Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomp | Hacker News Reader

The bigger cause for the more recent (accelerated) drop is IMO not the 5p fee, but the fact that many shops simply stopped offering the thin "single-use" plastic bags altogether!

Still my praise goes to Whole Foods, the only shop (that I know) that offers paper bags.

View on HN

I agree, but even then we're talking about a 50% drop in usage from last year, which is impressive and surprising that so many bags are being used despite the charge.

> Still my praise goes to Whole Foods, the only shop (that I know) that offers paper bags.

It is far from clear that paper bags are any better in their overall impact.

In their impact on plastic waste?

One thing that is very obvious is that they biodegrade. Even if they're equally bad for the environment in the short term they're not a problem that will take 1000 years to go away.

Paper bags are roughly 250 times worse than a plastic bag. Even worse if you color it.

I'd ask you to cite something that demonstrates evidence for that claim but you'll just post a link to a website funded by the plastics industry.

For example - "Paper bags have a much higher global warming potential (GWP)." (http://www.allaboutbags.ca/papervplastic.html) but when you scroll to the bottom of the page you see "Content compiled by the Canadian Plastics Industry Association.".

Paper bags are not 250 times worse.

I was wrong, it was 43 times.

https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-... page 93

Biodegrading is a bad thing. It releases carbon back into atmosphere. Basically it's the opposite of carbon sequestration. Converting carbon into stable, non-degrading plastic instead of making it burn/degrade is actually good for the environment.

Well, they degrade in sea water better than plastic so they're better for sea life. So the null hypothesis that plastic bags and paper bags are the same for sea life is easy to reject because the evidence is easy to collect.

For them to then be not any better in overall impact, it must mean you have some evidence that rejects the null hypothesis that plastic bags and paper bags are at least identical for all other purposes. So let's see it.

I know it's a surprising result, but this is a well studied topic, so there actually is a lot of evidence out there, and the scientific consensus seems to indicate that paper bags have a much higher impact than you might expect. You should plan to reuse a paper bag three to four times as often as a plastic bag to even out the impact.

Total impact analysis can often be really counterintuitive.

http://www.allaboutbags.ca/papervplasticstudies.html

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/23/726035361/why-banning-plastic...

https://stanfordmag.org/contents/paper-plastic-or-reusable

PDF https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...

EDIT: Was trying to answer the question asked in as polite a way as possible, with links demonstrating the scientific consensus. Sorry if I offended someone?

These are all GHG results not an "overall for the environment" result. GHGs are only one part of the equation. I buy TerraPass, for instance, so the GHG part is going to be offset one way or the other. But if I were to buy plastic I'd be negative carbon but still killing sea creatures.

They aren't pure ghg studies, they talk about water consumption and landfilling.

Your response seems to imply you throw your bags in the ocean. If you don't do that, the analysis comes out differently.

Hmm, fair enough. In either case, though, I suppose it's fair to conclude that the original statement I was responding to is correct about overall costs (i.e. it is not, in fact, clear)

FWIW though, I think it might still be the right decision to go paper over plastic because of the accidental risk. I can't really control all downstream uses of my plastic bag once it's in the bin.

My local Morrisons have started offering paper bags that are strong enough to be reusable. Best of both worlds!

Every time I used those I get paper cuts. Good on them for moving to them; I'm sure they'll improve the tech rapidly.

Boots have started doing paper bags now - I got one last week when I went there.

Co-op have started using compostable bags.

I've seen several studies about the supposed "compostability" of these bags. They appear to be vastly overstated.

Paper bags are incredibly inefficient, and requires large swaths of forest.

Plastic bags are incredibly resource efficient, but you must keep it from ever getting into nature.

Almost all the plastic bags sold from major supermarket chains in the UK were bio-degradable. After a few years they literally turned into dust.

I actually had one of these single use bags long enough in a closet for it to degrade to the point where it was basically dried paper mulch.

You need to check very carefully before you can conclude they were bio-degradable. I have only seen degradable plastic carry bags in the UK which were not in fact bio-degradable. Traditional plastic bags manufactured to be falling into pieces don't mean that their pieces are good for the environment (rather the inverse). Real bio-degradable bags do exist but they are weaker and feel rubbery, and they are probably more expensive to make and people likely don't appreciate them, so you generally don't see them (the bags distributed by some London councils for collecting compost are of the real kind). See this older comment of mine:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10763281

I agree but large swaths of forest are a good thing. In most cases trees are a crop. If we want more of them, then the farmer needs to be able to sell them to someone. By increasing the usage of tree products, we increase the number of trees in existence at any point in time (because the farmer converts some land from a different crop to trees to meet market demand).

Also, efficiency isn't everything. If you make something more efficient, then often the saving is passed on to the customer. The customer then spends the money they saved on something else that will have some environmental impact. Or worse, the classic example is plane flight. The industry got a lot more efficient. As a result people can afford to fly a lot more. The environmental impact went up hugely. (Thinking about this now, the efficiency of plastic bags is what made people use so many of them).

By my logic we can reduce the environmental impact of flying by enforcing a maximum efficiency on jet engines. One much lower than the current efficiency. Hmmm. Probably a carbon tax would be a better idea.

Sure but they literally grow on trees (and from renewable energy as well) and become trees as well. Plastic is only efficient if you discount the cost of recycling (which is pretty much impossible AFAIK so you could say the cost is infinite).

Are paper bags not more widespread in the US???

In the 90s at least, on TV and film, if anyone brought home groceries, it was in paper handle-less bags.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com