Posted By: ringiIf we just put it in the ground it will give of lot of methane gas as it rots down, methane is a worse greenhouse gas then CO2.

Except most is now captured and turned into electricity (and CO2).
Hard to easily compare GHG as some last longer in the atmosphere than others, though most of them turn into CO2 anyway (a good reason to stop combusting thing).

Quite a lot though

2015 numbers were about 4.1 TWh

No idea, but you can look it up as easily as I can

Not really the point is it Tony.
We can, as sentient beings, do something about our emissions, a marsh cannot.
But it all comes down to whether you believe than man made emissions can change the environment, I know which camp I am in.

Apart from the bad language, a good rant.

Posted By: tonya good rant

No - or not entirely.

Yes maybe to burning chemically-polluted timber (chipboards/melamine etc) if the flue gases can indeed be scrubbed efectively - tho it sounds crazy to have fuelled gas burners in the flue for that purpose.

No to general waste burning esp plastics. These are much more valuable as a precious resource of high-potential long-chain hydrocarbons for all sorts of future use, than for atomising to lowest possible potential by burning as fuel.
They should be stockpiled aka landfill until costs and techniques make it feasible, even necessary, to quarry/automatically sort the stores in lieu of more oil drilling.

Once we stop thinking of oil-based hydrocarbons (whether new/virgin or old/recycled as suggested) as an energy source, but primarily as feedstock for miriad other vital purposes,
at the same time as renewable/solar energy continues its ever-accelerating trajectory to dominance/sufficiency,
then we'll find that pumping in energy to medium-potential recycled 'raw' material, to convert it to high-potential pure feedstock,
will be a best-possible use for solar energy,
just as we agree that plastic insulation is a best-possible use for petroleum hydrocarbons today.

This will be systematic recycling such as we've still not conceived of, even when we call it 'upcycling'.

Posted By: orangemannotgrow or synthasize hydrocarbons & plastics

That will be another, poss biological way of capturing into materials the solar energy necessary to create high-potential long-chain pure feedstocks.

But what's the raw material - bulk C and H - which the growing or synthesising process transforms?
Perhaps let the critters feed on the medium-potential stuff that we've accumulated.

Posted By: fostertomNo to general waste burning esp plastics. These are much more valuable as a precious resource of high-potential long-chain hydrocarbons for all sorts of future use, than for atomising to lowest possible potential by burning as fuel.

Something like this, but more so - or for legibility go to http://www.develop3d.com/downloads, subscribe (free) and see p30 of Feb 2017 issue

Posted By: fostertomYes maybe to burning chemically-polluted timber (chipboards/melamine etc) if the flue gases can indeed be scrubbed efectively - tho it sounds crazy to have fuelled gas burners in the flue for that purpose.

Not as bad as it seems, as most of the heat can be recovered from the flue gases after they have been super-heated by the gas burners. The recovered heat can be put into their heating networks, that would otherwise have been heated with a gas boiler.

Posted By: TimSmallAnnoyingly, links only work if you post in 'text' mode with the forum software, so the ones in your post don't work...

Hmm - you're right. My browser automatically treats them as links, but I guess that's not the case for everyone, so I've changed them to plain text...