Sloppy all around. With a difference in annual deaths of 5.4 -- no thousand, no million, just 5.4 -- we're looking at a natural margin of error that cannot be accounted for without a lot more rigorous study. As this article points out, most grocers switched from plastic to paper bags, which makes the original study authors' statement of it being an immediate and visible effect on infection rate suspicious. Then the author of this "article" says the bag ban should be repealed because people won't wash their reusable bags… then she calls the bag ban a movement of the nanny state… because nanny states never protect people from their basic lack of sanitary practices? What a confused, badly reported, mess.
I thought the points after the nanny-state argument were more convincing, but you didn't mention them:
"-- Single-use bags are not the problem. In 2011, they represented 0.13 percent of California's total waste stream.
"-- According to the British Environment Agency, consumers have to reuse a cloth bag 131 times to present lesser global warming impact than conventional bags."
So at my rate of shopping a bag would need to last 2-3 years to have any net benefit for the environment. And all of that effort to put a maximum dent in .13% of the waste total. If people would just buy what they eat instead of throwing out 20% of their food, we'd have a much greener grocery system.
> "then she calls the bag ban a movement of the nanny state"
There are a few (helpful) signals that people send, when they've made an emotional decision and are merely trying to justify it after-the-fact. Using emotionally-charged cliches and strawmen ("nanny state") is a large flashing sign of that type.
You really shouldn't expect such a position to have any logical or philosophical consistency. Nor should you expect it to be receptive to data. If one of their pet justifications is refuted, the conclusion will remain iron-clad; they'll simply fish around for a new justification.
I would go even farther than you. It's not science reportin because it's a report by two law professors, working for the Wharton School of Economics. One of them, Klick, regularly writes for the Cato Institute on privatization, Austrian school economics, and so forth. It initially sounds like a scientific report, but one just has to consider the source.
Unfortunately I cannot track down the exact PR Agency, or any details really, so take this with a grain of salt... One of my former classmates worked a while for a PR Agency hired by "Big Plastic" to prevent plastic bag bans like the one in SF from spreading...
The conspiracy theorist in me would love to find a connection between these Wharton profs and that PR Agency.
I don't mind so much the ban on plastic but I really hate that it was shackled to a requirement that the stores charge for the paper. The two are completely unrelated.
What about the negative effects of washing those bags?
1. Extra drinking water usage in a state with known water supply issues.
2. More detergent residue in the ground and oceans.
3. Electricity usage to run the washer.
I'd suggest these come close to outweighing the plastic bag negatives.
14 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 34.4 ms ] thread"-- Single-use bags are not the problem. In 2011, they represented 0.13 percent of California's total waste stream.
"-- According to the British Environment Agency, consumers have to reuse a cloth bag 131 times to present lesser global warming impact than conventional bags."
So at my rate of shopping a bag would need to last 2-3 years to have any net benefit for the environment. And all of that effort to put a maximum dent in .13% of the waste total. If people would just buy what they eat instead of throwing out 20% of their food, we'd have a much greener grocery system.
There are a few (helpful) signals that people send, when they've made an emotional decision and are merely trying to justify it after-the-fact. Using emotionally-charged cliches and strawmen ("nanny state") is a large flashing sign of that type.
You really shouldn't expect such a position to have any logical or philosophical consistency. Nor should you expect it to be receptive to data. If one of their pet justifications is refuted, the conclusion will remain iron-clad; they'll simply fish around for a new justification.
The conspiracy theorist in me would love to find a connection between these Wharton profs and that PR Agency.
We threw out plastic bags (and found them convenient in doing so) precisely because they were presumed contaminated.
1. Extra drinking water usage in a state with known water supply issues. 2. More detergent residue in the ground and oceans. 3. Electricity usage to run the washer.
I'd suggest these come close to outweighing the plastic bag negatives.