| ▲ | hkt 5 hours ago |
| Honestly at this point I think the way to go may be to stop using plastics where they're not absolutely required, and to subsequently burn what goes into landfill while producing electricity and reclaiming heat. Better that than this. |
|
| ▲ | fc417fc802 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Burn it? With all the talk of carbon capture? Recall that plastic literally consists of a mass of hydrocarbons. Why not bury it? |
| |
| ▲ | axus 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think the legitimate answer was groundwater contamination, but that should be solved for other things we bury. I'm on board for non-biodegradable plastic trash sequestration | |
| ▲ | hkt 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'd argue that if we are burning plastics we get to dodge microplastics, and we get a second use of hydrocarbons. Burn enough plastic, maybe we can displace some gas. Optimistic, I realise. |
|
|
| ▲ | Loughla 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| How do you define 'not absolutely required'? |
| |
| ▲ | hkt 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Easy cases might be single use plastics outside of a medical environment and anything where there isn't a substitute with adequate properties (I'd ignore economics here and let the market solve) Ultimately a tricky thing to define though, no argument. | | |
|
