Hacker News Reader

Comment by hannob | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

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.

In their impact on plastic waste?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com