3 ms·

Your point is interesting, but I think the weird phrasing is confusing people. Ars is saying (correct me if I’m wrong): Transforming plastic into fuel is more

• mcswell 2y ago
  You're probably right. But given that all this plastic already exists, what should be done with it, if not burning it? If it can be truly recycled, that's one thing, but it's not clear it can be (although I don't know the reason for that--maybe it's just not economical, which is different from "it can't be recycled").
  • bastawhiz 2y ago
    There's no shortage of land for landfill. Burying it and letting it decay for centuries is a perfectly valid option. It doesn't feel good, but you can then cover that land and use it for parks and other productive uses. In fact, when the alternative is burning the plastic, it's actually a form of carbon sequestration. That's not to say burying plastic is a good thing. It's obviously better to not have used single-use plastic in the first place.
• ars 2y ago
  > Still, transforming plastic into fuel is not an emissions reduction compared to renewable energy sources. And? Is that news to anyway? Your earlier point is the correct one: In a world where hydrocarbons are burned for energy, burning plastic the best possible way to deal with plastic. Once we transition to a different world we can do something else, but until then we should burn plastic.