Fossil-Free Plastics: Real Solution?
Why (some) bio-based plastics are still plastic: A review of SystemIQ's fossil-free plastics report.
Here's the thing about "fossil-free plastics": they might still be just plan ol’ plastic.
I gotta admit, when I saw SystemIQ's new report title "Fossil Free Plastics: Driving Clean Industrial Leadership in Europe," I got excited. Finally, I thought, someone's going to tackle the fashion industry's microplastics crisis with biodegradable alternatives.
But, honestly, I was disappointed. Because what they're actually proposing isn't solving our plastic problem at all.
El Problem
Let me remind you why you should care about fashion and plastic in the first place:
35% of ocean microplastics come from synthetic textiles¹
69% of all textile production uses synthetic fibers²
A single laundry load can release 700,000 microplastic fibers³
Fashion accounts for 14% of global plastic pollution (8.3 million tonnes in 2019)²
So when a major report promises "fossil-free" solutions, you'd expect them to address this, right?
Wrong.
El Report
The SystemIQ report focuses on something called methanol-to-olefins (MTO) technology. Basically, instead of making polyethylene and polypropylene from oil, you make them from biomass (in a simplified way: CO2 > Biomass > Methanol > Monomer > Plastic). Same plastic, different starting material.
The report is honest about what they're creating: "identical, fully recyclable products compatible with today's systems." Read that again. Identical products.
Here's what the report gets excited about:
Fossil-free plastics could reduce emissions by 5-7 tonnes of CO₂eq per tonne
Europe could avoid 180 million tonnes of CO₂eq emissions annually by 2050
At scale, costs could reach parity with fossil-based plastics (when carbon costs are included, which we all know they aren't)
Even with maximum recycling efforts, Europe will still need 28 million tonnes of virgin plastic by 2050
In a "highly circular system," fossil-free plastics would make up 30% of production (15 million tonnes)
The MTO value chain could drive €30-40 billion in investment across Europe
Demand for sustainable biomass is expected to outstrip supply by 10-20 times
Plastic waste will either "re-enter the recycling loop, remain captured in the product (landfill, leakage) or return to atmosphere through incineration."
The report also acknowledges the land use reality: they need sustainable biomass that doesn't compete with food production, cause deforestation, or create "social and environmental harm." But as we know, sustainable criteria is rarely met in practice when you're talking about this scale.
Sounds great for emissions. And I'm certainly not against reducing carbon emissions. Climate change is real and urgent. And this is a great way to start addressing the issue. Credit where credit is due.
But do we risk focusing on “safe solutions” rather than fixing the problem?
Mi Take
This is what gets me: Not once was microplastics mentioned in this 48-page report. Not once.
It seems that we are so focused on carbon accounting that tend to miss everything else.
The report even uses "bioplastic" to describe their fossil-free plastics, which I think is misleading. When most people hear "bioplastic," they think biodegradable. But what the report is proposing has "the exact same properties as current plastics." Translation: it won't biodegrade any better than regular plastic.
I get why this approach is appealing. It's easier to swap feedstocks than redesign entire supply chains. It lets companies keep the same manufacturing processes, same performance characteristics, same everything except the origin story. But that's exactly the problem: we're treating the symptom (carbon emissions) while ignoring the disease (persistent pollution).
Real solutions would mean actually biodegradable fibers, design for durability, performance materials only where necessary, and honest communication about what "sustainable" means.
Bottom Line? I wanted to love this report. Climate solutions are desperately needed. But I can't get excited about technology that solves the carbon problem while perpetuating the pollution problem.
Here's my challenge to fashion brands: beware of "sustainable" innovations that miss the point. Because whether it comes from oil wells or corn fields, plastic is still plastic. And plastic doesn't belong in our oceans, our food, or our bodies.
That's the conversation we should be having.
Bonus: El Technical Note
One interesting part of the report was comparing carbon accounting methods. There are two approaches for measuring biofeedstock:
0/0 Approach: Assumes biogenic carbon cycles balance over time, so end-of-life emissions are ignored
-1/+1 Approach: Actually tracks carbon uptake (-1) and release (+1), providing a fuller picture
The -1/+1 method shows an additional 3 tCO₂e/t emissions reduction that the 0/0 method misses. This matters because it shows how accounting methodology shapes what problems we think we're solving. But it also reinforces my point: we're so obsessed with carbon accounting that we're ignoring the pollution that's happening right now.
Sources
Systemiq report: "Fossil Free Plastics: Driving Clean Industrial Leadership in Europe" (May 2025)
Additional Sources:
1. https://phys.org/news/2018-09-microplastics-world-oceans-synthetic-textiles.html
2. https://changingmarkets.org/report/fashions-plastic-paralysis/
3. https://phys.org/news/2018-09-microplastics-world-oceans-synthetic-textiles.html