If we can't limit GHGs from burning fossil fuels for energy, we aren't going to magic our way out of this situation by producing more junk.
How are we going to get it out of the ground, transport it to petroleum processing facilities to convert it into useful forms, transfer it to manufacturing facilities (usually halfway across the world) for product creation, transport it (back across the world) to regional and then local distribution hubs, transport it from store to consumer's home, and then collect it all in order to transport it and process it further still to get it buried like you suggest?
By burning fossil fuels for energy at every link in that chain, and probably half a dozen more I couldn't think of off the top of my head.
There is also a notion that in a measly 1,500 years, humanity would probably have incredible uses for plastics and other petroleum materials beyond our wildest dreams, and have the technology and institutional wisdom to make use of them without bludgeoning our atmosphere and various biomes to death in the process. But if we are too far gone on our path of burning our planet to a crisp, and we've already pulled all the oil out the ground in the process, well, that's going to really kind of suck. I get it, from a highly idealized and abstract perspective your proposal makes some sense.
But the practical reality is that ramping up wasteful activities, even if we do so very cleverly and strategically, is not going to get us anywhere but where we already are.
I'm not arguing in favor of the GP's specific proposals, just pointing out that we should consider the displacement of fuel burning when we consider the carbon cost of plastics.
I assumed that his suggestion was not meant to be taken literally - that we should construct plastics for no use - but rather that we should think differently about the value and cost of plastics which are produced anyway.
How are we going to get it out of the ground, transport it to petroleum processing facilities to convert it into useful forms, transfer it to manufacturing facilities (usually halfway across the world) for product creation, transport it (back across the world) to regional and then local distribution hubs, transport it from store to consumer's home, and then collect it all in order to transport it and process it further still to get it buried like you suggest?
By burning fossil fuels for energy at every link in that chain, and probably half a dozen more I couldn't think of off the top of my head.
There is also a notion that in a measly 1,500 years, humanity would probably have incredible uses for plastics and other petroleum materials beyond our wildest dreams, and have the technology and institutional wisdom to make use of them without bludgeoning our atmosphere and various biomes to death in the process. But if we are too far gone on our path of burning our planet to a crisp, and we've already pulled all the oil out the ground in the process, well, that's going to really kind of suck. I get it, from a highly idealized and abstract perspective your proposal makes some sense.
But the practical reality is that ramping up wasteful activities, even if we do so very cleverly and strategically, is not going to get us anywhere but where we already are.