• zout
    link
    fedilink
    5410 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
      link
      English
      710 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
        link
        fedilink
        610 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
          link
          English
          410 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
        link
        English
        310 months ago

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

        • @xkforce
          link
          English
          210 months ago

          Youre not burning microplastics dispersed through water as fuel.