Antwerp – 6 November 2025 - A broad coalition of lawyers, organisations, and citizens is today filing a new complaint against Project One, the under-construction factory for plastic building blocks by Ineos in the port of Antwerp. “We trust that the Council for Permit Disputes will take into account new elements regarding the impact of the expected emissions, not only in Antwerp and its surroundings but throughout the entire chain,” says Dries Verhaeghe from the non-profit organisation Dryade.
The coalition filing the new complaint emphasises that the impact the factory may have must be considered, not only on the (direct) environment but also on the potential impact in other countries. That such an impact analysis must take place has been confirmed in recent case law (see below). Furthermore, new research shows that the potential damage to humans and the environment is much greater than initially indicated by the British multinational.
Organisations are therefore returning to the Council for Permit Disputes to halt the construction.
“We hope that a definitive ruling will now be made that can halt this polluting political prestige project with detrimental consequences for Antwerp and far beyond,” says Dries Verhaeghe from Dryade.
410 premature deaths
A new series of reports, prepared as evidence for the lawsuit, was submitted to the court today. The studies suggest that both the global climate impact and the public health consequences of the factory are severely underestimated – exactly what lawyers have been arguing for some time.
The new health reports estimate that the regional air pollution that Project One could cause may lead to 410 premature deaths due to the emission of toxic fine particulate matter.
Other predicted consequences include more than 100 new cases of asthma in children and an increase in hospital admissions for respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.
Regarding emissions, an independent, conservative estimate by Data Desk suggests that the total emissions across the entire production chain could amount to 3.8 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent per year, comparable to that of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Ineos itself estimates the direct annual CO₂ emissions from Project One at 655,000 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent – roughly equivalent to the total emissions of a country like Eritrea. A permit application for a large industrial project like this must, based on recent international case law, map out the total emissions of the production cycle. According to the initiators of the new complaint, Ineos has failed to do this.
Organisations are concerned
"We expect ministers to respect the law. Project One would convert millions of tonnes of shale gas into millions of tonnes of building blocks for disposable plastics, which end up in nature or in incinerators. This would severely damage the climate and health, no matter how green the words of CEOs may sound. Granting permits without taking this into account can no longer be tolerated,” says Kira Van den Ende of Bond Beter Leefmilieu.
"We have conducted research in surrounding nature reserves on vulnerable natural types, such as heath and fens. In half of the locations, so many characteristic species had already disappeared that you can no longer say that those natural types still exist. The soil has also been deemed unsuitable at all the investigated locations. There is too much nitrogen accumulated, which also affects other substances in the soil. It is really important that no further pollution occurs, as that would make recovery even more out of reach," says Stijn van Uffelen, representative of MOB.
Global emissions must be taken into account
Courts all over the world have provided important clarifications in recent proceedings regarding the inclusion of 'Scope 3' emissions in environmental impact assessments (EIA). These are emissions that do not occur on-site but would never arise if the installation did not exist.
In the case of Project One, it concerns the significant emissions resulting from fracking and processing gas in the US to supply the factory – and the 'downstream' emissions from the combustion of the final plastic waste. According to recent national and international rulings, these emissions must be fully and accurately included in an environmental impact assessment.
Tatiana Luján, a lawyer at ClientEarth who is leading the case, says:
“We now know beyond doubt that the world does not need new infrastructure for plastic production. Yet European authorities are bending over backwards to make the largest plastic facility on the continent possible. Project One has a shiny image, but the story behind it is one of fossil fuels. The supply chain for the gas is associated with injustice and enormous emissions, and this largely remains under the radar. At the same time, experts have detailed the local consequences that will arise — consequences of which the Belgian public is hardly aware. Recent court rulings on how governments must calculate the actual impact of industrial projects fundamentally change the outlook for this case. This is the first time a court will rule on Scope 3 emissions related to plastic production. This makes it a crucial case.”
At the source of the gas
Attention is now shifting to the origin of the gas that would be needed to run the factory. Ineos is currently shipping a large portion of the gas for its existing operations in Antwerp from the United States, where fracking facilities are often located right next to residential areas.
In the environmental impact report for Project One, Ineos states that it intends to supply the new factory with gas from American suppliers sourced from fracking.
In October, communities from American fracking regions visited Belgium to share their experiences with politicians in Flanders and Brussels — as the human toll of using fracked gas for plastic production has received little attention so far.
Jodi Borello, an activist from Washington County (USA), lives a few hundred metres from seven fracking installations. She brought the situation in her neighbourhood before a Grand Jury and testifies:
“My family has suffered for years under the oil and gas industry. We experienced nosebleeds and were treated for chemical burns to our skin and eyes. My message to European policymakers is clear: fracking harms people — it causes cancer and destroys our way of life.”
Shiv Srivastava, policy director of Fenceline Watch in Texas, says:
“Communities along the Gulf Coast, including mine in Houston, are suffering from the consequences of companies based in the EU. For too long, the industry has dictated the narrative around petrochemicals — always about the ‘global supply chain’. It must finally be about the international human chain that connects us all — our stories, our families, our environment, our safety, and our livelihoods. Moreover, every attempt to make the industry ‘cleaner’ focuses only on greenhouse gases. But talking about decarbonisation without addressing detoxification is deceit. To truly tackle the climate crisis and protect public health, we must confront the toxic chemicals at the heart of petrochemicals.”