Hacker News Reader

Comment by Confiks | Hacker News Reader

What I often fail to see mentioned in these kind of articles, is if the removal of plastic introduces some other method of packaging that is even less environmentally friendly (edit: with more carbon emissions).

For example in The Netherlands they banned free plastic bags, so now gift and clothes stores give a free paper bag. Paper bags need to be a lot heavier to offer the same strength.

They calculated that such a paper bags needs to see 15+ reuses to become more environmentally friendly, which is unrealistic seeing how fast they break. Recycling also favors plastic bags. The only upside is that paper bags are better biodegradable in the environment and don't spread microplastics around.

The solution for this particular problem is, of course, that free paper bags should also be banned.

View on HN

> The only upside is that paper bags are better biodegradable in the environment and don't spread microplastics around.

I think this is quite important. Even if the majority of people were well intentioned and re-used plastic bags, they shed micro plastics during use, eventually they fail and even if you recycle them, there's no guarantee they won't be sold off with other recyclable waste and then dumped or burned.

I mostly agree, but burning / pyrolysing plastic is not a bad outcome for 'recycling' oil into energy if properly done at scale (including emissions filtering) for electricity / district heating.

>they shed micro plastics during use

they do? I thought most of the microplastic pollution is from plastic that made it into the ocean and are broken down by the sun?

Vehicle tires shed plastic into the air when you drive. Look at any wall near a freeway. That's not just exhaust turning it black.

That's understandable because the tire is a fast moving object coming in contact with a rough surface, but your average plastic bag? The wear that a plastic bag experiences is absolutely tiny by comparison. Your mousepad/table/keyboard probably experiences more wear than all your plastic bag use combined.

Multiply that by seven billion people.

And samonella causes 25,000 hospitalizations per year in the US, should we ban chicken as well? Multiplying any tiny number by 7 billion will get you a big number. What matters is how big it is relative to everything else. If plastic shedding from plastic bags accounts for 0.01% of the global microplastic pollution, then there's no real point going after it.

The crazy thing is yeah, we should probably halt meat production. You’re right, multiplying 7 billion by anything is a big number. You’re getting it. It’s sort of inevitable right?

People living to the limits, in the here and now, gambling they’ll be childless and dead by the time any of this shit matters.

> If plastic shedding from plastic bags accounts for 0.01% of the global microplastic pollution, then there's no real point going after it.

0.01 > 0

We need to stop thinking production and use of plastic is inevitable.

Environmentally friendly is not measured on one indicator. Perhaps in terms of energy-intensity, paper is higher than plastic. But energy use of store bags is relatively negligible anyway, not to be ignored but also not a grave threat. But in terms of the spread of plastics and biodegradability, a one-time paper bag is certainly better than a one-time plastic back, and not quite as negligible in its impact.

Further, the vast majority of plastic bags have not been replaced by paper bags, but by people's own bags. For example in supermarkets there's an 80% decrease in use of plastic bags since pricing them in the Netherlands (Dutch but google translate works fine): https://nos.nl/artikel/2325519-tachtig-procent-minder-plasti...

Besides, if plastic is being replaced by paper, it simply shows incentives work. If paper is also undesirable, the next step is not to reintroduce free plastic bags, but to introduce pricing for paper bags just the same.

Honestly I don't see how this argument pops up in every single discussion on plastic bag reduction every time...

>Environmentally friendly is not measured on one indicator. Perhaps in terms of energy-intensity, paper is higher than plastic. But energy use of store bags is relatively negligible anyway, not to be ignored but also not a grave threat. But in terms of the spread of plastics and biodegradability, a one-time paper bag is certainly better than a one-time plastic back, and not quite as negligible in its impact.

The problem here is that increased energy use applies to every bag used, whereas the concern about biodegradability only applies for bags that are mismanaged. A plastic bag that's buried in a landfill or burned in an incinerator is a non-issue, and most (almost all?) bags end up properly disposed.

>Besides, if plastic is being replaced by paper, it simply shows incentives work

Is it? The parent commenter said that plastic bags were banned, not that they were taxed.

> The parent commenter said that plastic bags were banned, not that they were taxed.

I said free plastic bags are banned. So they are 'taxed' by the store instead.

> Honestly I don't see how this argument pops up in every single discussion on plastic bag reduction every time...

Well, it wasn't an argument about plastic bag reduction. It was an example in an argument about omissions in reporting about plastic reduction efforts. The example is clearly valid, even if you consider other metrics to be more important in the example. It probably didn't help that I initially put "environmentally friendly" in there mindlessly.

I also clearly stated my opinion about the solution to this, which doesn't involve lifting the ban.

I'm not quite sure what "more environmentally friendly" means in this context (CO2?), but the plastic bag ban is explicitly made to reduce plastic waste and micro-plastics, not for other environmental factors.

Reminds me of a study showing that a reusable coffee mug wastes not water (from washing) than a styrofoam cups.

Yes, and water waste from reusable coffe mugs is not an issue. Styrofoam in oceans is an issue.

So then the comparison between mugs and bags doesn't make much sense, because unlike water waste carbon emissions are an issue.

Carbon emissions from manufacturing plastic bags isn't really an issue either. The content of the bag will usually have a much higher carbon footprint (and if it doesn't, probably you wouldn't need a bag for it). If that is the price to pay to reduce plastic pollution it's a fair trade off.

> water waste ... is not an issue

Except in the times & places that it is (i.e. times/places with water shortages)

While it is an issue, I'm afraid it'll be one that will encourage capitalism to pounce on it. There is plenty of water, it's just that it becomes more expensive if there is a shortage, compared to e.g. just pumping it up from the aquifer.

>Styrofoam in oceans is an issue.

The average styrofoam cup used at a cafe or event isn't going to end up in the ocean, unless the cafe/event is next to the ocean.

There are other way for styrofoam cup to pollute ocean. Plastic disposal or recycling method used to (maybe still are) simply exported to or become a landfill. It will eventually degraded to micro-plastic, which follow water-flow and end up in ocean.

Landfills in the US are lined. It's not getting out.

But the most critical thing right now is CO2 reduction. I think that anything that causes a net increase in CO2 production can be labeled as environmentally friendly. It’s all hands on deck. If we can’t get our CO2 under control, this just becomes rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic

The UK recently required a 5p charge for plastic bags. As far as I'm aware this has seen an excellent reduction in usage (even that tiny incentive is enough to make customers grab a bag from home instead of being lazy) and hasn't induced a switch to paper bags.

I'm not so sure it's been any good. What's actually happened is supermarkets have replaced the thin plastic bags with far thicker plastic bags. While sales of plastic bags has went down, considering the ones that are sold are vastly thicker, I'm not really sure if there's been a net decrease in plastic use by weight.

This seems like a positive outcome to me - thicker plastic bags are more durable, can be reused for longer etc., so while there may still be the same amount of plastic "being used", more of it is presumably plastic that has been used before, and so less ending up in landfill?

The big issue has been with the labelling for these thicker bags. The marketing term has been "Bag for Life" - but the goal of that term was that this bag could be replaced for free at the supermarket so that they could be recycled properly.

In reality, very few people understood the setup and people have instead been treating them like the usual disposable plastic bags that just happen to cost a bit extra.

But:

People would generally re-use the so-called "single use" thin, free plastic bags as bin liners and are now instead getting much thicker plastic bags and buying additional (also thicker) bin liners which are certainly single-use.

Is it a net win? I'm not convinced. It's definitely great PR, for everyone involved.

Disclaimer: I used to work for an environmental political party which very much supports this plastic bag tax.

Anecdotally - I've mostly stopped using plastic bin liners in the smaller bins where I could previously have reused carrier bags from shops. Rubbish goes in the bin directly & that gets tipped into wheelie bin periodically. Slightly limits what I put in these smaller bins (essentially, dry stuff only - anything wet goes in larger bin that always required a purchased bin liner anyway), but otherwise impact is minimal.

Dry waste doesn't get a bin liner for me either, but being on this thread implies you are unusually engaged with the issue.

There are definitely negative externalities (whether that's paper bags, or bin liners, or food spoilage, etc!) that are entirely ignored when people in general talk about the benefits of the plastic bag tax. We don't know whether there has been any net benefit because that has not been properly studied.

As an example, the UK government has tied the plastic bag tax to charity donations (but supermarkets were promoting charitable donations before any bag tax...?) and accepts self-reporting of sales by supermarkets (not amount of plastic consumed? and "bags for life" are not reportable!!), which makes it complete non-sense https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carrier-bag-charg...

Is banning them really the solution? People need to be able to carry their stuff. If plastic bags are the best option, thats just the physical reality of the situation. Arbitrarily banning things left and right isn't going to fix that.

I live in a municipality which banned the bag years ago. I wasn't thrilled but honestly the difference is a negligible annoyance. You use paper, reusables or do without. It's fine.

> You use paper

GP was talking about banning paper bags I believe

Yes, thank you. I confused myself.

You can't ban all bags, but you can ban free bags. Like, charge $0.25 for each bag and use the proceeds to clean up microplastic waste in your jurisdiction. It's basically a tax on plastic bags.

The current market price of plastic bags doesn't reflect the externalities of using them willy-nilly and throwing them out.

While in Germany it has helped to increase the amount of foldable bags we carry around, latest surveys just show a large majority doesn't care about having to pay such kind of taxes.

What matters is whether the revenue from plastic bag sales actually goes into the cleanup effort, offsetting the externalities. If it doesn't, then the whole policy is a sham. If it does but the revenue is not enough, the price tag should increase until it accurately reflects the true cost.

Increasing the cost to well above pocket change might have the welcome side effect of making people care more, but IMO that's a secondary concern.

This argument could be used against the ban of asbestos. One of the factors that makes plastic bags the "best" option is externalized costs. Killing sea life and whatever the effects of microplastics collecting in our bloodstream are not included the price.

We should probably just charge/tax for "throw away" bags (paper or plastic) and move people towards bags that are actually reusable over a long period of time.

We use sturdy hemp bags for our groceries. They cost $1.50 or something like that and last for years. And it's hemp, so it should degrade like other natural fibers.

You end like in some European countries where carrying foldable bags has become a tradition.

When California enacted their bag bans, I shifted a lot (more) of my purchasing to Amazon. If you really want retailers to make it even more inconvenient to shop at a brick and mortar, beware the consequences.

Plastic alternatives are also heavier and bulkier. More trucks are needed to ship the same product. Plastic is in fact the best environmental choice in many cases. Even single use plastic. The current zeitgeist regarding plastic is nothing more than a repeat of the 1920s alcohol prohibition. A moral panic not based on facts.

The solution to plastic in the ocean isn’t to ban plastic in the West but to build out trash management systems in Asia and Africa. The only thing the war on plastic does is raise emissions and accelerate climate change.

This is why reduce and reuse are the first 2 Rs in Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

> Recycling also favors plastic bags.

How is this? I thought the economics of plastic recycling is pretty poor with bags being one of the worst offenders. Why are recyclers reluctant to accept them?

For a lot of the same reasons they are a hazard to wilderness. They are hard to control because the blow about. They wrap and tangle about things. They carry contaminants which are difficult to wash away.

The solution which I've seen implemented at a couple of stores in the US is to not offer a bag at all. You can either BUY a cloth bag or bring your own. The cloth bags seem to be sturdy enough to last for decades unless you're being ridiculous and filling them with 50lbs of canned goods.

It's good to mistrust corporations doing green things for PR, but if your objections ultimately trace back to talking points from climate change denying or minimizing media, then you've probably been conned by the very corporations you're trying to be vigilant about.

The genuinely best solution would be for people to take responsibility for bringing their own reusable bags or use messenger bags or backpacks.

Unfortunately relying on the general public to be sensible and considerate is doomed to failed, so we get the stick rather than the carrot.

Another way of looking at it is, marketing influences consumers so much stronger than reality does, so the obvious answer - buy less - gets muddied by people cycling through non solutions because it is more profitable.

I would take a guess paper bags have more plastic particles in than most plastic bags...

Many paper bags are made of recycled materials which likely already have a lot of plastics. The recycling process grinds them up into microplastics. Then ink and glue is added (more microplastics).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com