[insaneirish]

> That should say "reducing carbon emissions", not adding. Burning plastic for energy is a net reduction in CO2 emission.

Not sure I understand that math. You have plastic. You burn it. That is a net increase in atmospheric CO2.

The other option is you bury it, which sounds horrible, but at least doesn't increase atmospheric CO2.

The problem is you're going to say that instead of burning the plastic, we burn something else. But maybe we don't do that, either?

[ars]

> But maybe we don't do that, either?

Explain what you mean by that? I mean, out here in the real world, we are burning things for energy.

Are you talking about some theoretic magical world that doesn't exist?

Because in the real world burning plastic for energy reduces CO2 emissions.

[MrVandemar]

> Because in the real world burning plastic for energy reduces CO2 emissions.

This is a monstrously insane statement.

I am looking at a piece of plastic. Let's say it's a plastic bag. Other than the (considerable!) emissions that came from its mining, manufacture and shipping, it has zero CO2 emissions.

I now set fire to it. I'm, uh, seeing a fair bit of smoke come off it. I'm thinking there might possibly be some emissions happening there.

It also smells really acrid, and I'm getting these weird premonitions of winding up in a cancer ward suddenly.

[insaneirish]

> Because in the real world burning plastic for energy reduces CO2 emissions.

Compared to what? Over what period? Consider this at the extremes. Instead of investing in any photovoltaic, 100% of PV demand should be shifted to burning landfilled plastics. Would you argue that makes sense?