I have two objections to this post: 1. No numbers provided, in terms of actual impacts on poor people. Just a vague angry waving of fists and calling drafters

I have two objections to this post: 1. No numbers provided, in terms of actual impacts on poor people. Just a vague angry waving of fists and calling drafters of bag bans "assholes". 2. Carbon footprint isn't the only thing that's cut down with bag bans. Plastic waste itself is a massive problem - plastic is forever and it's getting everywhere, including our water. In my home city of Mumbai, India, plastic bags choke up drains and sewers, and contribute to monsoon flooding every year - and it's definitely not the rich that suffer most when the city floods. Reducing the amount of plastic that's produced might even be worth a slight increase in carbon emissions in the long run. That is if we can find emissions savings elsewhere, which luckily, we can by cutting out the McMansions and SUVs mentioned in the post. In mostly poor communities, I'd support even free paper bags along with a plastic bag ban. In richer communities, yeah a plastic bag ban + non-free paper bags can be construed as "anti-poor" but virtually everything else in those communities already is anti-poor anyway (minimum plot size zoning, walkability, public transit availability etc). It just makes my blood boil to see the way groceries are bagged in communities with no bag bans - it feels like they use a new bag per item.