> "It's probably just best to reduce plastic use as much as possible."

It's unfortunate that the US still apparently used plastic straws in 2021. Here in the UK they have been phased out over the past few years, with an official ban since October 2020. It seems the same in other European countries from what I've seen.

Once, a couple of years ago, I had a job at chemical company. They produced additives, stuff you add to, e.g., plastics to improve certain characteristics. One thing they experimented with was additives that helped to break down plastics into molecules you also find naturally. In my best layman's term, below micro-plastics and something that is found in the environment anyway and will just become part of the natural cycle. In tests, they managed to achieve that (based on legal limits for plastics in soil samples, within a year in the ground. meaning, any plastic concentrations dropped below legal limits and detectability. Quite nice. Not sure what happened to that, being a new product it wasn't cheap to produce (yet). Not sure if it was even suitable for most use cases.

> slowly break them down all the way to CO2

Sure, let's turn all the plastic into atmospheric CO2. What could go wrong?

Well, at that point, you could use the CO2 to make more plastic rather than releasing it to the atmosphere. My point was, this is how nature recycles biomass every year. Plastics are currently manufactered from natural gas feedstocks; you could make plastic from CO2 just like trees make lignin from C02.

Then, if you buried that plastic (made from atmospheric CO2) in a landfill after use, that would plausibly be removing CO2 from the atmosphere, not adding it. Assuming it doesn't break down in the landfill and leak out as methane or something.

But plastics are not made from atmospheric CO2, they are made from fossil hydrocarbons.

That's the whole point: the one saving grace of plastics is that they maintain the sequestration of fossilized CO2. If you let them decompose all the way back to CO2 then you have eliminated that last remaining benefit.

Assuming the plastics started from atmospheric CO2 in the first place, noting.

But plastics are not made from atmospheric CO2, they are made from fossil hydrocarbons, i.e. from oil.

Not all plastics are made from fossil fuels, and photochemsyn was suggesting: “making plastics from biomass carbon sources or from direct air capture”

That's true, but it misses the point rather badly. A big reason that CO2 is a problem is that it is very stable. Getting it out of the atmosphere at scale requires vast amounts of energy. So if your goal is to reduce the amount of atmospheric CO2 (and if it's not then you've essentially given up on the future of civilization) it is much better not to let the carbon get into the atmosphere in the first place. Carbon in plastic is already sequestered. Dumping it back into the atmosphere is not progress.

That’s perfectly reasonable in the short term. Long term however we don’t want to endlessly extract CO2 either, so eventually we will want a pure equilibrium state with zero net gain or loss in atmospheric CO2.

Yes, of course. But I don't see any circumstances under which returning the carbon in plastics to the atmosphere contributes to that goal.

The overwhelming majority is. So much that it's not even worth discussing the rest since it makes it look like it's not all that bad. Yes, it is that bad.