3 ms·
This is a somewhat blinkered perspective. It's true in a sense, but the emissions can be offset by not burning some oil that's in the ground not causing any pro
by escape_goat 5y ago
This is a somewhat blinkered perspective. It's true in a sense, but the emissions can be offset by not burning some oil that's in the ground not causing any problems. In the meantime, it is an optimal way of getting rid of huge categories of toxic or otherwise intransigent waste that will have harmful effects if they are not removed from the biosphere.
- saddlerustle 5y agoBut carbon in the atmosphere has a much worse effect on the biosphere than plastics in a landfill.
- escape_goat 5y agoThis is a false assertion. There is always carbon in the atmosphere and there should always be carbon in the atmosphere. The only thing that has a negative impact is when the total amount of carbon is excessive. "Plastics in a landfill" are poorly and temporarily sequestered and are a potential source of future groundwater contamination.
- saddlerustle 5y agoIt’s very well established that the current amount of carbon is the atmosphere is excessive.
- escape_goat 5y agoYes. That was not what you claimed and it does not imply that your argument is correct, for reasons that I feel I've spelt out fairly patiently. You are welcome to remain opposed to the incineration of plastic waste, but I feel that your reasoning suffers from tunnel vision.