12 ms·

> it's actually a "recycled plastics don't actually reduce emissions" story Didn't realize that was the goal, I thought it was to reduce plastic waste in the e

• MissingAFew 3y ago
  ... yeah I don't think emissions was the point. They aren't biodegradable so the point is to not have it sitting in a landfill or worse, just floating around in public areas, oceans, etc.
• dmm 3y ago
  > I thought it was to reduce plastic waste in the environment Recycling plastic requires cleaning it, which uses lots of water and introduces a path for microplastics to enter the environment. Landfills are pretty good at containing waste. I'm not convinced that recycling is better.
  • Cthulhu_ 3y ago
    This is where I'm at, at the moment; instead of burning it, melting it down etc, why not neatly pack it and sequester it in a water isolated landfill? (No water should trickle through the plastic and end up in the soil, I mean by that). Plastic is already collected, sorted and bundled for recyling in a lot of places. Then one of three things will happen. One, the sequestered plastic will just sit there for eternity, eventually breaking down into... something, some kind of hydrocarbon mass I suppose. Two, future technology finds a way to reuse plastic as a resource, but with better results than current-day tech. Or three, they deploy a plastic-eating bacteria or enzyme that processes the plastic back down to raw somethings in the span of years instead of hundreds. (I don't know what plastic breaks down to, either assisted or naturally. I'm afraid to ask. But as long as it's sequestered it should be fine) But yeah. Landfill and storage is probably better than burning or using more energy to create a subpar product.