INEOS is building a huge plant in the Port of Antwerp that will produce a key ingredient for plastics. In 2024 Plastic Soup Foundation has joined ClientEarth and 13 other organizations to challenge the permits. We argue: the environmental assessment used to approve the project failed to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from extracting the gas the plant will use and from burning the plastics after they end up as waste.
On 5 November, the Flemish Council for Permit Disputes referred three questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the EU’s highest court. According to ClientEarth, this is the first time the court has been asked about Scope 3 emissions in environmental impact assessment.
Which emissions should count
The plant, known as Project One, will turn ethane from US natural gas into ethylene, a building block for plastics. The questions before the court concern emissions that happen outside the plant. Scope 2 emissions come from generating the energy INEOS buys to run it. Scope 3 emissions come from other activities along the supply chain and after the product is used. Here, the court has been asked about two examples: extracting the ethane in the US and incinerating plastics made with the plant’s ethylene.
The court will clarify whether and to what extend authorities must consider these emissions under the EU’s Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. That is why the case matters beyond Antwerp. The answers could shape how future industrial projects are negotiated across the EU.
The case is paused, construction carries on
The current permit remains valid, so INEOS can keep building while the Flemish Council waits for the EU court’s answers. INEOS says it aims to start operating the plant in the second half of 2027. Once the court responds, the Flemish Council will return to the appeals, which also raise concerns about nitrogen pollution and impacts on protected nature on both sides of the Belgian Dutch border.
For Plastic Soup Foundation the climate cost, but also the environmental and human health costs of making even more plastic should be on the table before a project like this gets approved. Yet construction continues while the courts are still weighing which emissions should be considered.
Why is INEOS allowed to continue building while many institutions, organizations, and the public are still waiting for the complete picture?
.png)
