3 ms·

> Plastic is petroleum and it's probably better that we use it and bury it then burn it. > We also have plenty of land to bury stuff in. > The thing we should

• treis 6y ago
  ... No. Which part do you disagree with?
  • qwertygnu 6y ago
    I'm finding a huge disparity with your ideas. Saying that we need not worry about using too much glass, paper, or plastic because we have plenty of sand, trees, and land to bury waste, then saying we need to reduce our carbon footprint doesn't make sense. Do you not think creating waste and dumping it in landfills, in oceans, in nature, is part of our carbon footprint? Do you not think the processes to make and transport and dispose of these materials is part of our carbon footprint? Even if trees are renewable, we in no way are using them in a sustainable way. Another commenter also linked an article about running out of sand. Recycling is not a good answer, even doing more harm than good, but that doesn't mean to give up on reducing and reusing. And I don't mean (only) at a consumer level. We need large scale industrial and societal changes in how manufacture, consume, and dispose of goods.
    • Footkerchief 6y ago
      Carbon footprint refers to atmospheric carbon, typically combustion products. Burying carbon, assuming it stays buried, does not contribute to carbon footprint. It is in fact how fossil fuels were formed in the first place.