Many points are fishy. After reading the start of part 2 (which is supposed to present objective information about the impact) - Quibbling over whether buildin

Many points are fishy. After reading the start of part 2 (which is supposed to present objective information about the impact) - Quibbling over whether building them consumes oil or natural gas. - Badly reporting other reports (5% of bags are littered vs bags make 5% of all litter). It looks like neither figures are correct, anyway, which is the point the paper wants to make, but basic proofreading should have caught it. - They say that the fact they only make 1% of the matter clogging storm drains makes them unimportant, ignoring their mechanical properties (their robustness and large surface make them retain other debris) I stopped reading at that point.