The concern:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/plastics-plants-a...
An insider view of industry:
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/chemicals/our-insights/p...
My source: my wife is an environmental lawyer who is very concerned about climate change and works closely on these issues.
For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPIHJRIpLRk
This is an old video of a tabletop model. It runs at 1Kw/hr and takes ~3-4 hours to convert 1 kg of plastic into ~800ml of fuel.
The machine is really just a demonstration unit for their bigger models. I always wondered why don't we just use these machines in a scaled up manner with renewable sources to recover the fuel to be turned back into plastics. I'm assuming its just a cost issue.
The issue with plastic pyrolysis is it's turning fossil fuels sequestered in plastic form back into burnable fuels that end up in the atmosphere, further contributing to climate change. A better option is to sequester that plastic permanently back in the ground again. Even landfill, using this lens, is a better option.
Switching out to materials which decompose harmlessly is a better option all round, even if the energy costs are higher.
Its been increasingly shown that "Phthalates act by mimicking the female hormone estrogen, which in turn inhibits production of the male hormone testosterone. As such, phthalates are considered to be endocrine disruptors" [1]
In fact, Phthalates are one of the candidates to explain the significant drop in male sperm production [2].
The point here is its possible that the effects of plastics are much more significant than anyone realizes...how much of the LGBT / gender identity issues could be related to environmental toxins?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phthalate
[2] https://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2003/05000/Phthalat...