Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "Climate Town" channel.

  1.  @davigurgel2040  "liquifying" could be via a cheap solvent or just by mixing it with some other oily waste and sending it through a grinder that only would need to be coursely ground/shreaded. The advantage is that rather than digging a wide, deep hole that you'll need to cover again in a way that won't let it come back up, you can just pump it right down existing oil and gas wells. Industrial shreaders are cheaper than mining equipment, so it is cheaper because you're able to take advantage of existing deep holes and geologic reservoirs capable of containing it. That's not to say dumping solid plastics into, for example, mines is a bad move, but we're talking about trying to dispose of a lot of material and pumps and pipes are a really efficient way to move large quantities of matter. Yes, burning plants also releases CO2, but the main challenge with carbon sequestration is getting the carbon into a form dense enough to be viable for sequestration (and ideally in a ways that doesn't release methane as decomposing biomass does while also being hard to seperate out all the water from the hydrocarbons). Plastics are simultaneously a waste product and one of the densest and purest forms of hydrocarbons we have, so disolved by waste solvent and/or ground into a slurry with waste oils is already the ideal carbon sequestration form, so needs minimal effort for processing/containment. When the goal is "shove as much carbon back under the Earth's surface" starting with the stuff that is both extremely carbon-dence and already waste is the most logical choice.
    8
  2.  @ionbusman2086  it absolutely has. Many times. You don't know your history well enough.
    5
  3. And so often the damn tops are white! Ffs, you know shit's going to get spilled and then turn to ash there. Don't make it so that every bit of charred carbon left there is going to be an eyesore! Who decided that bright white was the appropriate finish for that part of that appliance???
    5
  4. Another option (potentially after downcycling plastics into products that can use lower-grade materials) would be to liquify them (or suspend them in a liquid) and pump them down old wells as a form of carbon (re)sequestration. It's a lot easier to sequester carbon when it's not in CO2 already, all other options feed the carbon in the plastics into the carbon cycle, and the problems we're facing largely stem from how we've pulled the carbon the Earth spent eons naturally sequestering, so putting thay carbon right back where it came from seems a sensible solution. Also, once we're making more of our plastics from plants than fossil fuels, as long as we have good filtration and can keep it out of waterways, we can just then make, use, and burn all the plastics we need. Just have one recycle bin for all plastics. Every kind goes in, and it all goes right to be burned. No complicated sorting needed at any stage past seperating plastic from non-plastic. Or we can continue to use burying plastic waste as a form of carbon sequestration to continue to drop CO2 levels. If we can just stop adding carbon to the carbon cycle asap and keep the plastics out of the oceans we'll start to have a handle on this mess.
    5
  5.  @AlexPotvin  not saying you're wrong, but it's the first I've heard of it, so I'd be cautious about taking those anecdotes too seriously. Keep in mind also, though, that you can buy a single burner countertop option (looking like a warming plate) if you just want to dip your toes in, or alternatively, keep a portable butane/propane stove as a backup so you can still cook with that until you get your main appliance fixed, since unlike the common failures of gas stoves you probably won't be able to fix the break by just manually lighting it.
    2
  6.  @the77eltigre  possibly, but note I never asked "why" only "who"
    1