4 ms·

I'm young enough to remember when paper grocery bags were "bad for the environment" and plastic single use was better. We got lectures in school from people who

I'm young enough to remember when paper grocery bags were "bad for the environment" and plastic single use was better. We got lectures in school from people who called themselves environmental activists. Today the same people are saying the exact opposite; without ever having been "wrong" somehow. They're just as certain of their righteousness today as they were then. Just as certain that anyone disagreeing with them is an Evil Person.

defrost 2y ago
Theres' strong disagreement on that at Quora and other sites: https://www.quora.com/A-few-years-ago-we-were-told-how-bad-paper-products-were-for-the-environment-so-we-saw-the-introduction-of-plastic-bags-in-the-grocery-store-Why-suddenly-are-the-plastic-bags-being-considered-more-of-an https://www.quora.com/A-few-years-ago-we-were-told-how-bad-p... Alan Locklear, recycler, writes: Plastic bags began to replace paper bags in the 1980s and that change had nothing to do with “someone” telling us “how bad paper products were for the environment”. Plastic bags replaced paper bags because they were more profitable to stores and fast food restaurants — period. Environmentalists NEVER wanted (or petitioned for or agitated for or lobbied for) replacing ANYTHING with plastic! I have been an environmental activist since 1969, and, while I can recall lots of people over the years who wanted our economy’s wasteful use of paper to be reduced, NOBODY EVER THOUGHT OR SAID OR WROTE THAT PLASTIC WOULD BE A BETTER REPLACEMENT FOR PAPER IN GENERAL CONSUMER USE. What we did want was reduction in wasteful uses of paper, and more recycling of waste paper. We certainly wanted many changes to the world’s timber harvest practices, but we were under no illusions that getting rid of sustainably-harvested Kraft paper grocery bags would improve those practices. I myself have zero recollection of school lectures on paper bad, plastic good.
- h2odragon 2y ago
  My family was into Fuel Ethanol big when I was a kid. That was very progressive and Green, then. Sometime in the 90s it became "Evil Big Oil Burning Food" and then had never been an environmentalist cause. Keeping up with History is exhausting.
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    I also fail to remember ethanol as green; in my recollection it came in (as did HFCS) due to Big Corn.
  - defrost 2y ago
    > That was very progressive and Green, then. Was it though? Or was that just what the companies pushing it said? My recollection of that same period in history was that it really took off as a result of the 1973 oil crisis and not because it was especially green. https://ethanolrfa.org/media-and-news/category/blog/article/2023/10/the-arab-oil-embargo-and-ethanol-50-years-later https://ethanolrfa.org/media-and-news/category/blog/article/...
    - eesmith 2y ago
      Yes, it started as an oil crisis response. It then became a clean air issue. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988397000091 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014098839... "Corn-based fuel ethanol has become an increasingly important fuel additive in the US since the early 1980s. Its use began in response to high oil prices and as a gasoline substitute and an octane-enhancing lead replacement as lead was gradually phased-out of the gasoline supply. More recently, its use has been promoted for environmental reasons. The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of November 1990 mandated the use of cleaner burning fuels in specific regions of the US during the winter months. These carbon monoxide (CO) non-attainment areas are required to use oxygenated fuels during the winter months, ranging anywhere from October through March in some locations. Going further, in the summer of 1994 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued new rules about the content of Reformulated Gasoline (RFG), the cleaner-burning fuel which must be sold year-round in many of our largest cities because of ozone non-attainment beginning in January, 1995." Only later, post Kyoto, was it proposed as a way to reduce CO2 emissions, and quickly realized that it would require massive amounts of land, which would compete with food and feed uses. As I recall, the dream was to come up with a cellulose agriculture source (like switchgrass) that could use other types of land and be more efficient as an energy source, but that never panned out. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panicum_virgatum#Bioenergy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panicum_virgatum#Bioenergy tells me corn yields "about 1.28 units of energy per unit of energy input", so a large fraction of the harvest is used simply to produce ethanol.) EDIT: since h20dragon elsewhere mentioned "Mother Earth News" we can read what they wrote in 1980 in "The Mother earth news alcohol fuel handbook" at https://archive.org/details/motherearthnewsa0000unse/mode/2up?q=%22mother+earth+news%22 https://archive.org/details/motherearthnewsa0000unse/mode/2u... I read it as clearly meant as a way to avoid high fossil fuel costs and personal independence from large petrochemical companies. It barely touches on environmental issues (the closest is with "alcohol production can turn our “‘energy crisis’ into an important economic (as well as environmental) boon for our entire nation.")
eesmith 2y ago
Can you pin down the time period a bit better? Neither my memory nor my digging now through the Internet Archive Scholar finds a time when environmentalists generally argued in favor of single-use plastic over paper bags. We know in it wasn't the early 1990s. For example, here's a summary from a 1992 Gallup survey, at https://archive.org/details/sim_reuse-recycle_1992-05_22_5/page/36/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/sim_reuse-recycle_1992-05_22_5/p... which points out that "More than 3 of 5 respondents, 61%, use paper sacks when asked the "paper or plastic" question" and "More than 7 of 10 consumers surveyed who use or prefer the paper bad cite its recyclable, reusable and biodegradable properties." Here's a 1992 complaint about the American Journal of Physics using plastic shrinkwrap for its journal, http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1118&context=phy_fac http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl... with the complainer saying "In the current climate of environmental awareness I feel that the physics community should lead by example. The AAPT should adopt, or if necessary develop, an environmentally more appropriate mailing method." The editor replies that the calculation is difficult and "it is by no means obvious that in this case plastic is bad and paper is good (or at least better)." Here's an example of the complexity, in a 1992 Chemical Engineering Education column at https://journals.flvc.org/cee/article/download/123883/122917 https://journals.flvc.org/cee/article/download/123883/122917 , which tries to do the analysis and concludes "Plastic sacks appear to result in less atmospheric emissions and require less energy. On the other hand, paper sacks rely on a renewable resource for material and energy . Thus there is no clear, environmentally superior product . The consumer is left with a difficult choice, and as illustrated in the problem this choice must be made with incomplete information." A 1999 newsletter at https://web.archive.org/web/20200226112831/https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/31819/PDF/1/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200226112831/https://rucore.li... suggests not using a disposable bag, but to use paper if you know it will be recycled: "Best choice is reusable cloth bags which used just 5 times will displace all the pollution caused by the manufacture of a disposable bag. But face it, most of us forget. Next best choice is recycled paper especially in a community like ours that recycles. Polyethylene bags require less energy to manufacture and cause less damage to the environment than do paper bags when paper is not recycled." This 2003 New Jersey Sierra Club newsletter at https://web.archive.org/web/20200210133922/https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/18578/PDF/1/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200210133922/https://rucore.li... , starts by pointing out "paper or plastic is not a very important decision. ... Topping off the list of consumption choices that matter most to the environment are TRANSPORTATION CHOICES", followed by "WHAT WE EAT" and "VARIOUS DECISIONS WE MAKE IN OUR HOMES". As for the paper-or-plastic question, "there is little difference between choosing paper or plastic bags. So choose whichever you prefer, or choose a reusable canvas sack". Plastic bags kept getting cheaper to make, and by 2009, http://www.ijqr.net/journal/v3-n4/08.pdf http://www.ijqr.net/journal/v3-n4/08.pdf writes: "The "paper or plastic" conundrum that vexed earnest shoppers throughout the 1980s and 90s is largely moot today all over the world. Most grocery store baggers are not bothered about it anymore.". On the other hand, the downstream environmental effects aren't captured in production costs, which is why "There is a growing international movement to ban or discourage the use of plastic bags because of their environmental effects. Countries from Ireland to Australia are cracking down on the bags and action has already begun in many countries." That paper then argues "The answer to the "paper or plastic?” dilemma is: Neither. They're roughly equal in pros and cons. While convenient addictions, they both gobble up natural resources and cause significant pollution. May be plastic is a little less harmful than paper." but commenting that you should reuse plastic bags, and "we must not forget the tradition of using cloth bags, which are reusable, washable and durable, pollution free and therefore environment friendly" This is in accord with my memory, where environmentalists have consistently said to use reusable and washable cloth bags over disposable bags.

defrost 2y ago

Theres' strong disagreement on that at Quora and other sites: https://www.quora.com/A-few-years-ago-we-were-told-how-bad-paper-products-were-for-the-environment-so-we-saw-the-introduction-of-plastic-bags-in-the-grocery-store-Why-suddenly-are-the-plastic-bags-being-considered-more-of-an https://www.quora.com/A-few-years-ago-we-were-told-how-bad-p... Alan Locklear, recycler, writes: Plastic bags began to replace paper bags in the 1980s and that change had nothing to do with “someone” telling us “how bad paper products were for the environment”. Plastic bags replaced paper bags because they were more profitable to stores and fast food restaurants — period. Environmentalists NEVER wanted (or petitioned for or agitated for or lobbied for) replacing ANYTHING with plastic! I have been an environmental activist since 1969, and, while I can recall lots of people over the years who wanted our economy’s wasteful use of paper to be reduced, NOBODY EVER THOUGHT OR SAID OR WROTE THAT PLASTIC WOULD BE A BETTER REPLACEMENT FOR PAPER IN GENERAL CONSUMER USE. What we did want was reduction in wasteful uses of paper, and more recycling of waste paper. We certainly wanted many changes to the world’s timber harvest practices, but we were under no illusions that getting rid of sustainably-harvested Kraft paper grocery bags would improve those practices. I myself have zero recollection of school lectures on paper bad, plastic good.

h2odragon 2y ago
My family was into Fuel Ethanol big when I was a kid. That was very progressive and Green, then. Sometime in the 90s it became "Evil Big Oil Burning Food" and then had never been an environmentalist cause. Keeping up with History is exhausting.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  I also fail to remember ethanol as green; in my recollection it came in (as did HFCS) due to Big Corn.
- defrost 2y ago
  > That was very progressive and Green, then. Was it though? Or was that just what the companies pushing it said? My recollection of that same period in history was that it really took off as a result of the 1973 oil crisis and not because it was especially green. https://ethanolrfa.org/media-and-news/category/blog/article/2023/10/the-arab-oil-embargo-and-ethanol-50-years-later https://ethanolrfa.org/media-and-news/category/blog/article/...
  - eesmith 2y ago
    Yes, it started as an oil crisis response. It then became a clean air issue. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988397000091 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014098839... "Corn-based fuel ethanol has become an increasingly important fuel additive in the US since the early 1980s. Its use began in response to high oil prices and as a gasoline substitute and an octane-enhancing lead replacement as lead was gradually phased-out of the gasoline supply. More recently, its use has been promoted for environmental reasons. The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of November 1990 mandated the use of cleaner burning fuels in specific regions of the US during the winter months. These carbon monoxide (CO) non-attainment areas are required to use oxygenated fuels during the winter months, ranging anywhere from October through March in some locations. Going further, in the summer of 1994 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued new rules about the content of Reformulated Gasoline (RFG), the cleaner-burning fuel which must be sold year-round in many of our largest cities because of ozone non-attainment beginning in January, 1995." Only later, post Kyoto, was it proposed as a way to reduce CO2 emissions, and quickly realized that it would require massive amounts of land, which would compete with food and feed uses. As I recall, the dream was to come up with a cellulose agriculture source (like switchgrass) that could use other types of land and be more efficient as an energy source, but that never panned out. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panicum_virgatum#Bioenergy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panicum_virgatum#Bioenergy tells me corn yields "about 1.28 units of energy per unit of energy input", so a large fraction of the harvest is used simply to produce ethanol.) EDIT: since h20dragon elsewhere mentioned "Mother Earth News" we can read what they wrote in 1980 in "The Mother earth news alcohol fuel handbook" at https://archive.org/details/motherearthnewsa0000unse/mode/2up?q=%22mother+earth+news%22 https://archive.org/details/motherearthnewsa0000unse/mode/2u... I read it as clearly meant as a way to avoid high fossil fuel costs and personal independence from large petrochemical companies. It barely touches on environmental issues (the closest is with "alcohol production can turn our “‘energy crisis’ into an important economic (as well as environmental) boon for our entire nation.")

eesmith 2y ago

Can you pin down the time period a bit better? Neither my memory nor my digging now through the Internet Archive Scholar finds a time when environmentalists generally argued in favor of single-use plastic over paper bags. We know in it wasn't the early 1990s. For example, here's a summary from a 1992 Gallup survey, at https://archive.org/details/sim_reuse-recycle_1992-05_22_5/page/36/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/sim_reuse-recycle_1992-05_22_5/p... which points out that "More than 3 of 5 respondents, 61%, use paper sacks when asked the "paper or plastic" question" and "More than 7 of 10 consumers surveyed who use or prefer the paper bad cite its recyclable, reusable and biodegradable properties." Here's a 1992 complaint about the American Journal of Physics using plastic shrinkwrap for its journal, http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1118&context=phy_fac http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl... with the complainer saying "In the current climate of environmental awareness I feel that the physics community should lead by example. The AAPT should adopt, or if necessary develop, an environmentally more appropriate mailing method." The editor replies that the calculation is difficult and "it is by no means obvious that in this case plastic is bad and paper is good (or at least better)." Here's an example of the complexity, in a 1992 Chemical Engineering Education column at https://journals.flvc.org/cee/article/download/123883/122917 https://journals.flvc.org/cee/article/download/123883/122917 , which tries to do the analysis and concludes "Plastic sacks appear to result in less atmospheric emissions and require less energy. On the other hand, paper sacks rely on a renewable resource for material and energy . Thus there is no clear, environmentally superior product . The consumer is left with a difficult choice, and as illustrated in the problem this choice must be made with incomplete information." A 1999 newsletter at https://web.archive.org/web/20200226112831/https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/31819/PDF/1/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200226112831/https://rucore.li... suggests not using a disposable bag, but to use paper if you know it will be recycled: "Best choice is reusable cloth bags which used just 5 times will displace all the pollution caused by the manufacture of a disposable bag. But face it, most of us forget. Next best choice is recycled paper especially in a community like ours that recycles. Polyethylene bags require less energy to manufacture and cause less damage to the environment than do paper bags when paper is not recycled." This 2003 New Jersey Sierra Club newsletter at https://web.archive.org/web/20200210133922/https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/18578/PDF/1/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200210133922/https://rucore.li... , starts by pointing out "paper or plastic is not a very important decision. ... Topping off the list of consumption choices that matter most to the environment are TRANSPORTATION CHOICES", followed by "WHAT WE EAT" and "VARIOUS DECISIONS WE MAKE IN OUR HOMES". As for the paper-or-plastic question, "there is little difference between choosing paper or plastic bags. So choose whichever you prefer, or choose a reusable canvas sack". Plastic bags kept getting cheaper to make, and by 2009, http://www.ijqr.net/journal/v3-n4/08.pdf http://www.ijqr.net/journal/v3-n4/08.pdf writes: "The "paper or plastic" conundrum that vexed earnest shoppers throughout the 1980s and 90s is largely moot today all over the world. Most grocery store baggers are not bothered about it anymore.". On the other hand, the downstream environmental effects aren't captured in production costs, which is why "There is a growing international movement to ban or discourage the use of plastic bags because of their environmental effects. Countries from Ireland to Australia are cracking down on the bags and action has already begun in many countries." That paper then argues "The answer to the "paper or plastic?” dilemma is: Neither. They're roughly equal in pros and cons. While convenient addictions, they both gobble up natural resources and cause significant pollution. May be plastic is a little less harmful than paper." but commenting that you should reuse plastic bags, and "we must not forget the tradition of using cloth bags, which are reusable, washable and durable, pollution free and therefore environment friendly" This is in accord with my memory, where environmentalists have consistently said to use reusable and washable cloth bags over disposable bags.