly taken center stage in environmental policymaking, often through public-private partnerships aligned with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals that promise systemic change.

One of the most prominent examples is the U.S. Plastics Pact (USPP). At first glance, the USPP may appear to some as a promising solution for reducing plastic pollution. But in practice, it has encouraged companies to make changes that are more cosmetic than environmental—and in some cases, actively counterproductive—while increasing their control over the market.

The USPP, launched in 2020, consists of more than 850 companies, non-profits, research institutions, government agencies, and other entities working together to create a new “circular economy for plastics.” Dozens of major retailers and consumer goods companies—including Coca-Cola, Danone, Kraft Heinz, Target, and Unilever—have signed on as “Activators,” pledging to eliminate certain plastics, shift to recyclable packaging, and increase the use of recycled plastics.

Yet, rather than curbing plastic production or reducing waste, the USPP has led many companies to simply transition from polystyrene to polyethylene terephthalate (PET). This shift has been encouraged by claims that PET is more widely recyclable, easier to sort, and better aligned with existing U.S. recycling infrastructure.

However, polystyrene is more moldable, is recyclable, and has insulation properties that PET doesn’t. In addition, PET is approximately 30 percent heavier than polystyrene, meaning more material is required for the same functional use. Moreover, PET requires more energy and is more expensive to produce than polystyrene. And PET’s denser packaging increases transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions and raises costs even more—though these higher costs don’t bother USPP participants, as they simply pass them on to consumers.

Only 5 to 6 percent of all plastics in the United States are recycled. Even for PET products, the overall recycling rate remains low. Just one-third of PET bottles are recycled, while the  recycling rate for many other PET products such as thermoforms is less than 10 percent. Most PET products end up in landfills.

This ineffective, costly, and counterproductive shift was not accidental. It reflects the broader incentives baked into ESG scoring systems that reward superficial compliance over substantive outcomes.

ESG frameworks reward companies financially and reputationally for achieving certain narrow targets such as reductions in single-use plastics or increases in the use of packaging that is technically recyclable. However, these metrics often fail to accurately assess total plastic use in a product’s lifecycle, associated emissions, and real-world recovery. A package that uses more plastic and energy—and therefore generates more emissions—may still earn high sustainability marks, so long as the plastic is recyclable in theory. This is a textbook example of greenwashing.

A closer look at the USPP reveals that some of the world’s top plastic users and producers—Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Nestlé—are among the Pact’s strongest backers. These corporations, which produce billions of PET containers per year, benefit substantially from signing onto agreements such as the USPP, adopting ESG standards, and pledging support for various green goals—even if they do not deliver any green results. In fact, a 2022 report found that a large majority of retail signatories to the USPP actually increased their consumption of virgin plastic from 2020 to 2021.

Many of these same companies fund the non-profit that organized the USPP: the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. This creates a feedback loop in which large companies shape sustainability standards to their own advantage, defining which materials are “acceptable,” reaping the rewards of ESG compliance, and marginalizing smaller firms that lack the resources to adapt.

For example, by promoting PET as the preferred packaging material, the USPP conveniently reinforces the existing supply chains of these multinational bottlers, while sidelining other materials such as polystyrene that may be more cost-efficient and suitable for specific applications. Smaller manufacturers, who can’t easily switch packaging or absorb the added costs, are effectively squeezed out of the marketplace.

The USPP has not built a circular economy. Rather, it has constructed a closed circle of corporate sponsors that gain reputational boosts and higher ESG scores on the backs of consumers, despite increasing energy and plastics use.

The USPP unites ESG financiers, government agencies, nonprofits, and the largest corporate polluters in a mutually beneficial arrangement. This system rewards compliance, deflects scrutiny, manipulates public trust, eliminates free-market competition, stifles innovation, and increases costs to consumers—all while creating more waste.

Policymakers and consumers alike must recognize that ESG-aligned coalitions such as the U.S. Plastics Pact are nothing more than corporate lobbying groups disguised as sustainability initiatives. They do not improve environmental quality, but they do profit immensely from the illusion of doing so.

Jack McPherrin ([email protected]) is a Research Fellow for the Glenn C. Haskins Emerging Issues Center and H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., ([email protected]) is the Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy, both at The Heartland Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization based in Arlington Heights, Illinois.

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

Joe Biden and his appointees took an abundance of costly and damaging policy actions during his four-year term in office. Fortunately, that damaging agenda was limited to a single term presidency by voters last November who had grown weary of footing the massive bills for it all in the form of constantly increasing prices for all forms of energy.

Now the task of cleaning it all up and repairing the damage falls to President Donald Trump and his appointees. In another fortunate development for America, the President has chosen an eager and extremely talented array of energy-related appointees, including EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, and Energy Secretary Chris Wright.

One of the costliest actions taken by ex-President Biden related to U.S. national security came when he decided to raid the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by using it as a campaign tool to influence the 2022 mid-term elections. Early that year, Biden invoked a program to rapidly deplete the contents of the SPR, pulling 1 million barrels per day from the underground salt caverns which hold the crude for 180 days in hopes of lowering gas prices at the pump.

In an interview this week with radio host Glenn Beck, Secretary Wright revealed that, by drawing the volumes down so rapidly, Biden caused damage to the integrity of those salt caverns so severe that his Energy Department will now have to spend a big piece of its budget repairing the infrastructure before the caverns can be refilled. “[Biden] flooded the market with oil, reduced the price of oil in the short term but at the cost of U.S. strategic positioning, and they damaged the facilities in the Strategic petroleum reserve by draining them so fast,” Wright told Beck, adding, “We have to spend over $100 million to repair the damage of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that wasn’t built for that.”

For readers who may not be aware, Congress and President Gerald Ford authorized the creation of the SPR in 1975 in the wake of the first Arab Oil Embargo of 1973-74 That embargo caused severe shortages of gasoline, along with price spikes across the United States. Congress intended the SPR as a tool whose careful deployment would enhance and protect national security in times of real emergencies, not one to be used for cynical political purposes.

“It’s for when a very bad day happens,” Wright put it to Beck. “The world literally runs on oil. If you don’t have oil, you’re screwed in everything you do – economics, defense, health care, anything.”

In March, Secretary Wright unveiled an aggressive plan to refill the SPR, estimating the cost of doing so at the $70 per barrel price that prevailed at the time to be about $20 billion. He also estimated it would take 4 to 6 years to complete the process due to the magnitude of Biden’s unwise withdrawals. Filling the reserve is not something that can be done all in a single transaction. Rather, it is a complex process governed by regulations which require DOE to solicit competitive bids for relatively small lots of crude.

“By design, it’s much slower to fill it than to drain it,” Wright told Beck. “It will take us, going flat out, four, five, six years to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We are dead set committed to do it, but we’ve compromised our national security for years to get a little bit of an electoral advantage in 2022.”

It should be noted here that Wright would love to take advantage of current low oil prices, which have dropped to around $60/bbl today. Obviously, the same “buy low, sell high” philosophy followed by smart stock investors applies to buying and selling crude oil, too.

But DOE’s buyback program cannot begin until the damage caused by Biden’s careless disregard for national security has been repaired. Doing that will require months, during which time oil prices could rise or drop significantly.

“Energy is the infrastructure of life,” Wright reminded Beck. “You can’t use it for politics.”

But unfortunately for U.S. national security, Joe Biden did just that. The mess he left behind is Wright’s to clean up.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.