However there are different ways of defining "economics."
Traditional economics
only includes internal costs. This might be fine in a world inhabited by
one billion people but it is
not fine in a world inhabited by 5 billion people or 6 billion people or even, really, 3 billion people.
In order to maximize the already
small probability of human survival it is therefore necessary to include and
charge external costs, specifically, the cost to the environment.
According to this link, a mean price of 19 euros per ton of carbon dioxide have been assessed:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/headlines/news/article_05_10_21_en.htmlI do not know that the external cost of landfilling plastic has been systematically analyzed, but as a child of New York's Long Island, where landfills are located over sandy glacial moraines, where the effluent of these landfills filters directly into the water supply, I well know that landfills are not free when considered on an external cost basis.
I believe that carbon dioxide can be hydrogenated - if - convenient sources of high concentrations of carbon dioxide can be found. One may pick and choose the hydrogenation products, depending on need. One approach of course is the brute force approach of isolating carbon dioxide from air. This too, is energy intensive and thus the external cost is dependent on the external cost of energy. Another consists of the thermal decomposition of waste into carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide in the presence of water, possibly
waste water.
One thing is certain: Plastic recycling as it now exists is only working marginally. It can and should be accomplished in a much more efficient and comprehensive way, maybe through the conversion to simple and versatile intermediates, in particular syn gas. Since syn gas is generic and can be used in an almost infinite variety of ways with quick responses to market conditions - it may prove to be the
most economic way of processing mixed organic wastes
including plastics. I expect that the external cost of plastic recycling as it is now practiced is somewhat higher than we realize because of the need for separation and attendant trucking and processing. A thermal treatment
other than traditional garbage burning, it seems to me, is a worthy enterprise. I say this in full knowledge of
failed depolymerization units like the Changing World Technology. That is why I am interested and excited by research such as this. I read it with the same enthusiasm as other people read about Brad, Jen, and Angelina.
I note that carbon dioxide obtained from the air - if possible - and hydrogenated into plastic precursors
does represent
fixed and sequestered carbon dioxide.
Process heat in theory is not really difficult to obtain and combustion - the
traditional way - is but one way to obtain it.
In general I agree that economics is an extremely important factor in all environmental energy decisions. If I did not agree I'd be running around making grand claims for solar PV energy, but I'm not. However, even acknowledging that, I am not really a
free marketeer. I believe it is the role of government to
regulate the common space - including the atmosphere - and this is only possible through the imposition of an external cost fee: Something some people would call
taxes. If carbon taxes were paid, recycling plastics might become economically viable: I don't know but I do call for the
analysis of the problem in a systematic way.
Personally I have no problem whatsoever with
taxes. I believe that
taxes are what you pay for living in a civilized - and hopefully sustainable - world. I would like taxes applied fairly, and the revenues used efficiently, but I am glad that I get to pay taxes.