3 ms·
> Like for instance how China banned single serving plastic usage. It is not that clear cut in that case. > In fact, life-cycle assessments on items such as
by cscurmudgeon 2y ago
> Like for instance how China banned single serving plastic usage.
It is not that clear cut in that case.
> In fact, life-cycle assessments on items such as single-use plastic bags have shown that there is a discrepancy between actual re-use rates of alternative bags and the re-use rate to break even on environmental grounds. Paper bags need to be re-used four times, LDPE bags five times, non-woven PP bags 14 times and cotton bags 173 times. Their actual re-use rates are about half that, making them less sustainable than single-use plastic bags, which may also be used by consumers as bin liners.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3620887-would-a-single-use-plastic-ban-be-counterproductive https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3620887-would...
- xenophonf 2y agoI'd read the linked article very critically: 1. It's an opinion piece, not evidence-based and peer-reviewed research. 2. It's written by a lobbyist who's parent organization gets funding in part from neo-reactionaries, including the Charles G. Koch Foundation. 3. The same author argues elsewhere for Europe and the U.S. to "put all their climate ambitions in the back burner, refine more oil and cooperate to deliver it quickly and effectively"; cf. https://web.archive.org/web/20220908091610/https://la-chronique-agora.com/pourquoi-etats-unis-ne-nous-fournissent-pas-plus-petrole/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220908091610/https://la-chroni.... 4. The opinion piece cites another opinion piece written by the same author for Newsmax, a non-credible far-right media company. 5. It also cites "Five Misperceptions Surrounding the Environmental Impacts of Single-Use Plastic," published in _Environmental Science and Technology_, an impactful peer-reviewed scientific journal, but the article is not without its detractors and must be read critically as well; cf. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c07842 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c07842. 6. The opinion piece redundantly cites a web page written by the author of "Five Misperceptions...". Said web page makes the same arguments as the ES&T article. 7. The opinion piece quotes a number of unrelated facts and figures.
- cscurmudgeon 2y agoShould we apply this level of examination for every HN comment. Responding to you. 1. Opinion pieces can cite evidence-based and peer-reviewed research 2. Ad hominem 3. Ad hominem 4. Ad hominem 5. Ad hominem and Straw Man: 6. and 7. Straw man