As long as it's not an efficient process then you have a point. But, let's say some very efficient way to clean up and break down plastic was discovered. Then, wouldn't the manufacturers actually have a point? In that case it indeed would be harmless and we could enjoy the conveniences of it while being relatively certain we can then dispose of it safely. So you wouldn't call it an "abuse" in this case.
Just because a fungus eventually breaks it down doesn't imply that it's "harmless". It can (and does) still accumulate in organisms and has many undesirable effects, including the human body. It can s easily end up in the food chain as long as it's not broken down, including areas where the fungus is not effective, which are plenty.
The only difference such a fungus can make is that it could break down in certain pockets in nature in the long run.
Yes, I see your point here. I think most objections to plastic including my own are about the longevity of its effects on ecosystems, but local, short term effects on health are equally problematic.
The article talks about how this one fungus found in the depths of the sea can break down PE (polyethylene) plastics. The biggest problem with combating ocean plastic is deployment of any solution. The seas are vast and trash, while a huge problem, is still relatively sparse within them.
It would be great to see if this fungus can be deployed on land at large enough scale to take care of, say, a whole regions PEs. That way we could get somewhere.
So, like, how do you imagine fungi could turn the plastic back into oil and down into the crust? Is your line of inquiry possibly, actually worthwhile?
