you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 57 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent