4 ms·

The point of carbon sinks is to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The process you're suggesting is: - Pull a bunch of oil out of the ground - Crack it int

The point of carbon sinks is to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The process you're suggesting is: - Pull a bunch of oil out of the ground - Crack it into smaller hydrocarbons (using energy from burning other oil derived hydrocarbons) - Polymerize those smaller components into plastics (using more energy from burning hydrocarbons) - Bury the plastic That doesn't take CO2 out of the atmosphere, every single part of the process is adding more. For a carbon sink to be useful you need to be taking carbon that is already part of the carbon cycle and sequestering it, not pulling up carbon that has been buried for millions of years and then sending half of that into the air and the other half into a landfill.

p1mrx 3y ago
"Switch production to use atmospheric carbon" is a necessary step for this to make any sense.
gilbetron 3y ago
This is why the production of plastic needs to switch to using atmo carbon.
hathchip 3y ago
That's not the right analysis. If the hydrocarbons in the ground don't get used for making plastic, they are very likely to be burned for energy. So waste plastic reduces the CO2 emitted by that process.
- InSteady 3y ago
  If we can't limit GHGs from burning fossil fuels for energy, we aren't going to magic our way out of this situation by producing more junk. How are we going to get it out of the ground, transport it to petroleum processing facilities to convert it into useful forms, transfer it to manufacturing facilities (usually halfway across the world) for product creation, transport it (back across the world) to regional and then local distribution hubs, transport it from store to consumer's home, and then collect it all in order to transport it and process it further still to get it buried like you suggest? By burning fossil fuels for energy at every link in that chain, and probably half a dozen more I couldn't think of off the top of my head. There is also a notion that in a measly 1,500 years, humanity would probably have incredible uses for plastics and other petroleum materials beyond our wildest dreams, and have the technology and institutional wisdom to make use of them without bludgeoning our atmosphere and various biomes to death in the process. But if we are too far gone on our path of burning our planet to a crisp, and we've already pulled all the oil out the ground in the process, well, that's going to really kind of suck. I get it, from a highly idealized and abstract perspective your proposal makes some sense. But the practical reality is that ramping up wasteful activities, even if we do so very cleverly and strategically, is not going to get us anywhere but where we already are.
  - hathchip 3y ago
    I'm not arguing in favor of the GP's specific proposals, just pointing out that we should consider the displacement of fuel burning when we consider the carbon cost of plastics. I assumed that his suggestion was not meant to be taken literally - that we should construct plastics for no use - but rather that we should think differently about the value and cost of plastics which are produced anyway.

p1mrx 3y ago

"Switch production to use atmospheric carbon" is a necessary step for this to make any sense.

gilbetron 3y ago

This is why the production of plastic needs to switch to using atmo carbon.

hathchip 3y ago

That's not the right analysis. If the hydrocarbons in the ground don't get used for making plastic, they are very likely to be burned for energy. So waste plastic reduces the CO2 emitted by that process.

InSteady 3y ago
If we can't limit GHGs from burning fossil fuels for energy, we aren't going to magic our way out of this situation by producing more junk. How are we going to get it out of the ground, transport it to petroleum processing facilities to convert it into useful forms, transfer it to manufacturing facilities (usually halfway across the world) for product creation, transport it (back across the world) to regional and then local distribution hubs, transport it from store to consumer's home, and then collect it all in order to transport it and process it further still to get it buried like you suggest? By burning fossil fuels for energy at every link in that chain, and probably half a dozen more I couldn't think of off the top of my head. There is also a notion that in a measly 1,500 years, humanity would probably have incredible uses for plastics and other petroleum materials beyond our wildest dreams, and have the technology and institutional wisdom to make use of them without bludgeoning our atmosphere and various biomes to death in the process. But if we are too far gone on our path of burning our planet to a crisp, and we've already pulled all the oil out the ground in the process, well, that's going to really kind of suck. I get it, from a highly idealized and abstract perspective your proposal makes some sense. But the practical reality is that ramping up wasteful activities, even if we do so very cleverly and strategically, is not going to get us anywhere but where we already are.
- hathchip 3y ago
  I'm not arguing in favor of the GP's specific proposals, just pointing out that we should consider the displacement of fuel burning when we consider the carbon cost of plastics. I assumed that his suggestion was not meant to be taken literally - that we should construct plastics for no use - but rather that we should think differently about the value and cost of plastics which are produced anyway.