Ironic because paper bags are recyclable, and nature does it for free!
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/04/09/711181385/are-...
This seems disingenuous. 131 uses of a cotton tote bag doesn't replace 1 plastic bag, it replaces at least 131 plastic bags, if not 2-3x that amount since the tote bags are bigger and sturdier and hold more.
I think the fundamental problem with plastic bags is that since they are 1 or 2 use, they are always going to be entering the environment at a rate faster than they degrade. So there is going to be an ever-increasing buildup of plastic bags in the environment for as long as they go on being used.
So it is comparing 1 reusable bag used 131 times to 131 plastic bags.
Further in the article another study considers plastic bags used more than once, which are much better for the environment.
>I think the fundamental problem with plastic bags is that since they are 1 or 2 use, they are always going to be entering the environment at a rate faster than they degrade. So there is going to be an ever-increasing buildup of plastic bags in the environment for as long as they go on being used.
I think it is much more important to look at scientific studies than what a random person hypothesizes with no evidence to back it up.
What percentage of people do this? We use them as “free” bags for garbage bins that we would otherwise have to buy, or for lunch where you won’t/can’t take an insulated bag (outing or when you won’t go home right after work).
When living with other people, we always accumulated huge numbers of saved plastic bags over the months. I'd recycle them but by myself I use reusable bags and a backpack that helps me carry them back. I get a handful of plastic bags every now and then when I get something without planning and those I put to use like you suggest.
So my answer is: For those who aren't recycling, I'd guess that most people throw bags out. For those who are, it's going to be a smaller number, depending on how hard they try to avoid plastic bags at the market.
I shop once a week, and normally fill 2-3 cotton bags. So I'd have paid off my pollution within a year. Maybe 6 months, as my cotton bags hold twice as much as plastic bags.
Also, not all production of bags is going to have the same level of pollution. We DIY many things in our home, and although we do buy the raw cloth, we sew them together ourselves. I suspect that drops the pollution somewhat.
In which case, I may be in a better place simply by using bags for a few months.
That doesn't sound so bad to me.
If I recall correctly most of the plastic bags come from developing countries that do not dispose of any of their garbage properly anyway.
"What I found was that sales of garbage bags actually skyrocketed after plastic grocery bags were banned," she says. This was particularly the case for small, 4-gallon bags, which saw a 120 percent increase in sales after bans went into effect.
1. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/29/biodegra...
Making plastic "better" than paper requires ignoring the plastic particles that are building up in our drinking water, the plastic bags that litter the world, etc. Blah.
EDIT: I want to rant. That comparison linked to appears to include the energy to recycle paper in paper's carbon footprint, while it has no such cost for plastic, not even an estimate of what energy could perhaps be required to recycle plastic as well as paper actually us. Sigh.
Sure, if you're trying to optimize for greenhouse emissions, plastic isn't so bad. After all, carbon chains coming out of the ground as oil are going back into the ground as long-term stable plastic!
However, the article readily admits that plastic results in more litter than other bags. Which is worse, more CO2 or more litter in the environment? The article seems to take a position but doesn't really provide any justification.
I get the value of pointing out tradeoffs, but I don't think you can simply conclude that plastic is absolutely "better for the environment".
That one is an easy question to answer. CO2 climate change has the possibility of radically altering human civilization and has the potential to cause millions of deaths. While litter in the environment is bad, it is something humans have dealt with before and will not have nearly the impact.
What percentage of total worldwide CO2 emissions does nonplastic bag production represent? I'm not a subject matter expert, but I would shocked if the portion was more than minuscule. Whereas plastic grocery bags represent a pretty signifiant percentage of litter.
Since this boils down to "how much CO2" vs "how much litter", I really don't find this question easy to answer.