3 ms·

I love Planet Money, but that article was pretty terrible. Sure, if you're trying to optimize for greenhouse emissions, plastic isn't so bad. After all, carbon

I love Planet Money, but that article was pretty terrible. Sure, if you're trying to optimize for greenhouse emissions, plastic isn't so bad. After all, carbon chains coming out of the ground as oil are going back into the ground as long-term stable plastic! However, the article readily admits that plastic results in more litter than other bags. Which is worse, more CO2 or more litter in the environment? The article seems to take a position but doesn't really provide any justification. I get the value of pointing out tradeoffs, but I don't think you can simply conclude that plastic is absolutely "better for the environment".

RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
> Which is worse, more CO2 or more litter in the environment? That one is an easy question to answer. CO2 climate change has the possibility of radically altering human civilization and has the potential to cause millions of deaths. While litter in the environment is bad, it is something humans have dealt with before and will not have nearly the impact.
- stickfigure 8y ago
  If we were trading off "all excess CO2" for "all litter" I might agree with you, but we're measuring the impact of the CO2 involved in nonplastic bag production vs the litter from all plastic bags. What percentage of total worldwide CO2 emissions does nonplastic bag production represent? I'm not a subject matter expert, but I would shocked if the portion was more than minuscule. Whereas plastic grocery bags represent a pretty signifiant percentage of litter. Since this boils down to "how much CO2" vs "how much litter", I really don't find this question easy to answer.