Why algae can be our next secret weapon to combat plastic pollution

plastic bottles
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Plastic pollution has become an alarming problem worldwide. A 2015 study published in Science Magazine projected that by 2025, around 100–250 million metric tons of plastic waste could enter our oceans every year.

The problem also triggered the United Nations (UN) to issue a global resolution to end plastic waste, adopted by representatives from 173 countries.

However, even if all drastic measures were put in place to stop plastic production tomorrow, we would still have around 5 billion tons of plastic waste in landfills and the environment.

Research has shown that plastic can disintegrate into microplastic—particles ranging from 1 nanometer (nm) to less than 5 micrometers (mm)—with various shapes, densities, and mechanical and chemical properties.

Due to their small volume and high surface area, microplastics can absorb pollutants, causing chronic toxicity when consumed and accumulated within organisms.

For decades, scientists have been looking to nature for our fight against the plastic problem. Combined with global strategic action to slow down plastic production, we could prevent future plastic disasters.

Microalgae, for instance, are the most promising nature-based candidate capable of destroying microplastics. It is a unicellular species that exists individually or in chains or groups. Depending on the species, their size can range from a few millimeters to hundreds of micrometers.

Cultivating microalgae is simple because it does not require fertile land, large quantities of freshwater, and pesticides compared to other aquaculture crops.

Microalgae are also capable of growing rapidly. Open pond cultivation has been one of the oldest and simplest ways to cultivate microalgae on a large scale. Some people also use photobioreactors—bioreactors used in an enclosed system to increase microalgae cultivation.

How microalgae works

Interaction between microalgae and plastic can significantly change the properties of plastic, including its biodegradation, the alteration of plastic density, and sinking behavior. Moreover, microalgae may take control, gather, and stick to microplastics on their surface, regardless of their size.

There are four stages of plastic biodegradation. First is the attachment of microalgae to plastic surfaces. This starts the biodegradation process and alters surface properties.

The second is biodeterioration. Microalgae will secrete specific enzymes, which are pivotal for plastic biodegradation.

The third is the biofragmentation process. In this stage, the plastic material loses its mechanical stability and becomes fragile.

The last stage is the assimilation process, where microbial filaments and water start to penetrate plastics, which results in the decomposition and utilization of plastic by microorganisms.

Studies have reported success stories of algae-based plastic biodegradation, particularly for polyethylene (commonly used in fibers for clothing or bottle), low-density polyethylene or LDPE (used in plastic bags) and bisphenol A or BPA (chemicals to harden plastic). One of those studies calculated a 58.9% decrease of carbon composition in their LDPE sample.

More action is needed

As the biggest archipelagic country, Indonesia has a maritime area of over 6.4 million square kilometers and extensive freshwater lakes which have immense potential for microalgae cultivation.

Microalgae could be a viable solution to tackle the plastic problem in Indonesia—the world’s second-largest ocean plastic polluter, according to a 2015 study.

More research is vital to deepen analyses of microalgae and microplastics’ interactions and their effects to support this initiative. So far, studies on in Indonesia only focus on its potential as a green energy resource or its capacity to become a substitute material for plastic.

To prevent plastic disasters, we also need improvements in plastic recycling and reusing strategies. Regulation and policies should be in line with the 2018–2015 National Action Plan on Marine Debris which highlights Indonesia’s waste management, reduction or substitution of plastic usage, redesign of plastic products and packaging, doubling collection rates, and expansion of waste disposal facilities.


Explore further

Thai national parks ban single-use plastics


Provided by
The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.The Conversation

Citation:
Why algae can be our next secret weapon to combat plastic pollution (2022, April 14)
retrieved 18 April 2022
from https://techxplore.com/news/2022-04-algae-secret-weapon-combat-plastic.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Why algae can be our next secret weapon to combat plastic pollution

plastic bottles
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Plastic pollution has become an alarming problem worldwide. A 2015 study published in Science Magazine projected that by 2025, around 100–250 million metric tons of plastic waste could enter our oceans every year.

The problem also triggered the United Nations (UN) to issue a global resolution to end plastic waste, adopted by representatives from 173 countries.

However, even if all drastic measures were put in place to stop plastic production tomorrow, we would still have around 5 billion tons of plastic waste in landfills and the environment.

Research has shown that plastic can disintegrate into microplastic—particles ranging from 1 nanometer (nm) to less than 5 micrometers (mm)—with various shapes, densities, and mechanical and chemical properties.

Due to their small volume and high surface area, microplastics can absorb pollutants, causing chronic toxicity when consumed and accumulated within organisms.

For decades, scientists have been looking to nature for our fight against the plastic problem. Combined with global strategic action to slow down plastic production, we could prevent future plastic disasters.

Microalgae, for instance, are the most promising nature-based candidate capable of destroying microplastics. It is a unicellular species that exists individually or in chains or groups. Depending on the species, their size can range from a few millimeters to hundreds of micrometers.

Cultivating microalgae is simple because it does not require fertile land, large quantities of freshwater, and pesticides compared to other aquaculture crops.

Microalgae are also capable of growing rapidly. Open pond cultivation has been one of the oldest and simplest ways to cultivate microalgae on a large scale. Some people also use photobioreactors—bioreactors used in an enclosed system to increase microalgae cultivation.

How microalgae works

Interaction between microalgae and plastic can significantly change the properties of plastic, including its biodegradation, the alteration of plastic density, and sinking behavior. Moreover, microalgae may take control, gather, and stick to microplastics on their surface, regardless of their size.

There are four stages of plastic biodegradation. First is the attachment of microalgae to plastic surfaces. This starts the biodegradation process and alters surface properties.

The second is biodeterioration. Microalgae will secrete specific enzymes, which are pivotal for plastic biodegradation.

The third is the biofragmentation process. In this stage, the plastic material loses its mechanical stability and becomes fragile.

The last stage is the assimilation process, where microbial filaments and water start to penetrate plastics, which results in the decomposition and utilization of plastic by microorganisms.

Studies have reported success stories of algae-based plastic biodegradation, particularly for polyethylene (commonly used in fibers for clothing or bottle), low-density polyethylene or LDPE (used in plastic bags) and bisphenol A or BPA (chemicals to harden plastic). One of those studies calculated a 58.9% decrease of carbon composition in their LDPE sample.

More action is needed

As the biggest archipelagic country, Indonesia has a maritime area of over 6.4 million square kilometers and extensive freshwater lakes which have immense potential for microalgae cultivation.

Microalgae could be a viable solution to tackle the plastic problem in Indonesia—the world’s second-largest ocean plastic polluter, according to a 2015 study.

More research is vital to deepen analyses of microalgae and microplastics’ interactions and their effects to support this initiative. So far, studies on in Indonesia only focus on its potential as a green energy resource or its capacity to become a substitute material for plastic.

To prevent plastic disasters, we also need improvements in plastic recycling and reusing strategies. Regulation and policies should be in line with the 2018–2015 National Action Plan on Marine Debris which highlights Indonesia’s waste management, reduction or substitution of plastic usage, redesign of plastic products and packaging, doubling collection rates, and expansion of waste disposal facilities.


Explore further

Thai national parks ban single-use plastics


Provided by
The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.The Conversation

Citation:
Why algae can be our next secret weapon to combat plastic pollution (2022, April 14)
retrieved 18 April 2022
from https://techxplore.com/news/2022-04-algae-secret-weapon-combat-plastic.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

How microplastics affect human health

Water bottles. Shopping bags. Computers. Medical equipment. Food containers. And on and on and on.

Plastics. They never go away. And even if we can’t see them — they’re everywhere.

“They are carried in the atmosphere, they are raining down on us. They’ve been found in the Himalayan mountains,” Erica Cirino says. “So right now we are immersed in a microplastics and nanoplastics soup.”

But are those microplastics inside of us?

“About five years ago was when scientists first began questioning, Are there plastics inside our bodies? And indeed there are,” Cirino adds.

For the first time, microplastics have been found in living humans — their lungs and blood.

“I don’t like it at all that plastic waste is in the river of life. One thing is clear that we are exposed,” Heather Leslie says. “Do they actually cause adverse health outcomes? That’s a question that takes many years to answer.”

Today, On Point: Microplastics and your health.

Guests

Erica Cirino, communications manager at the Plastic Pollution Coalition. Author of Thicker Than Water: The Quest for Solutions to the Plastic Crisis. (@erica_cirino)

Heather Leslie, she established the microplastics lab at the Free University of Amsterdam. Lead author of a new study which found microplastics and nanoplastics in human blood.

Also Featured

Mary Kosuth, researcher at the University of Minnesota’s School of Public Health.

Book Excerpt

Excerpt from Thicker Than Water: The Quest for Solutions to the Plastic Crisis By Erica Cirino. Copyright © 2021, Published by Island Press. All rights reserved.

Transcript: Microplastics, The Bloodstream and Your Health

MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI: Joining us now from Amsterdam in the Netherlands is Heather Leslie. She established the Microplastics Lab at the Free University of Amsterdam. Heather, welcome to the program.

HEATHER LESLIE: Thank you very much.

CHAKRABARTI: So you and your team have also found evidence of micro and nanoplastics in living human bodies. Where did you find them?

LESLIE: Yes, we looked in the human bloodstream and we found out that micro and nanoplastics are actually very close to our hearts. We expected that plastics would be circulating in our bodies, but now we know they are. We have the first evidence for that.

CHAKRABARTI: How did you find it?

LESLIE: It took a lot of trial and error to develop a method that’s sensitive enough. And of course, just like your studio, our lab has a lot of plastic in it. And we have to be extremely careful about the quality control of the analysis. I think this was the most difficult analysis I’ve ever tried in my entire career. And so it took us a long time to get our analysis sensitive enough. And to make sure we weren’t introducing any background contamination from our lab or from all the stuff that we use in order to do the analysis.

CHAKRABARTI: Heather, in the reading and thinking that we’ve been doing about this hour, I have to admit it didn’t even occur to me the high chance of cross-contamination because of the ubiquity of plastics, even just in scientific laboratory equipment. Wow. OK, but you overcame that challenge and were able to come up with some kind of assay that detected these micro and nanoplastics in blood samples. Where did you get the samples from? Obviously, we don’t have to identify the individual people, but … where did they come from?

LESLIE: Yeah. So we had 22 anonymous donors, that our university also has a university hospital. So I worked together with an immunologist and doctor there, and we were able to access these samples from there. It was a little bit difficult because we were doing that during the first lockdowns and the immunologists were working on COVID research and this had a little bit less priority at the time. But we managed to finish up our short one year pilot project, which had, of course, a lot of work done before that, before we were ready for the samples.

But yeah, we were ready for the samples and we managed to do 22 people, which gives us a good indication of concentration ranges to expect and to see if we could find anything at all. Because really, you know, if you find something in the air or in the food chain, that tells you a lot about what we are encountering. But it doesn’t tell you what’s being absorbed in your body. And so by looking in the bloodstream, you’re actually doing that extra step to find out what is the absorbable fraction.

CHAKRABARTI: OK, so we’re going to talk about what you actually found in the blood in a second here. But were the samples from adults or was there a range of ages?

LESLIE: Oh yes, they were all adults over 18.

CHAKRABARTI: Because we’re going to want to talk about the impact on children a little bit later. Or maybe the questions we should ask to understand what the potential impact on kids can be. OK, so what concentrations of micro and nanoplastics did you find in these blood samples?

LESLIE: … Plastic is a whole range of different substances, let’s say. So we looked at, with our method, we weren’t looking at counting the particles like some other studies, but we were actually measuring the mass of each type of plastic individually. So we found things like PET, which you make water bottles out of. And polystyrene, a type of polymers and polyethylene and these kinds of plastics. And some people are just interested in the whole sum of all the plastics.

So we also in our article, reported the sum. And when you add up all of the plastics that we find in one sample, we came to an average of 1.6 micrograms in a milliliter of blood. And that sounds like a very small amount. But if that blood sample is representative for the whole body, then we’re talking milligrams in a single human body just circulating in the bloodstream. At the time that we were sampling.

CHAKRABARTI: I’m trying to think of what a visual equivalent of a of a milligram, would be like a quarter teaspoon or something. Maybe that’s still too much.

LESLIE: Oh, it’s very, very, very small. … Plastic is very light, you know, it’s not a very heavy material. So a microgram, it’s like around a microgram in a milliliter of blood. A milliliter of blood, that’s well, I think there’s 15 milliliters in a teaspoon or something like that. So it’s a small amount of blood, but it’s also a very small amount of plastic in the blood.

CHAKRABARTI: OK, so Erica Cirino, what’s your thoughts when you first heard about Heather and her team’s research, essentially confirming that there are, even if a small amount, discernibly different types of micro and nanoplastics circulating in living human bodies?

ERICA CIRINO: Well, like most people, probably my first reaction was, oh, no. But I also know in the context of the research I did when writing my book Thicker Than Water, to tell the story of the plastic crisis that actually research showing plastics and plastic particles in our environment were published as early as the 1960s and 1970s. And recently, you know, this research has kind of accelerated and there’s been a push to look inside the human body.

And finally, we’re getting there and research is evolving rapidly now. But there has been a long understanding, I think, in the scientific community that plastic exists all around us on Earth. But the ubiquity and the true understanding that we live in a time where actually we change the geological nature of our planet and are living in a plasticine of sorts is not surprising, to know that we are also becoming plastic.

CHAKRABARTI: Well, so, Heather, I this actually links back to why finding it in the blood is particularly eye opening. Because blood is everywhere in the human body. It has, you know, as you’ve said before, it’s the river of life. Its purpose is transport, right? To transport nutrients, oxygen to every cell in the body, to transport waste away from those cells. So does this mean that essentially every part of the human body is being exposed? Even if it’s to a small amount being exposed to these micro and nanoplastics?

LESLIE: Yes, this is why I really wanted to focus on blood and in the first place. There have been some studies about feces, and I was thinking, Well, that’s more of a problem for the sewage treatment plants, you know, and it’s going right through our bodies. But the blood, if it’s absorbed into the blood, as you said just now, the blood bathes all of our cells of our body, and it needs to do that on a very regular basis. And so anything that is in our bloodstream can reach our organs.

And in toxicology, we’re interested in what gets close to what we call sites of toxic action. So if it’s outside your body, it’s not interacting with the biology. But when it’s inside your body and it gets close to some area of your body that’s doing its thing, that’s functioning as it normally does in nature, then you can have an opportunity to cause toxicity. If that particle knows how to cause toxicity. It needs to be close to that or close to that area where it can cause the damage. So that’s why it’s important to look at blood.

CHAKRABARTI: OK, so because there we have basically an exposure pathway to every organ system, every system in the human body through blood. But you know, on the other hand, of course, everyone wants to know like, Oh my gosh, so what impact does this have on human health? And we don’t have the answers to those questions yet, right? Because the research is still very new in confirming the presence of plastics inside living bodies.

But I am thinking, you know, in modern life we’re exposed to a lot of things every day. We breathe them in, we eat them in. And I’m not saying that they’re inert, but perhaps they are absorbed into our bodies at such low levels that it doesn’t actually cause some kind of deleterious effect on human health. Could that be possible, Heather?

LESLIE: I always say we have to not really jump the gun and claim that it’s safe or it’s not safe. We should just say we don’t know until we collect enough evidence to make those kinds of claims. So it’s a very difficult situation to be in to say, I don’t know. Because everybody wants an answer. We do have half of the answer because a risk to human health is built up from the exposure, and from knowledge about which exposure level is sort of a threshold for the toxicity.

So above a certain level, you can expect toxicity. Below a certain level, you don’t expect it. It’s like the very, very 500-year-old knowledge that the dose makes the poison. So the most important part to know is, Is there any poison there or potential poison? And we know that if the dose gets high enough, we probably will see effects, even if it’s table salt or even if you drink too much water.

So there is a certain point where it will be toxic. So it’s very important to know what the dose is. And there’s a lot of research going on now, and I think one of the main areas to really look at is the immuno-toxicological side. So what effect does this have on our immune systems? And I think that’s a good place to really look.

Microplastics and pollution combine to become much more toxic: Study

Microplastics can pick up pollution in their travels and pose an even greater threat to human health, according to a new study.


In the ocean, for example, toxic compounds can hitch a ride on plastic and make the material 10 times more toxic than it would normally be, according to the research published earlier this year in
Chemosphere.

Although the dangers of both microplastics and harmful compounds have been studied individually, few researchers have look at their combined effect. This study is also unique in that the researchers tested these polluted plastic particles on human cells—most previous research has focused on the
impacts on marine life.

Microplastics are tiny plastic particles formed when larger pieces of plastic degrade over time—and they are ubiquitous, found everywhere from
Mount Everest to the Mariana Trench. They can act as magnets for environmental pollution, transforming them into potentially toxic particles, Andrey Rubin, a Ph.D. Student at Tel Aviv University and first author of the study, told EHN.

Previous research has found they can accumulate an array of harmful chemicals, including
heavy metals, polychlorobiphenyls (PCBs) and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

The microplastics can then funnel these compounds into the bodies of marine organisms, which
studies have shown can lead to neurotoxicity, an altered immune response, a reduced growth rate, and death. From there, the tainted microplastics can continue to make their way up the food chain, inadvertently exposing humans.

Rubin and co-author Ines Zuker, a professor of Mechanical Engineering at Tel Aviv University, tested what would happen when human cells found along the intestinal tract were exposed to a pollution-plastic mixture containing one type of microplastic known as microbeads and triclosan, an antimicrobial ingredient that was
banned in the U.S. in 2016, primarily due to health concerns.

Triclosan, formerly found in mouthwash and hand sanitizer, is an
endocrine disruptor that has also been linked to an increase in allergies in children. Even so, “it still exists in some products,” explained Rubin. “A year ago, we saw triclosan in a toothpaste, which is sold here in Israel.”

Rubin and Zucker found that, alone, the microbeads weren’t toxic to human cells. Neither was triclosan.

When combined, however, the two were “very toxic toward the cells,” said Rubin—the effect was an order of magnitude greater than the sum of its parts.

Outside the lab, the cells the researchers used in their investigation are the same ones that act as a barrier between the inside and outside of the body. The plastic mixture “can get into our bloodstream,” explained Rubin, where the accumulated compounds will likely be released.

Next, they hope to investigate how the mixture’s toxicity changes when different plastics or pollutants are used.

Controlled environments in a laboratory make it difficult to say how applicable these findings are in the real world, Tan Amelia, a Ph.D. student at University of Malaysia, Terengganu who was not involved with the study, told EHN. Conditions in the lab don’t perfectly represent environment, and findings from microplastics research is often hard to replicate due to a lack of standardized methods.

But Amelia said the study should spur more awareness of a global problem.

“Papers like those of Rubin and co-workers’ could help spread awareness regarding the severity of microplastics, which indirectly encourages the reduction of microplastics manufacturing and consumption,” she said.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Amid hopes and fears, a plastics boom in Appalachia is on hold

Karen Gdula lives in the house she grew up in, a modest home on a pretty street in rural western Pennsylvania. Ivy Lane, in her view, is someplace special. “There’s a warmth and a caring,” she said. “We look out for each other.” The street never needed those bonds more than on September 10, 2018.

Retired and newly married, Gdula was asleep when, just before 5 a.m., an explosion shook her home. The roar was so loud that some of her neighbors thought it was a plane crash. But when she and her husband saw a fireball stretching above the tops of the towering pine trees across the street, they knew exactly what had happened.

The Revolution Pipeline, running right behind Ivy Lane in Center Township, about 25 miles northwest of Pittsburgh, had come into service only days before, carrying gas from the fracking wells that are everywhere in the region. No one was hurt, but the explosion flattened a home three doors down from Gdula’s and toppled six giant electrical transmission towers.

Now, Revolution is back in service, and another pipeline has come to Ivy Lane, too. It’s called Line N, and it feeds gas to the vast, $6 billion petrochemical plant Shell is building five miles away in Monaca, right on the Ohio River. That plant, called an “ethane cracker,” will soon turn ethane — a byproduct of fracking — into 1.6 million tons of raw plastic a year.

The Ohio River Valley is wrestling with whether to tie its fortunes to another toxic, boom-and-bust industry.

Five years ago, the flood of ethane coming from the Ohio River Valley’s fracking wells got the plastic industry — petrochemical firms that are often subsidiaries of big fossil fuel producers — dreaming about a new generation of massive plants in the region. Companies envisioned building as many as four more ethane crackers like Shell’s in Appalachia, and state and local officials from both parties embraced the idea.

That vision is now foundering. Obstacles including global overproduction of plastic, local opposition to pipelines that feed such facilities, and public concern about the tidal wave of waste choking oceans and landscapes mean that even the region’s second proposed ethane cracker may never materialize. Additional plants look even less likely. The question mark over the industry’s once-grand hopes for Appalachia reflects larger doubts about its plans for dramatically increasing worldwide plastic production.

Driving oil and gas companies’ plastic production ambitions is the understanding that action on climate change may soon reduce demand for their fuels. Plastic is central to their hopes of keeping profits flowing, so they’ve been pouring money into building new plants and expanding old ones, on track to double 2016 global plastic production levels by 2036. Fracking has made the United States a major player in this international buildout. The American Chemistry Council, an industry association, says companies are investing more than $200 billion in U.S. chemical projects using fracked ingredients. Most of that growth has happened on the Gulf Coast, the country’s long-standing petrochemical hub.

Karen Gdula in her Center Township home, where she grew up. The walls are adorned with photos of her ancestors.

Karen Gdula in her Center Township home, where she grew up. The walls are adorned with photos of her ancestors.
Jeff Swensen for Yale Environment 360

The Ohio River Valley — desperate for economic revival after the steep decline of its coal and steel industries — was supposed to be the site of the next big push. Like many in the region, Gdula has complicated feelings about petrochemicals. She spent much of her career at a company that designed equipment for oil and gas workers, so she was not someone predisposed to distrust the industry. But after the explosion, she was dismayed to realize that much of its infrastructure was feeding plastic plants. And not just locally: Pennsylvanian ethane flows by pipeline to the Gulf Coast and Canada, and to a port near Philadelphia where it is shipped to European plastic producers.

Gdula is resigned to living with the industry, but she wants politicians and regulators to better safeguard residents’ well-being. In the wake of the explosion, she’s concluded that when Pennsylvania makes decisions about new projects, “jobs will aways trump everything. I hope safety is a close second.”

Her outlook reflects the push and pull of big promises and nagging fears as a region that was once one of America’s great industrial corridors wrestles with whether to tie its fortunes to another toxic, boom-and-bust industry like coal or fracking. And because plastic production has a hefty climate footprint — along with its more visible impact on waste — the consequences of what happens in Appalachia will stretch far beyond the region’s depressed downtowns, winding creeks, and peaceful hollows.


The Ivy Lane blast highlighted the safety concerns around Pennsylvania’s thousands of miles of pipelines. Revolution’s owner was charged with nine counts of environmental crimes and agreed to $2 million in fines and upgrade costs. Separately, the U.S. pipeline safety agency issued a warning to Shell over missing padding — a safety concern — on part of the Falcon pipeline, which will carry ethane to its plant. The company says the line is safe and the issue was isolated. Opponents believe it highlights a much wider problem — regulators’ coziness with oil and gas interests, whose projects they approve too readily and fail to adequately police.

The U.S. plastic industry’s greenhouse gas emissions equal those from 116 coal-fired power plants.

The explosion also offered a glimpse of the many tentacles of plastic production’s health and environmental effects, which extend far beyond the plants’ direct impacts. “It’s the whole network, the whole big spider web of this chemical plant being built around us,” said Terrie Baumgardner, of the Pennsylvania Clean Air Council.

By creating a market for ethane, plastic production drives more fracking, with the well-documented health and climate dangers it poses. One study found that the $23 billion toll of air pollution from fracking in the region — including between 1,200 and 4,600 premature deaths over 12 years — outweighed the economic gains, which researchers put at $21 billion. A plant the size of Shell’s needs more than 1,000 fracking wells to supply it with ethane, Duquesne University’s Center for Environmental Research estimates.

And the plants pose their own dangers. “Cracking” ethane’s molecules to turn it into ethylene — which is then processed into polyethylene, the world’s most widely used plastic — can emit benzene, toluene, and formaldehyde, which are linked to leukemia, nervous system damage, and respiratory problems, respectively. Shell’s facility will also create pollutants including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, which increase risks of cancer, heart problems, and other ailments. The company declined an interview request, but has said the plant complies with all regulations.

Karen Gdula shows a photo of the burning remnants of her neighbor’s house following the 2018 explosion of the Revolution Pipeline.

Karen Gdula shows a photo of the burning remnants of her neighbor’s house following the 2018 explosion of the Revolution Pipeline.
Jeff Swensen for Yale Environment 360

Plastic production’s climate impact is sizable, too. With its energy-hungry cracking plants — Shell’s Monaca facility is allowed to emit as much carbon dioxide annually as about 430,000 cars — and the methane-leaking pipelines that feed them, the U.S. plastic industry’s greenhouse gas emissions equal those from 116 coal-fired power plants, estimates Beyond Plastic, an advocacy group. Domestically, that footprint is expected to exceed coal’s by 2030, the group predicts. Globally, plastic would be the world’s fifth-largest greenhouse gas emitter if it were a country, Beyond Plastic says. If output grows as planned, plastic would use more than 10 percent of the emissions allowable if warming is to stay below 1.5 degrees Celsius, says the Center for International Environmental Law.


In the river towns of western Pennsylvania, southeastern Ohio, and West Virginia, many see petrochemicals as a lifeline that will not only provide good jobs and tax revenue, but help spark broader growth. Especially after the pandemic exposed the vulnerability of global supply chains, supporters say the plastic produced by Shell — and perhaps eventually other producers — will attract manufacturers to turn it into goods and packaging.

Embracing such hopes, Pennsylvania gave Shell a tax break valued at $1.6 billion, one of the largest in state history. The company’s decision to build “put Beaver County back on the map,” said Jack Manning, a county commissioner. “That plant gave more people hope than any other single thing” in decades. Early in the pandemic, plant construction workers’ spending at local shops and restaurants “really helped us survive,” and he predicted such indirect economic benefits would continue.

While 8,000 workers are building the plastics plant, there will only be 600 permanent jobs once it opens.

Others have doubts. The Ohio River Valley Institute, a liberal research group, says Beaver County’s growth lags the rest of the state despite the huge construction project.

Six miles from Shell’s site, Mayor Dwan Walker runs Aliquippa, once a storied steel-making town, from a bare-bones City Hall on a street lined with empty storefronts. With tattooed arms and a red Aliquippa polo shirt, he’s ready to welcome just about anything that will bring back jobs and revenue. But he sees Shell’s plant as a mixed blessing. “The good news is the cracker plant’s coming. Guess what the bad news is — the cracker plant’s coming,” he says. “There’s a lot of questions I have.”

While 8,000 workers are building the plant, there will only be 600 permanent jobs once it opens. So far, many workers are from out of state. Walker sees license plates from all over the country, just as he did during fracking’s boom years, when oil and gas workers came from as far as Texas and Oklahoma to take good-paying jobs.

Aliquippa is one of the few racially diverse towns in a largely white area, and a lot of obstacles stand between its residents, many of them Black, and permanent jobs with Shell, Walker said. Many don’t own cars, and few have the training to work in an ethane cracker. At the company’s community meetings, “they kept talking about diversity,” the mayor recalled. “Explain to me what that looks like.” One thing he wants to know: “Do I see people saying, ‘Here’s a voucher for a taxi or an Uber’” to get residents without cars to community colleges or other training sites?

Aliquippa Mayor Dwan Walker.

Aliquippa Mayor Dwan Walker.
Jeff Swensen for Yale Environment 360

Walker understands the risks of petrochemicals — the Gulf Coast plastic-making corridor is nicknamed “Cancer Alley” because of the industry’s toxic footprint. On the other hand, when Shell set up a construction staging area in Aliquippa, the town got an influx of tax income. And while there may not be many residents employed in the plant, Walker is among those who believes it will attract other companies. His town has docks on the Ohio River and plenty of industrial land waiting for the right manufacturer. “This is a city that’s been on its knees. It’s been crawling for a while, and now we’re starting to walk,” he said. “And pretty soon, we’re gonna run.”

Like Gdula, Walker is ambivalent about the industry. Would he prefer to have seen different opportunities for his constituents? “Yes and no,” he says. It wasn’t up to him, but now his job is to make sure those in charge don’t forget Aliquippa.


Belmont County, Ohio has similar hopes. It’s a little over an hour’s drive downriver from Shell’s site, along a stretch of the Ohio lined with the rusting skeletons of abandoned factories. There’s gentle beauty too, in the rolling green hills thick with springtime blossom and birdsong. Tucked inside the elbow of one of the river’s sharpest bends, a grassy field where a towering coal-fired power station once stood is empty now, its fate unclear since the Thai petrochemical conglomerate PTT Global Chemical (PTTGC) lost its investment partner for the $10 billion ethane cracker it hopes to build there.

Dan Williamson, a PTTGC spokesman, said such projects often have long gestation times, and that the pandemic’s disruptions had created additional delays. The company is looking for a new partner and remains optimistic it will eventually build. The plant would employ about 500 people, he said, and require thousands of construction workers to erect.

The plastic industry’s long-standing assumption that demand tracks economic growth may no longer hold.

For now, Belmont County is in limbo. The petrochemical industry’s global building spree including a wave of new plants in China — appears to have gone too far, at least for now. “We’re entering into a period of overcapacity,” said Nathan Schaffer, vice president for petrochemicals at the consulting group Wood Mackenzie. “Supply has outpaced demand” and will take a few years to catch up, he said.

Measures to reduce plastic waste may complicate that equation. The European Union, Canada, and more than 30 African nations are among locales banning some single-use items. There’s a push to use more recycled material and plans for a global plastic pollution treaty. So the plastic industry’s long-standing assumption that demand tracks economic growth may no longer hold, said Anne Keller, an expert in natural gas liquid and petrochemical feedstocks at Midstream Energy Group, a Texas-based consultancy.

Because of the mix of ingredients available in Appalachia, much of the region’s plastic output would likely go to single-use items such as bags and packaging, making producers particularly vulnerable to pollution concerns, Keller said. The Australian Minderoo Foundation ranked PTTGC as the world’s 19th largest producer of plastic for throwaway items, finding it made the material for 1.5 percent of all single-use plastics globally. Williamson, the company spokesman, said it takes environmental concerns seriously, and sees ocean plastic pollution as a crisis.

A pipeline under construction along Fork Ridge, about 10 miles outside Moundsville, West Virginia.

A pipeline under construction along Fork Ridge, about 10 miles outside Moundsville, West Virginia.
Jeff Swensen for Yale Environment 360

Opposition to new pipelines is another obstacle, Keller said. Just a few years ago, fracking companies saw the proposed new crackers as an enticing way to monetize ethane they needed to get rid of. “That’s changed,” she said. Now pushback against new pipelines — Mountain Valley, in West Virginia and Virginia, is the latest to run into trouble — threatens to limit the flow of methane leaving the region to be sold for heating and power. If it does, the difficulty of reaching markets will constrain new drilling, tightening the supply of ethane on which the plastic dreams were built. Five years ago, few “would have ever thought that it would literally have become impossible to build a pipeline out of this region,” Keller said. But there’s been so much opposition “that that’s really become a question mark.”

It’s too soon to know whether the Ukraine war, and Europe’s scramble to replace Russian gas, might upend that political dynamic, providing justification for new pipelines to carry fuel for liquefaction and export. Barring that, for PTTGC “it’s simple economics,” Keller said. Uncertainty around ethane supplies means building “looks a lot riskier than it did a few years ago.” Meanwhile, inflation is driving up construction costs, Schaffer said. All told, it means new Appalachian plants, in his view, are “probably off the table for now.”

Greg Kozera, a spokesman for Shale Crescent USA, which advocates for petrochemical development in the region, disagrees. The disruptions of the pandemic and war make the case for Appalachian plastic production stronger than ever, he argues. “We can’t depend on a global supply chain,” he said. “Companies are looking for regional suppliers.”

With plans for a $10 billion ethane cracker plant, a local official says, “we saw the potential and what it meant for the township.”

He added that eliminating international shipping costs means U.S. manufacturers using Appalachian plastic can compete with Asia on price, even if U.S. labor costs are higher. “We’re going to see the crackers, I’m convinced of that,” Kozera said.

Ed Good hopes he’s right. A trustee of Mead Township, which includes Dilles Bottom, home to PTTGC’s site, he worked 35 years at the R.E. Burger coal power plant, which closed in 2011; PTTGC knocked it down after acquiring the land. When the plant laid off staff in the 1990s, a federal program helped workers retrain, or go back to school, recalled Good, a longtime union official. There’s little such help available now, and with state cuts to local government support, towns are on their own too. “When Burger shut down I lost half my budget,” he said. “We don’t pave as many roads as we used to.”

When PTTGC expressed interest, “we saw the potential and what it meant for the township, what it meant for the community, schools.” Eventually, the company agreed it would pay the township $2 million upon a decision to build, and $500,000 annually afterwards. Nearby Shadyside secured a pledge of $38 million for a new school complex if the plant goes ahead.

Just across the Ohio, in Moundsville, West Virginia, Amanda and Eric Petrucci are waiting anxiously for word on the project too. The home where they’re raising their four children sits on a woodsy hilltop with a view that takes in the river and the low green mountains that run beside it. But they can also see flames licking up from a gas processing plant, and a nearby meadow is a Superfund site, contaminated by decades of chemical production.

Moundsville, West Virgina.

Moundsville, West Virgina.
Jeff Swensen for Yale Environment 360

Whenever there’s been activity there — cleanup work or soil removal “it always leads to somebody being sick” in the family, Eric Petrucci said. As a toddler, their now-teenage son developed a rare, but temporary, blood disorder. Two neighbors got brain tumors, and another suffered kidney failure. “Every house has had somebody die of cancer,” Amanda Petrucci said. Eric Petrucci developed severe lung problems that took years to clear.

When the gas plant opened, their home’s water turned black, and Amanda Petrucci started getting tics and migraines. She has wanted to move away for years, but her husband, whose parents built their home, feels deeply rooted in the area. An ethane cracker about two miles away would end that debate, forcing them to leave, they say. And if PTTGC builds, an associated project — underground caverns to store ethane next to the river — will likely proceed too. “I’m constantly worried about it,” Amanda Petrucci said.

State representative Sara Innamorato, a Pittsburgh Democrat who is among a small minority of Pennsylvania lawmakers opposing petrochemical expansion, thinks Appalachia can do better than to entangle itself further with fossil fuels and their byproducts. Shell’s tax break could have financed more sustainable development, she said: “That’s $1.6 billion less we have to put into Main Street businesses, or technical and career colleges, or to allow for a small business that’s operating here to expand,” or help factories upgrade to reduce emissions.

Oil and gas companies’ political donations have stymied development of any alternative plan, she believes. There’s plenty of room “to think creatively about the future of energy, the future of jobs, and the future of other industries.” The challenge, Innamorato said, “is just getting people to see it doesn’t need to be this way. There can be another vision.”


Reporting for this story was supported by the McGraw Fellowship for Business Journalism at the City University of New York’s Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism.

Amid hopes and fears, a plastics boom in Appalachia is on hold

Karen Gdula lives in the house she grew up in, a modest home on a pretty street in rural western Pennsylvania. Ivy Lane, in her view, is someplace special. “There’s a warmth and a caring,” she said. “We look out for each other.” The street never needed those bonds more than on September 10, 2018.

Retired and newly married, Gdula was asleep when, just before 5 a.m., an explosion shook her home. The roar was so loud that some of her neighbors thought it was a plane crash. But when she and her husband saw a fireball stretching above the tops of the towering pine trees across the street, they knew exactly what had happened.

The Revolution Pipeline, running right behind Ivy Lane in Center Township, about 25 miles northwest of Pittsburgh, had come into service only days before, carrying gas from the fracking wells that are everywhere in the region. No one was hurt, but the explosion flattened a home three doors down from Gdula’s and toppled six giant electrical transmission towers.

Now, Revolution is back in service, and another pipeline has come to Ivy Lane, too. It’s called Line N, and it feeds gas to the vast, $6 billion petrochemical plant Shell is building five miles away in Monaca, right on the Ohio River. That plant, called an “ethane cracker,” will soon turn ethane — a byproduct of fracking — into 1.6 million tons of raw plastic a year.

The Ohio River Valley is wrestling with whether to tie its fortunes to another toxic, boom-and-bust industry.

Five years ago, the flood of ethane coming from the Ohio River Valley’s fracking wells got the plastic industry — petrochemical firms that are often subsidiaries of big fossil fuel producers — dreaming about a new generation of massive plants in the region. Companies envisioned building as many as four more ethane crackers like Shell’s in Appalachia, and state and local officials from both parties embraced the idea.

That vision is now foundering. Obstacles including global overproduction of plastic, local opposition to pipelines that feed such facilities, and public concern about the tidal wave of waste choking oceans and landscapes mean that even the region’s second proposed ethane cracker may never materialize. Additional plants look even less likely. The question mark over the industry’s once-grand hopes for Appalachia reflects larger doubts about its plans for dramatically increasing worldwide plastic production.

Driving oil and gas companies’ plastic production ambitions is the understanding that action on climate change may soon reduce demand for their fuels. Plastic is central to their hopes of keeping profits flowing, so they’ve been pouring money into building new plants and expanding old ones, on track to double 2016 global plastic production levels by 2036. Fracking has made the United States a major player in this international buildout. The American Chemistry Council, an industry association, says companies are investing more than $200 billion in U.S. chemical projects using fracked ingredients. Most of that growth has happened on the Gulf Coast, the country’s long-standing petrochemical hub.

Karen Gdula in her Center Township home, where she grew up. The walls are adorned with photos of her ancestors.

Karen Gdula in her Center Township home, where she grew up. The walls are adorned with photos of her ancestors.
Jeff Swensen for Yale Environment 360

The Ohio River Valley — desperate for economic revival after the steep decline of its coal and steel industries — was supposed to be the site of the next big push. Like many in the region, Gdula has complicated feelings about petrochemicals. She spent much of her career at a company that designed equipment for oil and gas workers, so she was not someone predisposed to distrust the industry. But after the explosion, she was dismayed to realize that much of its infrastructure was feeding plastic plants. And not just locally: Pennsylvanian ethane flows by pipeline to the Gulf Coast and Canada, and to a port near Philadelphia where it is shipped to European plastic producers.

Gdula is resigned to living with the industry, but she wants politicians and regulators to better safeguard residents’ well-being. In the wake of the explosion, she’s concluded that when Pennsylvania makes decisions about new projects, “jobs will aways trump everything. I hope safety is a close second.”

Her outlook reflects the push and pull of big promises and nagging fears as a region that was once one of America’s great industrial corridors wrestles with whether to tie its fortunes to another toxic, boom-and-bust industry like coal or fracking. And because plastic production has a hefty climate footprint — along with its more visible impact on waste — the consequences of what happens in Appalachia will stretch far beyond the region’s depressed downtowns, winding creeks, and peaceful hollows.


The Ivy Lane blast highlighted the safety concerns around Pennsylvania’s thousands of miles of pipelines. Revolution’s owner was charged with nine counts of environmental crimes and agreed to $2 million in fines and upgrade costs. Separately, the U.S. pipeline safety agency issued a warning to Shell over missing padding — a safety concern — on part of the Falcon pipeline, which will carry ethane to its plant. The company says the line is safe and the issue was isolated. Opponents believe it highlights a much wider problem — regulators’ coziness with oil and gas interests, whose projects they approve too readily and fail to adequately police.

The U.S. plastic industry’s greenhouse gas emissions equal those from 116 coal-fired power plants.

The explosion also offered a glimpse of the many tentacles of plastic production’s health and environmental effects, which extend far beyond the plants’ direct impacts. “It’s the whole network, the whole big spider web of this chemical plant being built around us,” said Terrie Baumgardner, of the Pennsylvania Clean Air Council.

By creating a market for ethane, plastic production drives more fracking, with the well-documented health and climate dangers it poses. One study found that the $23 billion toll of air pollution from fracking in the region — including between 1,200 and 4,600 premature deaths over 12 years — outweighed the economic gains, which researchers put at $21 billion. A plant the size of Shell’s needs more than 1,000 fracking wells to supply it with ethane, Duquesne University’s Center for Environmental Research estimates.

And the plants pose their own dangers. “Cracking” ethane’s molecules to turn it into ethylene — which is then processed into polyethylene, the world’s most widely used plastic — can emit benzene, toluene, and formaldehyde, which are linked to leukemia, nervous system damage, and respiratory problems, respectively. Shell’s facility will also create pollutants including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, which increase risks of cancer, heart problems, and other ailments. The company declined an interview request, but has said the plant complies with all regulations.

Karen Gdula shows a photo of the burning remnants of her neighbor’s house following the 2018 explosion of the Revolution Pipeline.

Karen Gdula shows a photo of the burning remnants of her neighbor’s house following the 2018 explosion of the Revolution Pipeline.
Jeff Swensen for Yale Environment 360

Plastic production’s climate impact is sizable, too. With its energy-hungry cracking plants — Shell’s Monaca facility is allowed to emit as much carbon dioxide annually as about 430,000 cars — and the methane-leaking pipelines that feed them, the U.S. plastic industry’s greenhouse gas emissions equal those from 116 coal-fired power plants, estimates Beyond Plastic, an advocacy group. Domestically, that footprint is expected to exceed coal’s by 2030, the group predicts. Globally, plastic would be the world’s fifth-largest greenhouse gas emitter if it were a country, Beyond Plastic says. If output grows as planned, plastic would use more than 10 percent of the emissions allowable if warming is to stay below 1.5 degrees Celsius, says the Center for International Environmental Law.


In the river towns of western Pennsylvania, southeastern Ohio, and West Virginia, many see petrochemicals as a lifeline that will not only provide good jobs and tax revenue, but help spark broader growth. Especially after the pandemic exposed the vulnerability of global supply chains, supporters say the plastic produced by Shell — and perhaps eventually other producers — will attract manufacturers to turn it into goods and packaging.

Embracing such hopes, Pennsylvania gave Shell a tax break valued at $1.6 billion, one of the largest in state history. The company’s decision to build “put Beaver County back on the map,” said Jack Manning, a county commissioner. “That plant gave more people hope than any other single thing” in decades. Early in the pandemic, plant construction workers’ spending at local shops and restaurants “really helped us survive,” and he predicted such indirect economic benefits would continue.

While 8,000 workers are building the plastics plant, there will only be 600 permanent jobs once it opens.

Others have doubts. The Ohio River Valley Institute, a liberal research group, says Beaver County’s growth lags the rest of the state despite the huge construction project.

Six miles from Shell’s site, Mayor Dwan Walker runs Aliquippa, once a storied steel-making town, from a bare-bones City Hall on a street lined with empty storefronts. With tattooed arms and a red Aliquippa polo shirt, he’s ready to welcome just about anything that will bring back jobs and revenue. But he sees Shell’s plant as a mixed blessing. “The good news is the cracker plant’s coming. Guess what the bad news is — the cracker plant’s coming,” he says. “There’s a lot of questions I have.”

While 8,000 workers are building the plant, there will only be 600 permanent jobs once it opens. So far, many workers are from out of state. Walker sees license plates from all over the country, just as he did during fracking’s boom years, when oil and gas workers came from as far as Texas and Oklahoma to take good-paying jobs.

Aliquippa is one of the few racially diverse towns in a largely white area, and a lot of obstacles stand between its residents, many of them Black, and permanent jobs with Shell, Walker said. Many don’t own cars, and few have the training to work in an ethane cracker. At the company’s community meetings, “they kept talking about diversity,” the mayor recalled. “Explain to me what that looks like.” One thing he wants to know: “Do I see people saying, ‘Here’s a voucher for a taxi or an Uber’” to get residents without cars to community colleges or other training sites?

Aliquippa Mayor Dwan Walker.

Aliquippa Mayor Dwan Walker.
Jeff Swensen for Yale Environment 360

Walker understands the risks of petrochemicals — the Gulf Coast plastic-making corridor is nicknamed “Cancer Alley” because of the industry’s toxic footprint. On the other hand, when Shell set up a construction staging area in Aliquippa, the town got an influx of tax income. And while there may not be many residents employed in the plant, Walker is among those who believes it will attract other companies. His town has docks on the Ohio River and plenty of industrial land waiting for the right manufacturer. “This is a city that’s been on its knees. It’s been crawling for a while, and now we’re starting to walk,” he said. “And pretty soon, we’re gonna run.”

Like Gdula, Walker is ambivalent about the industry. Would he prefer to have seen different opportunities for his constituents? “Yes and no,” he says. It wasn’t up to him, but now his job is to make sure those in charge don’t forget Aliquippa.


Belmont County, Ohio has similar hopes. It’s a little over an hour’s drive downriver from Shell’s site, along a stretch of the Ohio lined with the rusting skeletons of abandoned factories. There’s gentle beauty too, in the rolling green hills thick with springtime blossom and birdsong. Tucked inside the elbow of one of the river’s sharpest bends, a grassy field where a towering coal-fired power station once stood is empty now, its fate unclear since the Thai petrochemical conglomerate PTT Global Chemical (PTTGC) lost its investment partner for the $10 billion ethane cracker it hopes to build there.

Dan Williamson, a PTTGC spokesman, said such projects often have long gestation times, and that the pandemic’s disruptions had created additional delays. The company is looking for a new partner and remains optimistic it will eventually build. The plant would employ about 500 people, he said, and require thousands of construction workers to erect.

The plastic industry’s long-standing assumption that demand tracks economic growth may no longer hold.

For now, Belmont County is in limbo. The petrochemical industry’s global building spree including a wave of new plants in China — appears to have gone too far, at least for now. “We’re entering into a period of overcapacity,” said Nathan Schaffer, vice president for petrochemicals at the consulting group Wood Mackenzie. “Supply has outpaced demand” and will take a few years to catch up, he said.

Measures to reduce plastic waste may complicate that equation. The European Union, Canada, and more than 30 African nations are among locales banning some single-use items. There’s a push to use more recycled material and plans for a global plastic pollution treaty. So the plastic industry’s long-standing assumption that demand tracks economic growth may no longer hold, said Anne Keller, an expert in natural gas liquid and petrochemical feedstocks at Midstream Energy Group, a Texas-based consultancy.

Because of the mix of ingredients available in Appalachia, much of the region’s plastic output would likely go to single-use items such as bags and packaging, making producers particularly vulnerable to pollution concerns, Keller said. The Australian Minderoo Foundation ranked PTTGC as the world’s 19th largest producer of plastic for throwaway items, finding it made the material for 1.5 percent of all single-use plastics globally. Williamson, the company spokesman, said it takes environmental concerns seriously, and sees ocean plastic pollution as a crisis.

A pipeline under construction along Fork Ridge, about 10 miles outside Moundsville, West Virginia.

A pipeline under construction along Fork Ridge, about 10 miles outside Moundsville, West Virginia.
Jeff Swensen for Yale Environment 360

Opposition to new pipelines is another obstacle, Keller said. Just a few years ago, fracking companies saw the proposed new crackers as an enticing way to monetize ethane they needed to get rid of. “That’s changed,” she said. Now pushback against new pipelines — Mountain Valley, in West Virginia and Virginia, is the latest to run into trouble — threatens to limit the flow of methane leaving the region to be sold for heating and power. If it does, the difficulty of reaching markets will constrain new drilling, tightening the supply of ethane on which the plastic dreams were built. Five years ago, few “would have ever thought that it would literally have become impossible to build a pipeline out of this region,” Keller said. But there’s been so much opposition “that that’s really become a question mark.”

It’s too soon to know whether the Ukraine war, and Europe’s scramble to replace Russian gas, might upend that political dynamic, providing justification for new pipelines to carry fuel for liquefaction and export. Barring that, for PTTGC “it’s simple economics,” Keller said. Uncertainty around ethane supplies means building “looks a lot riskier than it did a few years ago.” Meanwhile, inflation is driving up construction costs, Schaffer said. All told, it means new Appalachian plants, in his view, are “probably off the table for now.”

Greg Kozera, a spokesman for Shale Crescent USA, which advocates for petrochemical development in the region, disagrees. The disruptions of the pandemic and war make the case for Appalachian plastic production stronger than ever, he argues. “We can’t depend on a global supply chain,” he said. “Companies are looking for regional suppliers.”

With plans for a $10 billion ethane cracker plant, a local official says, “we saw the potential and what it meant for the township.”

He added that eliminating international shipping costs means U.S. manufacturers using Appalachian plastic can compete with Asia on price, even if U.S. labor costs are higher. “We’re going to see the crackers, I’m convinced of that,” Kozera said.

Ed Good hopes he’s right. A trustee of Mead Township, which includes Dilles Bottom, home to PTTGC’s site, he worked 35 years at the R.E. Burger coal power plant, which closed in 2011; PTTGC knocked it down after acquiring the land. When the plant laid off staff in the 1990s, a federal program helped workers retrain, or go back to school, recalled Good, a longtime union official. There’s little such help available now, and with state cuts to local government support, towns are on their own too. “When Burger shut down I lost half my budget,” he said. “We don’t pave as many roads as we used to.”

When PTTGC expressed interest, “we saw the potential and what it meant for the township, what it meant for the community, schools.” Eventually, the company agreed it would pay the township $2 million upon a decision to build, and $500,000 annually afterwards. Nearby Shadyside secured a pledge of $38 million for a new school complex if the plant goes ahead.

Just across the Ohio, in Moundsville, West Virginia, Amanda and Eric Petrucci are waiting anxiously for word on the project too. The home where they’re raising their four children sits on a woodsy hilltop with a view that takes in the river and the low green mountains that run beside it. But they can also see flames licking up from a gas processing plant, and a nearby meadow is a Superfund site, contaminated by decades of chemical production.

Moundsville, West Virgina.

Moundsville, West Virgina.
Jeff Swensen for Yale Environment 360

Whenever there’s been activity there — cleanup work or soil removal “it always leads to somebody being sick” in the family, Eric Petrucci said. As a toddler, their now-teenage son developed a rare, but temporary, blood disorder. Two neighbors got brain tumors, and another suffered kidney failure. “Every house has had somebody die of cancer,” Amanda Petrucci said. Eric Petrucci developed severe lung problems that took years to clear.

When the gas plant opened, their home’s water turned black, and Amanda Petrucci started getting tics and migraines. She has wanted to move away for years, but her husband, whose parents built their home, feels deeply rooted in the area. An ethane cracker about two miles away would end that debate, forcing them to leave, they say. And if PTTGC builds, an associated project — underground caverns to store ethane next to the river — will likely proceed too. “I’m constantly worried about it,” Amanda Petrucci said.

State representative Sara Innamorato, a Pittsburgh Democrat who is among a small minority of Pennsylvania lawmakers opposing petrochemical expansion, thinks Appalachia can do better than to entangle itself further with fossil fuels and their byproducts. Shell’s tax break could have financed more sustainable development, she said: “That’s $1.6 billion less we have to put into Main Street businesses, or technical and career colleges, or to allow for a small business that’s operating here to expand,” or help factories upgrade to reduce emissions.

Oil and gas companies’ political donations have stymied development of any alternative plan, she believes. There’s plenty of room “to think creatively about the future of energy, the future of jobs, and the future of other industries.” The challenge, Innamorato said, “is just getting people to see it doesn’t need to be this way. There can be another vision.”


Reporting for this story was supported by the McGraw Fellowship for Business Journalism at the City University of New York’s Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism.

Free wooden bellyboard hire scheme aims to cut plastic pollution

Free wooden bellyboard hire scheme aims to cut plastic pollution

Surf Wood for Good aims to tackle waste caused by polystyrene bodyboards by lending beachgoers UK-made wooden boards

Wooden bellyboards from Dick Pearce & Friends

A new initiative is offering free bellyboard hire across England, Wales and Northern Ireland to discourage the use of polluting plastic boards.

Surf Wood for Good aims to tackle the waste caused by polystyrene bodyboards, which are usually imported and single-use, by lending beachgoers British-made wooden boards.

The environmentally friendly alternatives will be available to borrow free of charge from stockists in 24 coastal sites until October, including in Bournemouth, Cornwall and Grimsby.

It is estimated that more than 16,000 polystyrene bodyboards are left on UK beaches each year, according to environmental charity Keep Britain Tidy.

The low-quality boards are said to last as little as a few hours before they are often discarded across seafronts, and can release thousands of tiny polystyrene balls into the coastal ecosystem.

Jamie Johnstone, founder of Surf Wood for Good, was prompted to act after seeing the volume of broken polystyrene bodyboards left at his local beach in Newquay daily last summer.

“We hope that the scheme will inspire people to think about what they are riding in the waves and promote a positive change away from disposable plastic in general,” Johnstone said.

“I love the idea that each board handed out represents the potential for a cheap alternative to be saved from landfill.”

Environmental charity Surfers Against Sewage added: “Plastic pollution is a huge issue, with 8m pieces of plastic entering the ocean every single day. Not only is Surf Wood For Good kinder to our planet, it provides endless fun in the water, where you can use the board over and over again.”

Last year, a ban on sales of single-use bodyboard sales was introduced in North Devon to eliminate waste.

A list of participating sites can be found at a dedicated website.

Free wooden bellyboard hire scheme aims to cut plastic pollution

Free wooden bellyboard hire scheme aims to cut plastic pollution

Surf Wood for Good aims to tackle waste caused by polystyrene bodyboards by lending beachgoers UK-made wooden boards

Wooden bellyboards from Dick Pearce & Friends

A new initiative is offering free bellyboard hire across England, Wales and Northern Ireland to discourage the use of polluting plastic boards.

Surf Wood for Good aims to tackle the waste caused by polystyrene bodyboards, which are usually imported and single-use, by lending beachgoers British-made wooden boards.

The environmentally friendly alternatives will be available to borrow free of charge from stockists in 24 coastal sites until October, including in Bournemouth, Cornwall and Grimsby.

It is estimated that more than 16,000 polystyrene bodyboards are left on UK beaches each year, according to environmental charity Keep Britain Tidy.

The low-quality boards are said to last as little as a few hours before they are often discarded across seafronts, and can release thousands of tiny polystyrene balls into the coastal ecosystem.

Jamie Johnstone, founder of Surf Wood for Good, was prompted to act after seeing the volume of broken polystyrene bodyboards left at his local beach in Newquay daily last summer.

“We hope that the scheme will inspire people to think about what they are riding in the waves and promote a positive change away from disposable plastic in general,” Johnstone said.

“I love the idea that each board handed out represents the potential for a cheap alternative to be saved from landfill.”

Environmental charity Surfers Against Sewage added: “Plastic pollution is a huge issue, with 8m pieces of plastic entering the ocean every single day. Not only is Surf Wood For Good kinder to our planet, it provides endless fun in the water, where you can use the board over and over again.”

Last year, a ban on sales of single-use bodyboard sales was introduced in North Devon to eliminate waste.

A list of participating sites can be found at a dedicated website.

Plans to industrialize Darwin Harbour  precinct could cause 'significant' health impacts, environmental report warns

A new industrial precinct in Darwin Harbour could cause “significant adverse impacts to human health”, according to an environmental report released by the Northern Territory government.

The NT government is spearheading plans to develop a manufacturing and minerals precinct in Middle Arm, south of Darwin.

The proposal includes a petrochemicals manufacturing facility, which would convert natural gas into products like plastics and paint.

The federal budget promised $1.5 billion for a new wharf and offloading facility in the area, however the funding has not been allocated over the forward estimates period.

The NT government said the precinct would also include carbon capture and storage technologies, as well as hydrogen and mineral exports, deeming it a low emissions precinct that will create 20,000 jobs.

The potential threat to human health was flagged in a risk assessment the government was required to submit under the environmental approvals process, which noted its proximity to residential Palmerston and ranked the risk as “uncertain”.

But environmental advocates have labelled the report an “incredibly concerning” warning.

“You’re talking about ammonia, methanol, hydrogen and gas liquids processing in Middle Arm, which is actually a petroleum refinery,” Jason Fowler from the Environment Centre NT said.

“This is all occurring within three kilometres of the suburb of Palmerston.

“If you look anywhere around the globe, you’re not finding massive petrochemical refineries right next to suburbia.”

A photo of a man wearing a blue shirt.A photo of a man wearing a blue shirt.
Mr Fowler says the development could pose a risk to human health.(ABC News: Nicholas Hynes)

‘Significant impacts to marine water’

The report to the NT Environmental Protection Authority also warned threatened species as well as migratory shorebirds and habitat could be impacted, with about 1,500 hectares of land proposed to be cleared for the precinct.

“Significant impacts to marine water and sediment quality” in the harbour, as well as to marine ecosystems could result from dredging and shipping operations, it said.

In response to the report, the Northern Territory and federal governments have committed to partnering on a detailed assessment of the precinct to identify and protect environmentally significant areas.

“Environmental considerations are paramount in the development of the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct,” NT Environment Minister Eva Lalwer said.

“Baseline investigations are underway, including identifying plant and animal biodiversity, marine environmental values, and air and water quality to inform detailed planning for the precinct.”

An image of a small carpark next to a Middle Arm boat ramp.An image of a small carpark next to a Middle Arm boat ramp.
The proposed location in Middle Arm is close to two existing LNG processing facilities run by Santos and INPEX.(ABC News: Michael Donnelly)

Timeline is locked in, Joyce says 

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce was in Darwin on Tuesday, where the Coalition is targeting two federal seats, spruiking his government’s commitment to developing the Middle Arm precinct. 

He said the area would invite $16 billion in private investment and linked the spending to national security.

“Our vision is to make Darwin an even bigger and stronger city,” he told ABC Radio Darwin this morning. 

But asked yesterday if the investment would effectively fund a second port to bypass the one leased to Chinese-owned firm for 99 years, Mr Joyce said: “I’m not going to talk about anything but what we’re doing here”.

a middle-aged man in an akubraa middle-aged man in an akubra
Mr Joyce says investment in Darwin port facilities would bolster national security. (ABC News: Xavier Martin)

He also did not provide a specific timeline for when the money would be spent, but insisted “the timeline is locked in”.

Mr Joyce insisted the proposal would not be put to a business case or feasibility study, despite a media release at the time of the announcement saying the funding was “conditional pending completed business cases demonstrating value for money and sufficient public benefit for investment”.

His office has not yet responded to a request for clarification.

Free wooden bellyboard hire scheme aims to cut plastic pollution

Free wooden bellyboard hire scheme aims to cut plastic pollution

Surf Wood for Good aims to tackle waste caused by polystyrene bodyboards by lending beachgoers UK-made wooden boards

Wooden bellyboards from Dick Pearce & Friends

A new initiative is offering free bellyboard hire across England, Wales and Northern Ireland to discourage the use of polluting plastic boards.

Surf Wood for Good aims to tackle the waste caused by polystyrene bodyboards, which are usually imported and single-use, by lending beachgoers British-made wooden boards.

The environmentally friendly alternatives will be available to borrow free of charge from stockists in 24 coastal sites until October, including in Bournemouth, Cornwall and Grimsby.

It is estimated that more than 16,000 polystyrene bodyboards are left on UK beaches each year, according to environmental charity Keep Britain Tidy.

The low-quality boards are said to last as little as a few hours before they are often discarded across seafronts, and can release thousands of tiny polystyrene balls into the coastal ecosystem.

Jamie Johnstone, founder of Surf Wood for Good, was prompted to act after seeing the volume of broken polystyrene bodyboards left at his local beach in Newquay daily last summer.

“We hope that the scheme will inspire people to think about what they are riding in the waves and promote a positive change away from disposable plastic in general,” Johnstone said.

“I love the idea that each board handed out represents the potential for a cheap alternative to be saved from landfill.”

Environmental charity Surfers Against Sewage added: “Plastic pollution is a huge issue, with 8m pieces of plastic entering the ocean every single day. Not only is Surf Wood For Good kinder to our planet, it provides endless fun in the water, where you can use the board over and over again.”

Last year, a ban on sales of single-use bodyboard sales was introduced in North Devon to eliminate waste.

A list of participating sites can be found at a dedicated website.