3 ms·

Plastic does have a (significantly) lower carbon footprint per bag than paper to produce. This doesn't factor in disposability, of course, but that's probably

• XorNot 6y ago
  That seems like the type of analysis where someone lumped in the coal fired power station as well. Those are always the most disingenuous ones.
  • Baeocystin 6y ago
    Not really. Plastic is stunningly inexpensive for what it does. That's why it's so ubiquitous. A grocery bag takes a few grams of material at most, and the feedstock is dirt cheap to boot. It's almost impossible to compete with that on a per-unit cost basis if you don't take externialities in to account. The 'good' news is that the vast majority of plastic waste in the ocean isn't diffuse from around the globe; rather, it is concentrated in a few rivers in asia. The reason for this is that the countries these rivers pass through don't have modern waste collection and landfill infrastructure. It's not exciting to talk about, but this means that helping China, India, and the SE Asian nations build waste management facilities would do more to help the world plastic pollution problem than anything else by orders of magnitude. (We still need biodegradable plastics. But, much like shale gas being helpful because it decommissions even-worse coal, simple proper waste management will put a huge dent in the problem before the ultimate solution becomes available.) [edit]
  • imtringued 6y ago
    The problem with plastic is that it doesn't rot. So if you leave it outside it's going to stay there for a long time and mess up nature. If you put it in a land fill it's not a problem. Paper is more energy intensive because plastic bags require very little plastic. Most of them weigh 5 grams.