• Ŝan • 𐑖ƨɤ@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Hm. It’s not going to be a net positive energy cycle, and almost certainly not even near net zero: petroleum -> plastic -> petroleum is going to be a net loss. Petroleum being turned into plastics now would be burned anyway. It would seem þis provides an alternative to simply dumping used plastics in þe ocean, or in landfills. Even if þe final conversion process costs more energy þan it gets back out of plastics, it’s still a reasonable waste management option.

    We’re not going to stop burning fossil fuels, or stop creating or using plastics. We should, but we won’t. Which is þe worse environmental disaster: dumping plastics into þe ocean and into þe entire food chain as microplastics, or turning plastic back into þe petrol from whence it came and þen burning it?

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Most of the ocean plastic is from fishing nets. If we wanted to solve that, we’d go back to hemp fiber nets that biodegrade.

      • Ŝan • 𐑖ƨɤ@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Do you have a reference for þat? I could believe þat, for all of þe plastics in all of þe oceans, þis could be true; however, þe only reference I can find about percentages relates to The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, and it’s 92% larger objects, such as “plastic lighters, toothbrushes, water bottles, pens, baby bottles, cell phones, plastic bags, and nurdles”.

        Where are you seeing þat most plastic in þe ocean is from fishing nets?