Plastics production is responsible for 1% and 3% of U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and primary energy use, respectively. Replacing conventional plastics with bio-based plastics (made from renewable feedstocks) is frequently proposed as a way to mitigate these impacts. Comparatively little research has considered the potential for green energy to reduce emissions in this industry. This paper compares two strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. plastics production: using renewable energy or switching to renewable feedstocks. Renewable energy pathways assume all process energy comes from wind power and renewable natural gas derived from landfill gas. Renewable feedstock pathways assume that all commodity thermoplastics will be replaced with polylactic acid (PLA) and bioethylene-based plastics, made using either corn or switchgrass, and powered using either conventional or renewable energy. Corn-based biopolymers produced with conventional energy are the dominant near-term biopolymer option, and can reduce industry-wide GHG emissions by 25%, or 16 million tonnes CO2e/year (mean value). In contrast, switching to renewable energy cuts GHG emissions by 50%-75% (a mean industry-wide reduction of 38 million tonnes CO2e/year). Both strategies increase industry costs-by up to $85/tonne plastic (mean result) for renewable energy, and up to $3000 tonne−1 plastic for renewable feedstocks. Overall, switching to renewable energy achieves greater emission reductions, with less uncertainty and lower costs than switching to corn-based biopolymers. In the long run, producing bio-based plastics from advanced feedstocks (e.g. switchgrass) and/or with renewable energy can further reduce emissions, to approximately 0 CO2e/year (mean value).