4 ms·

I think it means “Billions of plastic bags were avoided in the US alone,” but that’s just me reading the headline.

Wowfunhappy 3y ago
And if your goal is to eliminate a specific type of plastic bag, that's great! It's also a stupid goal. if your goal is to eliminate plastic, or fossil fuel emissions, I'm not convinced these bans have been effective.
- dario_od 3y ago
  Great! Can you show me the numbers that make you think that these bans were not effective?
  - Wowfunhappy 3y ago
    https://www.freedoniagroup.com/press-releases/freedonia-report-finds-new-jersey-single-use-bag-ban-boosts-alternative-bag-production,-increases-pl https://www.freedoniagroup.com/press-releases/freedonia-repo... Edit: Apparently this is commissioned by the plastic industry. It does match my anecdata of how many people I see buying "reusable" bags at the supermarket check out, combined with https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/grocery-bag-environmental-impact https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/grocery-bag-environmental...
    - emmo 3y ago
      I've been using the same reusable bags for years, so they have more than hit those numbers. Why are the cotton numbers so wild?
- VintageCool 3y ago
  The goal is to eliminate trash in the environment. Thin plastic bags get discarded carelessly, then catch in the wind and get strewn around a wide area. Plastic bag bans have been sufficiently successful that people have forgotten this was a problem.
- ryathal 3y ago
  If the goal was reduced emissions, these bans were an abject failure. Single use plastic bags are really efficient from an energy use perspective. Their replacements take significantly more energy to produce and the re-use is unlikely to ever balance out, as they often require hundreds or thousands of uses to be equivalent to a single use bag.
HPsquared 3y ago
"Number of bags" is only one way to measure this. It's probably the only metric that went in the right direction, so that's the one they report.

And if your goal is to eliminate a specific type of plastic bag, that's great! It's also a stupid goal. if your goal is to eliminate plastic, or fossil fuel emissions, I'm not convinced these bans have been effective.

dario_od 3y ago
Great! Can you show me the numbers that make you think that these bans were not effective?
- Wowfunhappy 3y ago
  https://www.freedoniagroup.com/press-releases/freedonia-report-finds-new-jersey-single-use-bag-ban-boosts-alternative-bag-production,-increases-pl https://www.freedoniagroup.com/press-releases/freedonia-repo... Edit: Apparently this is commissioned by the plastic industry. It does match my anecdata of how many people I see buying "reusable" bags at the supermarket check out, combined with https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/grocery-bag-environmental-impact https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/grocery-bag-environmental...
  - emmo 3y ago
    I've been using the same reusable bags for years, so they have more than hit those numbers. Why are the cotton numbers so wild?
VintageCool 3y ago
The goal is to eliminate trash in the environment. Thin plastic bags get discarded carelessly, then catch in the wind and get strewn around a wide area. Plastic bag bans have been sufficiently successful that people have forgotten this was a problem.
ryathal 3y ago
If the goal was reduced emissions, these bans were an abject failure. Single use plastic bags are really efficient from an energy use perspective. Their replacements take significantly more energy to produce and the re-use is unlikely to ever balance out, as they often require hundreds or thousands of uses to be equivalent to a single use bag.

HPsquared 3y ago

"Number of bags" is only one way to measure this. It's probably the only metric that went in the right direction, so that's the one they report.