Most definitions of “recycle” are from the recycling of glass, aluminium, paper etc - they involve the material being reused in approximately the same form.
Being “burned” is how most English speakers would describe being “recycled into energy”
Being “burned” is how most English speakers would describe being “recycled into energy”
Of course glass, aluminum, and paper aren’t made of lightly-modified oil: they’re not all that useful as far as producing energy, nor can they substitute for new extraction of an energy resource.
I guess you could process paper into pulp pellets for fuel, and by instead turning paper into slightly-crappier paper you cut out a highly intensive transformation from timber to paper. But for plastics, isn’t the transformation from oil to plastic relatively minor?
Why is it especially virtuous for the end recycled product to be a structural product as opposed to a fuel product? Especially when it’s substituting for existing petroleum-based production, and unlikely ever to drive demand of its own? And why would burying it in the ground compare favorably to either?