i think that my comment already covers this, except that the policy makers are not people whose judgment is of interest; the only way that they're relevant to this discussion is that they caused the problem in the first place

in particular, i said that your emissions from breathing are

> hopefully sourced from the air via plants. so, too, is most of the combustible garbage

the story is a little more complicated, though, because point-source carbon capture is feasible for trash incinerators (and, say, container ships) but not for people breathing, so trash incinerators could conceivably provide indirect atmospheric carbon capture by way of the trees and food that ended up in the garbage. i didn't want to get into these complexities, which is why i didn't go into more detail in my original comment

more importantly, though, i don't appreciate being called a fucking liar (even if euphemistically) because i disagree with you about something. people like you are why i always regret engaging on this site. please begin adhering to minimal norms of civility before you fucking comment again