<p>tib is absolutely right in what he says, but damage to the environment and more specifically to wildlife is another reason for greatly reducing our use of plastics made from fossil hydrocarbons. Those made from biological sources are better, but have their disadvantages too. Some biodegradable plastic bags, for instance, biodegrade while the contents are still in them if you don't use them straight away.</p>

<p>The worst damage is done when the plastic gets into the ocean. Turtles and other marine creatures mistake plastic bags for jellyfish and swallow them. Seabirds occasionally feed them to their young or incorporate plastic items in their nests which entangle their young. Other creatures such as dolphins,sharks and turtles become entangled in plastic rope or fishing nets, and die of suffocation. </p>

<p>Plastic bottles are among the worst forms of plastic pollution. The sheer number of them is staggering. Tap water is quite healthy; we don't need to go around all day sipping water from plastic bottles as though we were afraid of drying out like a slug on a hot pavement. Then there is the problem of plastic micro-particles produced by the breakdown of larger items. It has yet to be established exactly how harmful these micro-particles are, but they enter the human food chain when we eat sea food.</p>

<p>The best biodegradable bags are made of paper, so we should return to much greater use of paper bags. I know trees have to be cut down to make paper, but done properly the forest or plantation will eventually regenerate. Packaging of all sorts is usually too lavish, and needs to be reduced.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-28T13:22:31.800Z
This answer seems to have very little to do with the question.
Semidiurnal Simon
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-30T00:39:08.000Z
I did originally say:  "Stringent efforts should be made to ensure the plastic is not burnt and is kept out of the marine environment."
Tim Cooper
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-28T12:04:49.133Z
2020-01-28T12:04:49.133Z
Michael Walsby
<p>I've heard a bunch of impractical proposals for ways to sequester carbon:  pump CO2 gas into the ground, grow trees for the sole purpose of burying them underground where they won't decompose...   and these proposals all seem impractical to me.</p>

<p>By contrast, it seems quite doable to allow people to consume single-use plastics, and dispose of them in well managed landfills.  (I wouldn't exactly say we should <em>encourage</em> the practice, not until we have bioplastics in widespread use and green energy powering plastic production).  Stringent efforts should be made to ensure the plastic is not burnt and is kept out of the marine environment.</p>

<p>Plastic is very chemically stable, it won't decompose and form methane or anything else, it won't bubble up to the surface, and mixed in with garbage it becomes unattractive for future generations to dig it up.</p>

<p>I'm also making the assumption that any oil not used for plastic production would be used instead in the transport industry or at least somewhere where it'll be put straight into the atmosphere. I think it's naive to think that if I forgo my plastic drinking straw, there'll be one more drop of oil remaining forever in the ground - it won't be left in the ground, instead it'll be made available to the transport industry.</p>

<p>I've tried to get an answer to this question from New Scientist, Australia's Dr Karl and basically every chemist or physicist I encounter and no-one can explain why I'm wrong.  So it seems to me governments everywhere who are banning single-use plastics are doing the opposite of what they should be doing.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-28T09:02:39.147Z
Could you edit your question to focus on what would happen long-term, chemically, with (micro)plastics buried in well-managed landfills?  That would make it more unambiguously on-topic here.
gerrit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-28T09:08:56.993Z
@ebv Plastic pollution is from plastic entering the environment uncontrolled, but what would the long-term effects be if we filled disused mines with plastic bags?  There's very little life deep enough underground (mine shafts can be many hectometres deep), it would be shielded from sunlight. I think this is a good question.
gerrit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-28T10:11:13.463Z
First principle of sustainability: Don't do stuff. Whatever you not produce/consume doesn't pollute. You could stuff the rest down a mineshaft, but your idea to "sequester carbon" is bollocks - mainly because without the production of the plastics, there's no carbon to sequester.
Erik
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-28T13:23:10.813Z
Very much on-topic IMHO. This is not just a geology stackexchange.
Semidiurnal Simon
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-28T21:19:40.807Z
Well, conventional plastic is produced from fossil carbon deep underground in the first place. At best you can say it is an incomplete fossil carbon cycle that is quite leaky. A "perfect" cycle (which is impossible) is at best carbon neutral to the atmosphere. Carbon sequestration is commonly defined as taking carbon out of the atmosphere.
y chung
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-28T21:22:05.307Z
And "bioplastic" could be worse if done at a large scale using living biomass.
y chung
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-30T02:31:16.867Z
The edit you added is naive tbh. You already assumed every drop of oil not being used for plastic production would be burnt quickly regardless (which is not true and so not very meaningful to answer an imaginary scenario). I tell you now, if you want to landfill the plastic, at the same time you created unnecessary demand for dump trucks, the more you pile, the harder for dump trucks to find a way, eventually, you will need another piece of land (with land-use change cost) or resort to reclamation. Think about it.
y chung
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-30T02:40:36.817Z
And since you mentioned "bioplastics to be in widespread use", maybe I missed it the first time, your assumption that bioplastic won't decompose and produce methane sound very odd. The very core reason people created bioplastics is to increase their rate of decomposition.
y chung
<climate-change><plastic>
Shouldn't we encourage consumption of single-use plastics? Plastic is a good way to sequester carbon
Tim Cooper
# Shouldn't we encourage consumption of single-use plastics? Plastic is a good way to sequester carbon

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-01-28)

I've heard a bunch of impractical proposals for ways to sequester carbon: pump CO2 gas into the ground, grow trees for the sole purpose of burying them underground where they won't decompose... and these proposals all seem impractical to me.

By contrast, it seems quite doable to allow people to consume single-use plastics, and dispose of them in well managed landfills. (I wouldn't exactly say we should *encourage* the practice, not until we have bioplastics in widespread use and green energy powering plastic production). Stringent efforts should be made to ensure the plastic is not burnt and is kept out of the marine environment.

Plastic is very chemically stable, it won't decompose and form methane or anything else, it won't bubble up to the surface, and mixed in with garbage it becomes unattractive for future generations to dig it up.

I'm also making the assumption that any oil not used for plastic production would be used instead in the transport industry or at least somewhere where it'll be put straight into the atmosphere. I think it's naive to think that if I forgo my plastic drinking straw, there'll be one more drop of oil remaining forever in the ground - it won't be left in the ground, instead it'll be made available to the transport industry.

I've tried to get an answer to this question from New Scientist, Australia's Dr Karl and basically every chemist or physicist I encounter and no-one can explain why I'm wrong. So it seems to me governments everywhere who are banning single-use plastics are doing the opposite of what they should be doing.

**Tags:** climate-change, plastic

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Could you edit your question to focus on what would happen long-term, chemically, with (micro)plastics buried in well-managed landfills?  That would make it more unambiguously on-topic here.  
> **username_1**: @ebv Plastic pollution is from plastic entering the environment uncontrolled, but what would the long-term effects be if we filled disused mines with plastic bags?  There's very little life deep enough underground (mine shafts can be many hectometres deep), it would be shielded from sunlight. I think this is a good question.  
> **username_2**: First principle of sustainability: Don't do stuff. Whatever you not produce/consume doesn't pollute. You could stuff the rest down a mineshaft, but your idea to "sequester carbon" is bollocks - mainly because without the production of the plastics, there's no carbon to sequester.  
> **username_3**: Very much on-topic IMHO. This is not just a geology stackexchange.  
> **username_4**: Well, conventional plastic is produced from fossil carbon deep underground in the first place. At best you can say it is an incomplete fossil carbon cycle that is quite leaky. A "perfect" cycle (which is impossible) is at best carbon neutral to the atmosphere. Carbon sequestration is commonly defined as taking carbon out of the atmosphere.  
> **username_4**: And "bioplastic" could be worse if done at a large scale using living biomass.  
> **username_4**: The edit you added is naive tbh. You already assumed every drop of oil not being used for plastic production would be burnt quickly regardless (which is not true and so not very meaningful to answer an imaginary scenario). I tell you now, if you want to landfill the plastic, at the same time you created unnecessary demand for dump trucks, the more you pile, the harder for dump trucks to find a way, eventually, you will need another piece of land (with land-use change cost) or resort to reclamation. Think about it.  
> **username_4**: And since you mentioned "bioplastics to be in widespread use", maybe I missed it the first time, your assumption that bioplastic won't decompose and produce methane sound very odd. The very core reason people created bioplastics is to increase their rate of decomposition.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2020-01-28. Score: -6

tib is absolutely right in what he says, but damage to the environment and more specifically to wildlife is another reason for greatly reducing our use of plastics made from fossil hydrocarbons. Those made from biological sources are better, but have their disadvantages too. Some biodegradable plastic bags, for instance, biodegrade while the contents are still in them if you don't use them straight away.

The worst damage is done when the plastic gets into the ocean. Turtles and other marine creatures mistake plastic bags for jellyfish and swallow them. Seabirds occasionally feed them to their young or incorporate plastic items in their nests which entangle their young. Other creatures such as dolphins,sharks and turtles become entangled in plastic rope or fishing nets, and die of suffocation.

Plastic bottles are among the worst forms of plastic pollution. The sheer number of them is staggering. Tap water is quite healthy; we don't need to go around all day sipping water from plastic bottles as though we were afraid of drying out like a slug on a hot pavement. Then there is the problem of plastic micro-particles produced by the breakdown of larger items. It has yet to be established exactly how harmful these micro-particles are, but they enter the human food chain when we eat sea food.

The best biodegradable bags are made of paper, so we should return to much greater use of paper bags. I know trees have to be cut down to make paper, but done properly the forest or plantation will eventually regenerate. Packaging of all sorts is usually too lavish, and needs to be reduced.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: This answer seems to have very little to do with the question.  
> **username_0**: I did originally say:  "Stringent efforts should be made to ensure the plastic is not burnt and is kept out of the marine environment."  

---

