Which part is false? There is at least one part of that statement that is absolutely true.
> which is costly
Burning is not costly it is cheaper than all other methods. It's so cheap it's actually profitable.
> energy intensive
It actually provides extra energy, and reduces energy waste (because now we have to pump less oil.)
> and spews noxious gas into the air.
It spews nothing except water and CO2.
And since we are still pumping oil of the ground, leaving a different form of oil (plastic) in the ground doesn't accomplish anything useful.
I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw.
>And since we are still pumping oil of the ground, leaving a different form of oil (plastic) in the ground doesn't accomplish anything useful.
I suspect that overall energy production in the US probably emits less CO2 per kwhr than burning garbage does, so starting to burn garbage for energy would be, in that regard, a net negative. Furthermore, it would likely require moderately significant capital expenditure that could've instead been used for something better.
It spews NOx and the whole bunch of undesirable things like dioxines.
You don't get pure PET and oxygen in, and you don't get pure CO2+H2O out.
It's messy to the point that it's debatable if it's better just to bury it.
> It's messy to the point that it's debatable if it's better just to bury it.
No, it's not. You do get that people are doing this already, right now? It's not some theoretical - there's a huge amount of plastics being burned, and it's very clean.