These enzyme-embedded plastics should be the cheapest option, so that all the disposable garbage that gets made would use them as ingredients. Durable / long lasting plastics would cost a premium and only get used for things meant to last.
In general love the idea of these sorts of plastics improvements and hope it can solve a lot of the existing waste issue. And cut down on the awful micro plastics!
But the cynic in me is wondering about the articles 10 years down the road talking about how these enzymes are now basically "salting the earth" and we can't wait to figure out how to get them out of the soil and water.
That is my worry. They are putting in a development near my house so I'm watching them put in a lot of pipes using a large amount of energy (6 high horse power tractors emitting a lot of CO2 for weeks on end). If those pipes last forever (as currently expected), then overall the impact is low, but if they start degrading we will be spending even more CO2 to replace them.
Though a part of me wonders how much more it would cost to put in a subway when they already have the ground dug up.
It isn't an either this or that kind of situation. You're imposing a false dichotomy on the issue.
Just because we don't want to stick with the good ol' reliable 1000-years-to-break-down pollution like the way you put it, doesn't mean we should jump on the first promising path we see. Or else you might find yourself in ten years with all the seagulls dead or something.
If you define far future as far enough then it may well be coal or oil. The same thing with lignin is what made coal - it was a hydrocarbon "plastic" of its day that bacteria hadn't figured out how to consume.
Of course if we assume a remotely industrial era progression of advances oil reserves may be near-worthless. Why dig down say fifty feet for enough oil to fill the shelves of a Walmart camping section?
