4 ms·
While it's better than burning oil for energy, that's still a loss for carbon emissions, though. And you still need fresh oil to produce more plastic. I'm not
by MayeulC 6y ago
While it's better than burning oil for energy, that's still a loss for carbon emissions, though. And you still need fresh oil to produce more plastic.
I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, but this is not the end game. The end game is either:
~ 100 % reduction in plastic use.
~ 100 % recycled plastic
Those two goals are not mutually exclusive either. Yes, it might cost a lot of energy to recycle plastic. As long as that energy comes from a clean source, it shouldn't matter much.
Obviously, only the first goal reduces the amount of plastic in the ocean, soil, rivers, etc. I am hopeful that bacteria will develop that can ingest plastic, which would both get us rid of the waste, and limit plastic usefulness, but it can't really be counted on in the short term. And plastic waste has a mostly local, short-term effect. Carbon dioxide has a long-term, global effect. So I'd prefer it to be buried until it can be recycled.
- ars 6y agoUntil we completely stop burning oil, it's always more worth it (environmentally) to burn plastic, vs recycle it. Once there is no oil burned, and it's all used for plastic, then it makes sense to implement your plan. But not until then.