• zout@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    11 months ago

    From other times something like this came up:

    1. The rate of conversion is too low
    2. It will only eat plastic if other carbon sources aren’t available
      Probably more, this is from the top of my head. Also, this will still cause the plastic to eventually be converted into CO2 which is released in the atmosphere.
    • xkforce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Having it actually break down into CO2, water and a few other things would be way better than it permanently contaminating our food, water and ecosystems.

      • zout@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        I agree, and it will probably break down anyway giving enough time. But it would be even better to take it out of the environment completely. The best would be not to even produce it for trivial stuff, so it doesn’t get to pollute the environment.

        • xkforce@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          While it would be great to phase them out, we have to work with the world we have. One that wont switch off plastic production overnight and one that is already thoroughly contaminated. Something is going to be needed to break down what is already out there and minimize the damage of what continues to be produced.

      • Caveman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        You get a similar result by burning it for electricity and that removes coal/gas from the grid.