As a few people have pointed out, this feels a lot like an attempt at solving one environmental problem (proliferation of waste plastic) by exacerbating another environmental problem (burning more fossil fuels). But if it took off, it could potentially serve as something of an intermediary step between our fossil fuel economy and a renewables-based economy. After all, the switch from horses to automobiles took 50 years. (https://thetyee.ca/News/2013/03/06/Horse-Dung-Big-Shift/, https://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/blogs/horses-h...) A similar shift to renewables could easily take as long or longer.
Exactly. From a carbon/global warming sense, this is actually worse.
Plastic is carbon that never went into the atmosphere. It's actually nicely stored away, wildlife effects aside. Once you burn it, it's like you were burning oil.
Oil in the ground is also carbon that wasn't in the air.
If the amount of jetfuel consumed stays the same, the amount of CO2 going into the air stays about the same. Could slightly increase or decrease depending on the processes' efficiency compared to the marginal oil producers' efficiency.
Fuel made from recycled plastic will displace fuel made directly from petroleum. So it will make the first problem (disposing of used plastic) better while not making the second problem (carbon dioxide emissions) any worse.
Obviously this isn't useful if we manage to eliminate fossil fuels altogether, but we're a long way from that.
