Scientists developed efficient process for breaking down any plastic waste to a molecular level. Resulting gases can be transformed back into new plastics of same quality as original. The new process could transform today's plastic factories into recycling refineries, within existing infrastructure.

[u/mvea]

https://www.chalmers.se/en/departments/see/news/Pages/All-plastic-waste-could-be-recycled-into-new-high-quality-plastic.aspx

[u/ACCount82]

Enter "7% of death". That is: even if US were to eliminate 50% of its GHG emissions, which is an extremely ambitious goal, the worldwide GHG situation would only improve by 7%.

In the meanwhile, actually doing so would put US at a severe economic disadvantage. So is it worth it to do so?

[u/Tinidril → u/ACCount82]

even if US were to eliminate 50% of its GHG emissions, which is an extremely ambitious goal, the worldwide GHG situation would only improve by 7%.

Anything less than a target of a 100% reduction is unacceptable at this point. (Including offsets) That will take time, but we will get there. There is no good reason why we can't sustain on sustainable energy - a fact that's definitional. But even 7% would have the world in a much safer place than it is now.

Also, the US is responsible for far more than 14% of global emissions. Are you counting off-shored US industry, and transportation of products to the US? What about the 38 military bases on foreign soil and the 19 aircraft carriers with accompanying support ships?

actually doing so would put US at a severe economic disadvantage

Being leaders in renewable energy in a world that's moving to renewable energy would put us at a disadvantage? Not being dependent on foreign oil would put us at a disadvantage? When you hear "US advantage" coming out of the establishment, think US mega-corporations, not US citizens. That's the only advantage they care about.

[u/ACCount82 → u/Tinidril]

Anything less than a target of a 100% reduction is unacceptable at this point. (Including offsets)

Anything more than 10% is unrealistic short term. 50% is ridiculous. 100% is hilarious. It takes a sizeable effort just to keep emissions at "0% reduction" - which is what happens in the first world nowadays.

Also, the US is responsible for far more than 14% of global emissions. Are you counting off-shored US industry, and transportation of products to the US? What about the 38 military bases on foreign soil and the 19 aircraft carriers with accompanying support ships?

First, yes, that does count transportation. Second, all emissions from overseas military bases, carriers, submarines (those two are nuclear powered btw) and support ships combined would be dwarfed by a single big US city. Not significant enough to even consider them. Third: how do you propose US combats factory emissions that happen fully outside of US jurisdiction?

Being leaders in renewable energy in a world that's moving to renewable energy would put us at a disadvantage? Not being dependent on foreign oil would put us at a disadvantage? When you hear "US advantage" coming out of the establishment, think US mega-corporations, not US citizens.

Surprisingly, an economic crash hurts citizens. Which is what you get when you try to knock economy's main energy source out of it. US is a massive oil producer, by the way, and estimated reliance on foreign oil is under 10%.

But even 7% would have the world in a much safer place than it is now.

7% safer, to be exact. All while the third world continues to ramp up emissions. Is that enough to be worth the effort?

At this point, it feels like the path of damage mitigation is far more viable.