3 ms·
There are so many ways to frame pollution. Taking 400 years to biodegrade is a big problem if you're worried about litter, or microplastics. On other hand, if
by bunderbunder 8y ago
There are so many ways to frame pollution.
Taking 400 years to biodegrade is a big problem if you're worried about litter, or microplastics. On other hand, if you're more worried about things like climate change or smog, then turning it into something you bury and forget about might actually be the least harmful thing we could be doing with all this oil we've been pumping out of the ground lately.
If it biodegrades, then it becomes a source of atmospheric CO2 just about as efficiently as if you were instead to burn it to make cars go.
- baroffoos 8y agoI can't believe I have never read this point before. This seems absolutely critical to the discussion.
- 3chelon 8y agoYes, I agree, and I'd go so far as to saying burning it is in one way better than it ending up in the sea, but clearly very bad in another sense. Just another example of how different facets of the "environmental" argument can be in conflict with one another. Nuclear power vs coal/oil power is similar dilemma.