Bringing your own bags to the grocery store does about as much as wearing a ribbon for your favorite cause -- it makes you feel like you are doing something when you really aren't. Almost everything you put in that bag is already packaged -- often multiple times. Folks would rather feel good and virtue signal than really solve the problem.
For this particular problem, create single-use, highly compostable packaging. This has to happen not just at the final grocery bagging step, but for all packaging.
The point of this graph was to suggest that single-use highly compostable packaging would be 40x more damaging to the environment than a LDPE; Low-density polyethylene bag. People focus on the disposal a lot, when the actual creation of said bags, which LDPE is close to zero at scale, is what causes damage to the environment.
We're like drunk people search for our keys under the streetlight - we only focus on the stuff that we can see, rather than what is actually important.
Nonsense. Reducing waste in one way does not preclude reducing waste in other ways. It's like saying that you might as well coutinue smoking because you are still drinking.
I am just saying we should be honest about the problem and realize the silliness... Look at the graph -- 20,000 Organic cotton bag reuses to match a standard single-use plastic bag!
Huh? The graph shows that you need to use an organic cotton reusable bag 20,000 times in order for it to have the same environmental impact as a single use LDPE bag.
Oh wow ok, I misread the chart. That's not great at all. I do stand by the content my original comment as a general principal. But this does indicate that there is not enough awareness around the environmental impact of various materials, assuming their analysis takes everything into account.
It has a side effect of amplifying class differences. Many people here could buy a new set of reusable bags every trip without it registering. I grocery shop in my car so paper bags are no problem if that's what the store has. If I had to walk somewhere, I could only carry one.
I think this is a side-effect that provides positive feedback, just like many of these initiatives, they are a way for rich people to feel like something is being done without doing anything, while actively maintaining their position in the world. If you look around, there is a lot of stuff like this.
>Folks would rather feel good and virtue signal than really solve the problem.
The idea that people are using reusable shopping bags because they want to virtue signal and not because of any actual desire to do good is a completely baseless and needlessly pessimistic viewpoint. A much more reasonable and likely explanation is that most people can't fully assess the environmental impact of their decisions, so they make the entirely reasonable assumption that if they can avoid throwing away a dozen plastic bags every week, then that's probably a good thing. That assumption may turn out to be incorrect, but that doesn't mean they have the harmful motivations you are accusing them of.
The objection was to the idea that such people are "virtue signalling." It's such a silly and overused-term, generally used incorrectly, and used to snear at people doing good.
No, such people generally do think they are doing something worthwhile, and worthwhile things are right to do.
If, in fact, they are not doing anything worthwhile, which this graph suggests, then that is a mistake of the facts. It doesn't mean that they were just trying to "virtue signal."
From a climate-change only perspecitive, the original paper actually says that if you re-use a cotton bag just 53 times, you're already doing measurable good, and if you keep using it you keep doing more measurable good.
The higher number come from value judgements about other kids of impacts, and reasonable people can disagree over the relative values of those impacts vs climate change.
I agree with some of this sentiment. As others have pointed out, reusing bags doesn't stop anyone from taking more substantial steps. But our attention/energy is limited and we shouldn't shame anyone for their straws or bags.
No shaming. Reuse bags all you want. Just don't fool yourself that this is making any progress, because it is not. It is actually detrimental to encouraging real solutions.
I don't care about environment, but I do it for practicality and use experience. A proper nice bag is so much nicer to bag and carry than either plastic or paper bag. It has nice shape suitable for squarish and round bottles. Plus I don't really have to care how heavy I bag it. That is I have to bag it really heavy for it to break.
I usually reuse those 'single use' grocery bags, either for more groceries, or as waste-paper bin liners, etc.
This whole 'single-use plastics' thing seems to be a huge diversion if you ask me.
The one case where a ban might effective doesn't seem to get much focus; cosmetics/toiletries. Shampoos, liquid soap dispensers (esp with pump-action), toothpaste tubes, etc. There's probably more plastic in each of those than 10s or 100s of grocery bags.
This seems kind of odd to me, the idea that using 50 plastic bags is environmentally equivalent to one plastic-based reusable bag.
The "environmental impact" is defined pretty broadly, but intuitively it feels like I'd rather have the one bag go to the dump when it wears out than have 50 flimsy plastic ones blowing about or getting into every nook and cranny.
As always of course, while it's good to be aware of your own wasteful habits, they're probably a rounding error compared with industrial and commercial waste, things like enormous fishing nets and lines being cut off in the ocean, or pallets of packages being wrapped by hundreds of feet of plastic wrap for transport.
Western landfills are pretty good at physically containing trash especially plastic.
Our current crisis was because we more or less decided “shipping plastic away” was as good as “recycling plastic.”
So we stopped burying our plastic in a very safe way, and instead we burned fossil fuels to ship it to Asia, where they just let it get into the ocean.
If we just do back to burying our plastic (and trying really hard to collect it all in the trash stream), we’d all be better off.
"Environmental impact" formula is totally subjective and unscientific. You could easily create another one which would put mentioned bags in a different order.
For example cotton bags critique often involves mentioning how much water is needed to produce it. But is it really a problem on the planet mostly covered by water? By tweaking the formula you can put cotton bags where you want on list like that.
It is an extremely counterintuitive result, I agree.
The basics are that your standard grocery store plastic bag is made of a very very small amount of plastic, and thus a very very small amount of oil went into it. The environmental costs of travel were amortized across many many more of them because they travel in these massive multi-packs to be used in bulk, and so forth. I am not sure how disposal enters into the mix, precisely... I’d think the comparison is “here is how much crude oil is needed to make the gas you need to chainsaw down a tree to make a paper bag and ship it to the store, versus how much crude oil is needed to make and ship the plastic one.” That is, the assumption is that they both get sent to the same landfill, compressed into a small little cube, and shuffled off to some corner similarly... No thoughts about plastic bags blowing in the breeze.
In a related note, when I was a kid I remember being shown, as we passed, some recycling center... And I remember being scandalized about the dark smoke being belched out into the air. I am told that they have made great gains since I saw that, so that glass and metal recycling is now fairly clean, but that plastic recycling is still somewhat dicey in whether the recycling process yields a net environmental benefit. I have no idea if that's accurate though, it's a very faint memory.
Check the single pdf under the sources tab [0]. Search for 'waste bin bag'.
It's assumed that the LDPE bag will always be reused as a garbage bag, and that 'permeable' bags will not. Effectively, this assumes that every single time you (re)use whatever you have on hand to carry your groceries home in that's not a flimsy new LDPE bag, an entire sturdy plastic garbage bag is destroyed. By this math, carrying home your groceries in absolutely nothing is substantially more harmful than using a new LDPE bag. Just for fun, if we take this math to its logical extreme, the least environmentally harmful thing to do is to take as many LDPE bags as you can carry all stuffed full of nothing but more empty LDPE bags.
I had the same thought that the litter created by single-use plastic bags is worth weighing in the equation.
However, a look at a similar study in the US (Life Cycle Assessment of Grocery Bags in Common Use in the United States [1]) points out that "A compilation of all of the statistically-based studies of litter in the U.S. and Canada over an 18 year period shows consistently that “plastic bags” (which includes trash bags, grocery bags, retail bags and dry cleaning bags) make up a very small portion of litter, usually less than 1%. "
So our vision of plastic bags getting into every nook and cranny may not be an accurate perception of reality.
>“plastic bags” (which includes trash bags, grocery bags, retail bags and dry cleaning bags) make up a very small portion of litter, usually less than 1%
By mass (weight), not volume, area, visibility, or impact on wildlife.
> Stein analyzed 20 years of scientifically-designed, statistically based litter surveys in the U.S. and Canada and concluded that total plastic bag litter was less than 1% (by number of pieces). Combining these data with the estimated
annual production of PRBs of 100 billion bags (U. S. International Trade Commission, 2009), and assuming that all of the plastic bag litter resulted from only one year’s production and use of PRBs, leads to the conclusion that less than 0.5% of PRBs end their life as litter
The point is another: we do need packaging in general, because we need to move stuff around and store them. Things we move and store have a separated lifecycle respect of their packaging and packaging have a cost.
Now a cotton/manila/sisal/* bag if "less pollutant" per se than a plastic one, but cost much much more to be produced and I do not know in ecological term the impact not of cotton per se but enough plantations to satisfy the demand of bags. That's is.
In the relatively recent past plastics was sold as environmentally friendly because with it, coming just from a liquid pumped from underground, we can avoid cutting soooo many trees, bamboos etc and soo much energy to process them just to make packaging. Now the refrain is the opposite.
Long story short the point is not "this pollute more than that" but "on scale using this pollute more than that".
The only thing I would bring up is we don't have to use bags. Proof of that are stores like Aldi. They don't give you bags, and it's not hindering people from doing their shopping there.
We've stopped using bags because we forget to bring the resubable ones to the store. Turns out that loading straight from the cart to the car is convenient, and grabbing a laundry hamper to haul stuff inside is even more convenient.
Does anyone reuse plastic bags? I keep all of them and use them for small trash cans, dog bags, lunch bags, etc. To me, it’s similar to a free useful item. But I guess most folks just toss them in the bin.
considering the extensively-documented problem of plastic wastes in the waterway, that alone is worth the price of admission to some sane way to reduce or eliminate single-use plastic containers, especially around food.
It's a chart that summarizes complex calculations that surely depend on which assumptions you make. And most likely, similar bags can be manufactured in different ways, so wouldn't the variance on these numbers be very high, depending on the bag's source and how it's distributed?
As such, a simple chart isn't enough and I think a more in-depth article is called for.
Sure, but that's not readable for most people. A good article for the general audience would explain the important parts. (Consider the difference between reading a science article for the Atlantic or the New Yorker and reading scientific papers.)
Note, these are the numbers across "all impact cateories," from the original paper here [1].
From a climate change perspective alone, all the numbers are significantly lower (see page 79). E.g. a cotton bag needs only to be reused 53 times to be as low impact as a plastic bag.
I no longer feel as bad about using my cotton bags, which have been used hundreds of times.
As far as I can tell, the comparison in the article shows that it's generally way better for the environment to get a bunch of those flimsy plastic bags at the grocery check-out than to re-use a more substantial cotton or plastic bag (such as you can buy at Aldi) or to use paper bags. This conclusion is completely unintuitive to me.
There is no way you can reuse Lidl paper bag 40+ times, it would break after few uses, if you are lucky and it's not raining, if it's raining you will be happy if it will last at least one journey home.
I find it funny when people who buy paper bags few times a month think they are eco friendly compared to me using plastic bags from 10+ years ago (mind it's thicker kind of plastic, not the Tesco thin crap quality which we used to reuse as trashbin bags back in days when they were free), if grocery doesn't fit into my empty backpack.
As for enviromental impact - people using these paper bags or even better fancy cotton bags are usually same people who were getting tested dozens/hundreds times per month/year and wearing their ecofriendly respirators to save grandma, meanwhile me "nature destroying monster" antivaxxer had like 2-3 home tests since 2020 and rarely worn just ordinary face mask when forced.
And don't get me started on these virtue signalling people driving their cars while I don't even own a car, but yeah, you are saving the nature by using cotton/paper grocery bag while throwing away dozens/hundreds of COVID tests, respirators and driving car to shop, kids to school and everywhere because you are lazy F while I go to shop by tram and walk my kids to kindergarten/school.
They are rabid about plastic bag bans, because they're made from fossil fuels.
They also don't like plastic recycling, renewables, efficiency or climate change for the same reason.
Amusingly after years of "don't recycle plastic just landfill it" the public opinion has shifted enough for bans on single use items to be likely, they've recently pivoted to "don't ban it, we will soon be able to recycle plastic"
But who else would bravely defend us from tyrants who want to ban inefficient light bulbs as part of a devious corporate plot:
> The ban was pushed by light bulb makers eager to up-sell customers on longer-lasting and much more expensive halogen, compact fluourescent, and LED lighting. When customers balked at paying more for home lighting, General Electric, Sylvania, and Philips did what corporate behemoths always do: They turned to the government for regulation that rigs the market in their favor.
> So when you throw out that last 40 cent 40 Watt light bulb, remember that you're not just tossing out a piece of history, but a piece of what used to be a freer market.
67 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 165 ms ] threadWhat is your solution?
We're like drunk people search for our keys under the streetlight - we only focus on the stuff that we can see, rather than what is actually important.
I’m not saying I have a solution either but not acknowledging that it’s a systemic problem is fairly thought ending.
They’re not a little bit better - they’re dramatically worse.
I think this is a side-effect that provides positive feedback, just like many of these initiatives, they are a way for rich people to feel like something is being done without doing anything, while actively maintaining their position in the world. If you look around, there is a lot of stuff like this.
The idea that people are using reusable shopping bags because they want to virtue signal and not because of any actual desire to do good is a completely baseless and needlessly pessimistic viewpoint. A much more reasonable and likely explanation is that most people can't fully assess the environmental impact of their decisions, so they make the entirely reasonable assumption that if they can avoid throwing away a dozen plastic bags every week, then that's probably a good thing. That assumption may turn out to be incorrect, but that doesn't mean they have the harmful motivations you are accusing them of.
No, such people generally do think they are doing something worthwhile, and worthwhile things are right to do.
If, in fact, they are not doing anything worthwhile, which this graph suggests, then that is a mistake of the facts. It doesn't mean that they were just trying to "virtue signal."
The higher number come from value judgements about other kids of impacts, and reasonable people can disagree over the relative values of those impacts vs climate change.
Does it help? In the grand scheme of things, it won't help enough, but waste reduction is always helpful.
This whole 'single-use plastics' thing seems to be a huge diversion if you ask me.
The one case where a ban might effective doesn't seem to get much focus; cosmetics/toiletries. Shampoos, liquid soap dispensers (esp with pump-action), toothpaste tubes, etc. There's probably more plastic in each of those than 10s or 100s of grocery bags.
The "environmental impact" is defined pretty broadly, but intuitively it feels like I'd rather have the one bag go to the dump when it wears out than have 50 flimsy plastic ones blowing about or getting into every nook and cranny.
As always of course, while it's good to be aware of your own wasteful habits, they're probably a rounding error compared with industrial and commercial waste, things like enormous fishing nets and lines being cut off in the ocean, or pallets of packages being wrapped by hundreds of feet of plastic wrap for transport.
Our current crisis was because we more or less decided “shipping plastic away” was as good as “recycling plastic.”
So we stopped burying our plastic in a very safe way, and instead we burned fossil fuels to ship it to Asia, where they just let it get into the ocean.
If we just do back to burying our plastic (and trying really hard to collect it all in the trash stream), we’d all be better off.
For example cotton bags critique often involves mentioning how much water is needed to produce it. But is it really a problem on the planet mostly covered by water? By tweaking the formula you can put cotton bags where you want on list like that.
The basics are that your standard grocery store plastic bag is made of a very very small amount of plastic, and thus a very very small amount of oil went into it. The environmental costs of travel were amortized across many many more of them because they travel in these massive multi-packs to be used in bulk, and so forth. I am not sure how disposal enters into the mix, precisely... I’d think the comparison is “here is how much crude oil is needed to make the gas you need to chainsaw down a tree to make a paper bag and ship it to the store, versus how much crude oil is needed to make and ship the plastic one.” That is, the assumption is that they both get sent to the same landfill, compressed into a small little cube, and shuffled off to some corner similarly... No thoughts about plastic bags blowing in the breeze.
In a related note, when I was a kid I remember being shown, as we passed, some recycling center... And I remember being scandalized about the dark smoke being belched out into the air. I am told that they have made great gains since I saw that, so that glass and metal recycling is now fairly clean, but that plastic recycling is still somewhat dicey in whether the recycling process yields a net environmental benefit. I have no idea if that's accurate though, it's a very faint memory.
It's assumed that the LDPE bag will always be reused as a garbage bag, and that 'permeable' bags will not. Effectively, this assumes that every single time you (re)use whatever you have on hand to carry your groceries home in that's not a flimsy new LDPE bag, an entire sturdy plastic garbage bag is destroyed. By this math, carrying home your groceries in absolutely nothing is substantially more harmful than using a new LDPE bag. Just for fun, if we take this math to its logical extreme, the least environmentally harmful thing to do is to take as many LDPE bags as you can carry all stuffed full of nothing but more empty LDPE bags.
[0] https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-...
However, a look at a similar study in the US (Life Cycle Assessment of Grocery Bags in Common Use in the United States [1]) points out that "A compilation of all of the statistically-based studies of litter in the U.S. and Canada over an 18 year period shows consistently that “plastic bags” (which includes trash bags, grocery bags, retail bags and dry cleaning bags) make up a very small portion of litter, usually less than 1%. "
So our vision of plastic bags getting into every nook and cranny may not be an accurate perception of reality.
1. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...
By mass (weight), not volume, area, visibility, or impact on wildlife.
> Stein analyzed 20 years of scientifically-designed, statistically based litter surveys in the U.S. and Canada and concluded that total plastic bag litter was less than 1% (by number of pieces). Combining these data with the estimated annual production of PRBs of 100 billion bags (U. S. International Trade Commission, 2009), and assuming that all of the plastic bag litter resulted from only one year’s production and use of PRBs, leads to the conclusion that less than 0.5% of PRBs end their life as litter
Now a cotton/manila/sisal/* bag if "less pollutant" per se than a plastic one, but cost much much more to be produced and I do not know in ecological term the impact not of cotton per se but enough plantations to satisfy the demand of bags. That's is.
In the relatively recent past plastics was sold as environmentally friendly because with it, coming just from a liquid pumped from underground, we can avoid cutting soooo many trees, bamboos etc and soo much energy to process them just to make packaging. Now the refrain is the opposite.
Long story short the point is not "this pollute more than that" but "on scale using this pollute more than that".
https://www.presidentschoice.ca/product/pc-green-box/2117563...
:|
Now that plastic bags are banned in New York City, I have to buy trash bags... which are plastic...
As such, a simple chart isn't enough and I think a more in-depth article is called for.
From a climate change perspective alone, all the numbers are significantly lower (see page 79). E.g. a cotton bag needs only to be reused 53 times to be as low impact as a plastic bag.
I no longer feel as bad about using my cotton bags, which have been used hundreds of times.
1. https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-...
I find it funny when people who buy paper bags few times a month think they are eco friendly compared to me using plastic bags from 10+ years ago (mind it's thicker kind of plastic, not the Tesco thin crap quality which we used to reuse as trashbin bags back in days when they were free), if grocery doesn't fit into my empty backpack.
As for enviromental impact - people using these paper bags or even better fancy cotton bags are usually same people who were getting tested dozens/hundreds times per month/year and wearing their ecofriendly respirators to save grandma, meanwhile me "nature destroying monster" antivaxxer had like 2-3 home tests since 2020 and rarely worn just ordinary face mask when forced.
And don't get me started on these virtue signalling people driving their cars while I don't even own a car, but yeah, you are saving the nature by using cotton/paper grocery bag while throwing away dozens/hundreds of COVID tests, respirators and driving car to shop, kids to school and everywhere because you are lazy F while I go to shop by tram and walk my kids to kindergarten/school.
https://reason.com/tag/plastic-bags/
They are rabid about plastic bag bans, because they're made from fossil fuels.
They also don't like plastic recycling, renewables, efficiency or climate change for the same reason.
Amusingly after years of "don't recycle plastic just landfill it" the public opinion has shifted enough for bans on single use items to be likely, they've recently pivoted to "don't ban it, we will soon be able to recycle plastic"
Compare their recent article
https://reason.com/2022/05/31/environmentalists-ban-single-u...
where the evil environmentalists don't want to recycle, with their decades long jihad against the idea:
https://reason.com/category/energy-environment/recycling/
Often written by the same author.
But who else would bravely defend us from tyrants who want to ban inefficient light bulbs as part of a devious corporate plot:
> The ban was pushed by light bulb makers eager to up-sell customers on longer-lasting and much more expensive halogen, compact fluourescent, and LED lighting. When customers balked at paying more for home lighting, General Electric, Sylvania, and Philips did what corporate behemoths always do: They turned to the government for regulation that rigs the market in their favor.
> So when you throw out that last 40 cent 40 Watt light bulb, remember that you're not just tossing out a piece of history, but a piece of what used to be a freer market.