Over at the aptly named Real Clear Science, author and
environmentalist Todd Myers offers this short but powerful piece on the recent
trend in the U.S.
to ban the use of plastic grocery bags.
It has a strong relativity to that part of the world that the Brethren
hold most dear, the sea, and so I thought you might be interested in what Mr.
Myers has to say.
As he points out, the largest argument for the ban on
plastic bags is that they are mucking up the ocean and killing sea
creatures. He addresses the widely held,
but as it turns out erroneous, belief that a “Pacific Garbage Dump” the size of
Texas is full
of plastics of all types and particularly plastic bags. In fact, quoting from an Oregon State
University study, Myers notes that as
recently as last year this unfortunate patch of ocean south of Hawai’i was less than one percent the size of Texas.
Myers goes on to quote oceanographer Angel White: “There is
no doubt that the amount of plastic in the world’s oceans is troubling, but
this kind of exaggeration undermines the credibility of scientists,” and
Greenpeace biologists: “It’s very unlikely that many animals are killed by
plastic bags. The evidence shows just the opposite. We are not going to solve
the problem of waste by focusing on plastic bags.”
So what, if any, is the positive impact of banning plastic
bags all together? Myers answers in the
negative. It seems that plastic bags
are, in fact, the most energy efficient form of purchase transportation currently
being manufactured. From the article:
The most significant
environmental risk from banning plastic bags is the increase in energy use.
Plastic bags are the most energy-efficient form of grocery bag. The U.K.
Environment Agency compared to plastic, paper and re-useable bags. It found the
“global warming potential” of plastic grocery bags is one-fourth that of paper
bags and 1/173rd that of a reusable cotton bag. In other words,
consumers would have to use a reusable cotton bag 173 times before they broke
even from an energy standpoint. Thus, even if consumers switched to reusable
bags, it is not clear there would be a reduced environmental impact.
So it seems that, in this case as in so many others, feeling
good and doing good are two vastly different things. And knee-jerk reactions based on baseless
“science” rarely get anything of value done.
A big thanks to the First Mate, by the way, for pointing me
in the direction of Mr. Myers’ excellent post.
7 comments:
You are most welcome, my Captain. I am always skeptical of any attempt to legislate away behavior, particularly in the name of the environment or public health("think of the children!")...
I agree; that government governs best which governs least.
This post truly hits home to me. Over here, our worthless busybody idiots of a City Council took time from their busy schedule of running L.A. into the ground to phase in a ban of plastic AND paper bags.
I can deal with using cloth bags at the store, but I reuse paper and plastic bags all the time for storage, garbage, etc. It's going to be a real nuisance doing without them. And don't ask what I'm going to use to clean cat litter boxes, because I haven't the foggiest idea.
God spare me from do-gooders.
(Yes, someone's a bit cranky this morning.)
Exactly, Undine. As the article notes, people will still use plastic bags but now the "recycling" of that use has been pitched out the window due to misunderstanding of and down right bad science. Well done, government types; well done.
I'm just annoyed that some stores actually penalize you if you've left your cloth bags in the car and are 'forcd' to use plastic. So is that money going towards environmental efforts? No, I don't think so.
Well spoken, my friend.
But wait, there's more: At least plastic bags won't give you E. coli:
http://www.perc.org/articles/article1523.php
Post a Comment