Cases / Plastic waste and recycling claims · Global · 2021–2026
Holcim Geocycle and brand-cement plastic co-processing
Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured. Disputed
Not on record
- The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 1 none on record · 1 not disclosed · 1 not measured · 3 disputed See the gaps
Accounts of the harm differ
Does burning plastic in a kiln instead of coal bring a climate benefit?
- Government and regulators US Environmental Protection Agency: Found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in a cement kiln (as reported by Reuters). VOA / Reuters
- Researchers Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and Center for International Environmental Law: Burning a tonne of plastic adds about 2.7 t CO2e on top of production emissions (Swedish EPA); about 1 t net, or 2.9 t without the electricity credit (CIEL). These estimates are for plastic burning in general, not specifically Holcim's kilns.
Holcim's waste unit Geocycle burns plastic and other waste as fuel in cement kilns, and Holcim describes the material it processes as recycled. Reuters reported in 2021 that the plant partnerships with consumer brands were growing, and that the US Environmental Protection Agency had found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns.
2 Mt → 11 MtPlastic burned per year by Geocycle: 2021 and 2040 target (Reuters)
As reported by Reuters in October 2021; Mt = million tonnes.
As reported by Reuters in October 2021; Mt = million tonnes.
Status As of 2026: Holcim says its kilns recycled 12.6 million tonnes of material in 2025; no gate fees or revenue are published.
What?
Holcim's Geocycle unit burns waste, including plastic, in cement kilns and describes the material it processes as recycled. Holcim
Where?
Holcim kilns worldwide; Reuters' nine brand-cement collaborations were in Costa Rica, El Salvador, the Philippines, India and Indonesia. VOA / Reuters
When?
Reuters report October 2021; Holcim's recycling claim concerns 2025. Holcim
Who?
Gained
- Holcim (Geocycle) — Operates the waste co-processing; whether it receives gate fees or other revenue is not published. Holcim
Lost
None on recordHarmed
None on recordWhy?
The sources reviewed do not state Holcim's motive for the co-processing business beyond its own account of closing the loop.
How?
Waste is fed into cement kilns as fuel or raw material. Holcim
6 of 6 questions answered from the record
What happened
The record, in order.
Holcim is a cement producer. Its waste-management unit, Geocycle, processes waste in cement kilns, where the waste is burned as fuel or raw material. Holcim states that Geocycle processed about 14 million tonnes of waste in 2023. Holcim does not publish gate fees (the charges paid to take waste) or revenue from this activity.
In October 2021 Reuters reported that it had found nine collaborations between consumer brands and cement companies on plastic waste, in Costa Rica, El Salvador, the Philippines, India and Indonesia. Reuters reported that Geocycle was burning 2 million tonnes of plastic a year and had a 2040 target of 11 million tonnes. Reuters also reported that the US Environmental Protection Agency had found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic in a cement kiln instead of coal.
In a 2026 web page titled "Closing the loop with Geocycle", Holcim said that its cement kilns recycled 12.6 million tonnes of material in 2025. The word "recycled" is Holcim's.
Whether kiln co-processing counts as recycling differs between jurisdictions. European Union law treats energy recovery as a step separate from recycling, and in 2023 a European Parliament rapporteur proposed adding energy recovery to the definition of recycling. In the Philippines, co-processing in cement kilns counts toward the producer-responsibility recovery target alongside recycling. India classes co-processing as end-of-life disposal outside the recycling target. Vietnam does not count co-processing toward its target.
- 2021Reuters reports nine brand-cement plastic collaborations and Geocycle burning 2 million tonnes of plastic a year, with an 11 million tonne target for 2040
- 2023Holcim reports that Geocycle processed about 14 million tonnes of waste; a European Parliament rapporteur proposes widening the EU definition of recycling to include energy recovery
- 2025Holcim says its kilns recycled 12.6 million tonnes of material
- 2026Holcim publishes "Closing the loop with Geocycle"
What was said
Claims, in the words of those who made them.
Where accounts differ
Each party's account, side by side, with its source. The record does not settle these points; it shows them.
Does burning waste in a cement kiln count as recycling?
Company or project
Holcim
Describes the 12.6 million tonnes of material processed in its kilns in 2025 as recycled.
HolcimInternational bodies
European Union
Energy recovery is a step separate from recycling; a European Parliament rapporteur proposed in 2023 to add it to the recycling definition.
Government and regulators
Philippines
Cement-kiln co-processing counts toward the producer-responsibility recovery target alongside recycling.
Government and regulators
India
Co-processing is classed as end-of-life disposal, outside the recycling target.
Government and regulators
Vietnam
Co-processing is not counted toward the target.
Does burning plastic in a kiln instead of coal bring a climate benefit?
Government and regulators
US Environmental Protection Agency
Found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in a cement kiln (as reported by Reuters).
VOA / ReutersResearchers
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and Center for International Environmental Law
Burning a tonne of plastic adds about 2.7 t CO2e on top of production emissions (Swedish EPA); about 1 t net, or 2.9 t without the electricity credit (CIEL). These estimates are for plastic burning in general, not specifically Holcim's kilns.
How it looked
What was shown, beside what was recorded.
Shown
- Holcim described the 12.6 million tonnes of material processed in its cement kilns in 2025 as recycled, on a page titled "Closing the loop with Geocycle".Holcim · Holcim
Recorded
- Geocycle was burning 2 million tonnes of plastic a year, with a 2040 target of 11 million tonnes; Reuters found nine brand-cement collaborations in five countries.
- The US Environmental Protection Agency found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in a cement kiln (as reported by Reuters).
- Holcim states that Geocycle processed about 14 million tonnes of waste in 2023; no gate fees or revenue are published.
- Holcim's cement capacity was 203 million tonnes a year in 2024, the third-largest of the companies ranked in Global Cement's Top 100 (CNBM 530, Anhui Conch 407, Holcim 203, Heidelberg 187).
Who gained
Money that reached nature, beside money that stayed elsewhere.
Reached nature or the ground
Not published
No figure published.
Gained elsewhere
Not totalled
Currency: · Window: . All figures cover the same period. * Estimate built from cited figures.
Responses on record
- holcim (2026): Describes the 12.6 million tonnes of material processed in its kilns in 2025 as recycled. · Holcim
In court and with insurers
Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.
Lawsuits and rulings
No court case on record. No court has ruled on this case.
Insurers
No insurer decision on record.
What nature saw
Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.
Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.
Plastic burned by Geocycle
2 Mt a year
Reuters, 2021; 2040 target 11 Mt a year
Climate benefit versus coal
None meaningful
US EPA finding, as reported by Reuters
Independent ecological evaluation
None found
The sources reviewed contain no measurement of kiln emissions or local effects
What we don't know
Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.
Nature
- Not measured Harm to nature: No independent ecological evaluation is on record.
- Disputed Does burning plastic in a kiln instead of coal bring a climate benefit?
Accounts
- Disputed Does burning waste in a cement kiln count as recycling?
Record
- Not disclosed Gate fees and revenue from Geocycle's co-processing are not published.
- None on record The sources reviewed give no emissions or air-quality measurements for Holcim's kilns burning plastic.
- Disputed Estimates of the extra greenhouse-gas emissions from burning a tonne of plastic differ: the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency gave about 2.7 t CO2e, the Center for International Environmental Law about 1 t net (2.9 t if the electricity credit is not deducted); the difference comes from system boundaries.
Did the harm stop?
The sources reviewed record no end to kiln co-processing; Holcim's 2025 figure is 12.6 million tonnes.
Who paid?
The sources reviewed do not say who bore costs from kiln emissions or waste handling.
Sources
Voices on record: ✓ Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts✓ Press and investigations— Communities and civil society— Researchers
Company or project
- Closing the loop with GeocycleHolcim · 2026
- Waste managementHolcim · 2023
Press and investigations
- Trash and Burn: Big Brands' New Plastic Waste Plan (Reuters, via VOA)VOA / Reuters · 2021-10
- Global Cement Top 100 2026Global Cement · 2025-11-24
Connected cases
Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.
- 1,4-dioxane in Tide: Prop 65 settlement and New York limit United States · 2011–2024
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Regulator; revised risk determination
- 3M PFOS: internal evidence, EPA penalty and Minnesota settlement United States · 1979–2026
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Regulator; TSCA charge closed 2006
- ADM Decatur carbon storage site leaks about 8,000 tons, EPA finds United States · 2023–2024
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: regulator that found a violation
- AES coal ash sold as road fill in Guayama, Puerto Rico; arsenic above standard United States · 2021
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Federal regulator promising action
- After Sackett ruling, NRDC says at least 60% of individual wetlands are unprotected United States · 2023
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Defendant in Sackett; named in reported 2025 and 2026 proposals to narrow the test (not verified)
- BP Deepwater Horizon: the spill, the court cases and the recovery claims United States · 2010–2031
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Suspended BP from new federal contracts, 2012–2014
- California v. ExxonMobil: plastics recycling claims and the Baytown plant United States · 2021–2026
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Rejected the mass balance method for its Safer Choice label, per ProPublica
- Chemours spin-off liabilities United States · 2015–2025
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Regulator in the December 2005 PFOA case
- Court reverses $60 million punitive award in dicamba case United States · 2015–2026
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Approved over-the-top dicamba use for 2026 and 2027
- Diamond Shamrock Lister Avenue dioxin, Passaic River United States · 1984–1993
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Selected the 2016 lower Passaic remedy
- Dicamba drift (Bader Farms) and EPA re-registration United States · 2015–2026
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Regulator; re-registered dicamba in February 2026
- DuPont PFOA (C8) at Washington Works, Parkersburg, and the Tennant farm United States · 1981–2026
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Regulator; 2005 penalty
- EPA repeals 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding on legal grounds United States · 2026
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Issued the repeal
- Exxon Valdez: the spill, insurance and court cases United States · 1989–2015
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Federal regulator in the 1991 settlement
- Former EPA chief Lisa Jackson named interim chair of Conservation International United States · 2012–2026
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Withdrew the Range Resources emergency order in 2012
- GE ran a 'Let Nature Clean Up the Hudson' campaign against EPA dredging United States · 2009–2015
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Regulator that ordered and certified the dredging
- GenX chemical found in Cape Fear River, a DuPont and Chemours replacement for PFOA United States · 2009
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Found in 2021 that GenX was more toxic than previously thought
- Greens report: parts of German glyphosate assessment copied Monsanto file Germany · 2015–2025
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: US regulator; former staff moved to Monsanto; Rowland remark reported
- Gulf of Mexico dead zone (Mississippi nutrient runoff) United States · 1985–2026
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Clean Water Act regulator
- Make Sunsets stratospheric balloon launches (Mexico) Mexico · 2022–2025
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Regulator that requested information
- Monsanto/Bayer PCB and Roundup insurance suit v AIG United States · 1967–2026
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Regulator; the sources reviewed say it told Bayer it would not accept a cancer warning
- Mosaic settles US hazardous-waste case over phosphogypsum handling United States · 2015
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Regulator that inspected the sites and signed the settlement
- Nonylphenol ethoxylates: Swiss ban and EU restriction Switzerland · 1984–2014
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Published the nonylphenol ethoxylate action plan
- Paraquat bans, UK production for export and Chinese exports United Kingdom · 1989–2026
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Regulator; interim decision of 2021 and January 2025 announcement
- Paraquat litigation (Syngenta/Chevron) and the Paraquat Papers United States · 1958–2026
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Regulator; 2021 interim decision and 2025 withdrawal
- PFAS water utility settlements by 3M, DuPont, Chemours and Corteva United States · 2023–2036
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Regulator; drinking-water limits for PFOA and PFOS
- Plastic credits and Philippines PCX Philippines · 2020–2025
- Holcim (Geocycle) (Company) — here: Cement producer; operator of Geocycle; there: Cement kiln operator (Geocycle)
- Portland Harbor Superfund cleanup plan (Willamette River, Oregon) United States · 2016–2017
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Regulator; issued the draft plan and the final Superfund decision
- Roundup litigation, settlements and legal shield (Bayer/Monsanto) United States · 2009–2026
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Approved the Roundup label; said it would not accept a cancer warning
- Starbase launch site, Boca Chica, Texas: environmental review, penalties and Starship debris United States · 2022–2025
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Federal environmental regulator; found Clean Water Act violations
- Stockholm Convention agrees chlorpyrifos phase-out with 22 uses exempted United States · 2021–2025
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: regulator
- Trump's EPA keeps Biden-era veto on Alaska's Pebble mine United States · 2023–2025
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Issued and reaffirmed the veto
- US bans DDT in 1972; bald eagle breeding pairs rebound United States · 1972–2019
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: issued the 1972 DDT ban
- US coal ash ponds, groundwater contamination and EPA delay United States · 2015–2026
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Regulator
- US power-plant sulfur emissions fell over 95%, EPA says United States · 1990–2022
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: published the programme results
- US Superfund tax and funding shortfall United States · 1980–2025
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Administers Superfund; reports responsible-party commitments
- US Supreme Court blocks state cancer-warning suits against pesticide makers United States · 2026
- US Environmental Protection Agency (Public authority) — here: Regulator; found no meaningful climate benefit from burning plastic instead of coal in kilns (as reported); there: Approved the labels; announced the paraquat review