The decision comes after a ProPublica investigation revealed that the EPA had found that one of the fuels had a cancer risk more than 1 million times higher than the agency usually considers acceptable.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is planning to withdraw and reconsider its approval for Chevron to produce 18 plastic-based fuels, including some that an internal agency assessment found are highly likely to cause cancer.

In a recent court filing, the federal agency said it “has substantial concerns” that the approval order “may have been made in error.” The EPA gave a Chevron refinery in Mississippi the green light to make the chemicals in 2022 under a “climate-friendly” initiative intended to boost alternatives to petroleum, as ProPublica and The Guardian reported last year.

An investigation by ProPublica and The Guardian revealed that the EPA had calculated that one of the chemicals intended to serve as jet fuel was expected to cause cancer in 1 in 4 people exposed over their lifetime.

  • Flying Squid
    link
    374 months ago

    “Burning plastic is a great idea!” --No one who has ever been near burning plastic.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      34 months ago

      Killing them for fuel is too humane a punishment. We should put them in a hamster wheel instead.

      • Fish [Indiana]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        24 months ago

        Too humane. How about a hamster wheel with electrified nipple clamps attached to the roof. Whenever they slow down, they get electrocuted. Whenever they move too much, their nipples get tugged on.

  • Miles O'Brien
    link
    fedilink
    English
    254 months ago

    “in error”

    Also known as: "Someone higher up took a bribe or inserted personal politics into a government agency and we got caught doing nothing about it. "

  • Rhaedas
    link
    fedilink
    114 months ago

    The only plus from this approach is that it is using already extracted petroleum products to create energy instead of pulling out new carbon sources from the ground. But like others have said, burning plastics is nasty, and would require a huge proof of concept that the emissions are low and not dangerous. Which I guess they skipped over.

  • @Betty_Boopie
    link
    11
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Pyrolysis sounds really cool in theory but in practice it’s wasteful, produces lower quality fuel that is harder to refine, and contains a ton of benzene.

    There’s a dude on youtube making one of these in his backyard, basically a speed run to turn his house into a superfund site. I have no idea how people can see burnt plastic as a “green” alternative.

  • Blackout
    link
    fedilink
    94 months ago

    Chevron’s Lawyer: “You see, the deaths are a feature, not a flaw. That’s what makes this fuel carbon neutral.”