4 ms·

Environmentally friendly is not measured on one indicator. Perhaps in terms of energy-intensity, paper is higher than plastic. But energy use of store bags is r

Environmentally friendly is not measured on one indicator. Perhaps in terms of energy-intensity, paper is higher than plastic. But energy use of store bags is relatively negligible anyway, not to be ignored but also not a grave threat. But in terms of the spread of plastics and biodegradability, a one-time paper bag is certainly better than a one-time plastic back, and not quite as negligible in its impact. Further, the vast majority of plastic bags have not been replaced by paper bags, but by people's own bags. For example in supermarkets there's an 80% decrease in use of plastic bags since pricing them in the Netherlands (Dutch but google translate works fine): https://nos.nl/artikel/2325519-tachtig-procent-minder-plastic-tasjes-sinds-ze-niet-meer-gratis-zijn.html https://nos.nl/artikel/2325519-tachtig-procent-minder-plasti... Besides, if plastic is being replaced by paper, it simply shows incentives work. If paper is also undesirable, the next step is not to reintroduce free plastic bags, but to introduce pricing for paper bags just the same. Honestly I don't see how this argument pops up in every single discussion on plastic bag reduction every time...

gruez 6y ago
>Environmentally friendly is not measured on one indicator. Perhaps in terms of energy-intensity, paper is higher than plastic. But energy use of store bags is relatively negligible anyway, not to be ignored but also not a grave threat. But in terms of the spread of plastics and biodegradability, a one-time paper bag is certainly better than a one-time plastic back, and not quite as negligible in its impact. The problem here is that increased energy use applies to every bag used, whereas the concern about biodegradability only applies for bags that are mismanaged. A plastic bag that's buried in a landfill or burned in an incinerator is a non-issue, and most (almost all?) bags end up properly disposed. >Besides, if plastic is being replaced by paper, it simply shows incentives work Is it? The parent commenter said that plastic bags were banned, not that they were taxed.
- Confiks 6y ago
  > The parent commenter said that plastic bags were banned, not that they were taxed. I said free plastic bags are banned. So they are 'taxed' by the store instead.
Confiks 6y ago
> Honestly I don't see how this argument pops up in every single discussion on plastic bag reduction every time... Well, it wasn't an argument about plastic bag reduction. It was an example in an argument about omissions in reporting about plastic reduction efforts. The example is clearly valid, even if you consider other metrics to be more important in the example. It probably didn't help that I initially put "environmentally friendly" in there mindlessly. I also clearly stated my opinion about the solution to this, which doesn't involve lifting the ban.

gruez 6y ago

>Environmentally friendly is not measured on one indicator. Perhaps in terms of energy-intensity, paper is higher than plastic. But energy use of store bags is relatively negligible anyway, not to be ignored but also not a grave threat. But in terms of the spread of plastics and biodegradability, a one-time paper bag is certainly better than a one-time plastic back, and not quite as negligible in its impact. The problem here is that increased energy use applies to every bag used, whereas the concern about biodegradability only applies for bags that are mismanaged. A plastic bag that's buried in a landfill or burned in an incinerator is a non-issue, and most (almost all?) bags end up properly disposed. >Besides, if plastic is being replaced by paper, it simply shows incentives work Is it? The parent commenter said that plastic bags were banned, not that they were taxed.

Confiks 6y ago
> The parent commenter said that plastic bags were banned, not that they were taxed. I said free plastic bags are banned. So they are 'taxed' by the store instead.

Confiks 6y ago

> Honestly I don't see how this argument pops up in every single discussion on plastic bag reduction every time... Well, it wasn't an argument about plastic bag reduction. It was an example in an argument about omissions in reporting about plastic reduction efforts. The example is clearly valid, even if you consider other metrics to be more important in the example. It probably didn't help that I initially put "environmentally friendly" in there mindlessly. I also clearly stated my opinion about the solution to this, which doesn't involve lifting the ban.