California’s Exxon Lawsuit Is Guided More By Symbols Than Actions

By Nate Scherer

The idea of corporate social responsibility is not new. For years, there has been a push for companies to act in a more socially responsible manner, specifically as it relates to environmental stewardship. While environmental stewardship is important, concerns about sustainability must be balanced carefully with consumer interests. The nation’s most populous state increasingly appears to have forgotten these important fact.

California is suing oil and gas giant ExxonMobil for alleged “deceptive public messaging surrounding plastics recycling” and its culpability in “the plastic waste and pollution crisis.” Unfortunately, the lawsuit is extremely misguided and ignores the complicated role plastics continue to play in society. It seeks to pin blame on a single company for a global problem while absolving itself from any responsibility.

While many states have instituted laws requiring manufacturers to recycle, or otherwise safely dispose of waste products, California’s lawsuit goes a step further. It seeks to hold a company liable for something that, as a large oil and gas producer, it is only indirectly responsible for. That makes it uniquely dangerous and potentially damaging to consumer interests since plastics have diverse applications and continue to be widely used.

It goes without saying that plastic waste is a serious problem that, in many ways, embodies the economic concept known as the tragedy of the commons where individual actions can collectively lead to negative consequences. Every year, the U.S. produces millions of tons of plastic, much of which ultimately ends up in landfills, or in the worst cases, is discarded into the environment. California notes that only a small percentage of this plastic is recycled, with the Environmental Protection Agency putting the number at about 9%.

However, California has chosen to ding Exxon for promoting advanced recycling technology and endorsing the widely recognized recycling symbol on its products. The state argues these actions have misled consumers into believing that if they properly dispose of products, they will be recycled, even though most current research suggests this is not the case. But touting technological advances in recycling—even when modest—and encouraging people to recycle are good things, not bad.

The federal government has encouraged recycling for decades and spends millions annually on education campaigns such as “America Recycles Day.” For its part, California also continues to promote recycling and regularly passes new rules and regulations to make the process easier for consumers. Whether these efforts are effective is a separate question, but Exxon is far from alone in embracing recycling as a solution to plastic waste.

That makes California’s lawsuit against Exxon disingenuous. The state seems far more interested in going after the company simply because it is the world’s largest “refiner and marketer” of petrochemical products than it is concerned about solving the world’s plastic pollution problem. Perhaps that’s why the Golden State is seeking “multiple billions of dollars” in civil penalties. 

The lawsuit also seems to neglect the enormous benefits that plastics have brought to ordinary people, including Californians. Despite ongoing challenges with recycling, plastics are attractive because they are extremely versatile, cheap to manufacture, and possess many unique properties that make them preferable to alternative materials that are not always as practical to use or even better for the environment.

Indeed, there is a reason that plastics are known as the “material with 1,000 uses.” Today, over 6,000 consumer products rely on petrochemicals as a primary compound. They are found in items as mundane as milk cartons and shampoo bottles to lifesaving medical devices and automobile seatbelts. One would think that a state that claims to be concerned that “plastics are everywhere” would at least attempt to understand why that is the case, and what makes the material so popular.

Unfortunately, that would require California to carefully weigh the pros and cons of plastics, something it has shown no interest in doing as it attempts to wean off oil and gas. California would do well to remember that solving global problems like plastic waste will require global efforts, efforts that are undermined each time it chooses to single out a company already committed to playing its part.

Nate Scherer is a policy analyst with the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization. For more information about the Institute, visit us at www.TheAmericanConsumer.Org or follow us on X @ConsumerPal

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.