285
submitted 1 year ago by Bebo@literature.cafe to c/science@lemmy.ml

When a microbe was found munching on a plastic bottle in a rubbish dump, it promised a recycling revolution. Now scientists are attempting to turbocharge those powers in a bid to solve our waste crisis. But will it work?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] mqvisionary@lemmy.ml 78 points 1 year ago

Who knows what its consequences are? How about a simpler approach, like reducing plastic use maybe instead of some pie in the sky project?

[-] Skua@kbin.social 77 points 1 year ago

We do probably want both. Even if we end plastic production completely tomorrow, we need to work out a way to clean up all the plastic we've already dumped all over the world

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

yeah but one of them we can do right now with minimum consequences and the other is provocative with no clear path to viability and no real understanding of the consequences.

We should prob just leave any existing plastic as plastic wherever it lay instead of turning it into CO2. Burying it is a better idea than emitting it.

[-] trilobite@lemdro.id 1 points 1 year ago

I agree. We want both. Its like water consumption needs which keep increasing. We want to reduce demand and increase leakage reduction rather than take more water out of the environment. We're making a mess of this planet because our lives are based on the assumption of eternal growth.

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 49 points 1 year ago

Who knows what its consequences are?

That's why they're doing research genius

[-] Demonicwolf227@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Both is good, but even stopping all plastic today and picking up every piece of trash we can grab with our hands won't clean up the microplastics that are already in the environment.

[-] Classy@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 year ago

With how heavily integrated plastics are into EVERYTHING in our society, I think that's not necessarily the "simpler" approach, even if I agree that it's vital.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

This is why research is being done. The "pie in the sky project" you're objecting to is intended to answer the very question you're asking.

[-] V17@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

What kind of question even is that? Reducing plastic enough and getting rid of the amount that's already in the environment without new technological solutions is nothing but fantasy at this moment.

[-] IMongoose@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Mfw the bacteria evolve to turn plastic into methane 🔥 💀 🔥

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Mfw cows are producing 300 times as much methane as there is plastic being produced in total: 😐

Check the actual numbers before getting so concerned.

[-] IMongoose@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

YFW you don't even check the numbers you are chastising me for not checking and are wildly incorrect 🤡:

https://www.statista.com/topics/5401/global-plastic-waste/#topicOverview

400 million metric tons of plastic per year produced

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1261318/cattle-methane-emissions-worldwide/

75 million metric tons of methan from cow farts per year

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

As if the micro plastics crisis hasn't already made the "pie in the sky" solution a necessity at this point

[-] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The most ideal situation is if we archieve 100% recycling.

In reality no thing can disappear, both matter and energy just change form. We only need to look at nature for proof that 100% reusing matter and energy is feasible. Even our “waste” wasn’t wasted.

These microbes are yet another key in the puzzle to obtain the next breakthrough. Once we master industrial chains with full conservation of matter and energy the cost of creating things will become negligible.

[-] guyrocket@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

I agree. However, the most important reason to reduce plastics is because of the health effects of microplastics. Waste is probably the second priority in my mind.

[-] cmbabul@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I would say because the vast majority of plastics are made from fossil fuels and contribute to global warming, microplastics are bad too though

[-] sab@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Making a nuclear bomb is much easier than keeping people from using it once it's made.

Natural science is difficult, but getting people to do the right thing is almost impossible.

[-] TheGreenGolem@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Let's be real: humanity will never do anything that even slightly inconveniences us. We need to solve our problems with "power": microplastic-eating bacteria, blocking the sun, creating fresh water from salt water, terraforming another planet, anything but convincing the crowds to stop their shit.

this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
285 points (97.3% liked)

Science

13108 readers
32 users here now

Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS