The Death Of Plastic Bags...

[Adrift]

I have absolutely no problem with what seer said. God is going to destroy this current earth with its sin-curse, as well as the heavens, and create a new earth and heavens free from the curse.

That's why I said previously that sovereign God will take care of the destruction of this planet and all others, and our puny efforts will do nothing to either destroy it before His timing, or change His timetable.

I am also not saying that we are not to be good stewards and do what we can to look after our little bits of it.

In what sense was it destroyed? When we read 2 Peter 3:5-7,

...does it refer to the absolute destruction of the earth? Obviously not, because the earth survived after the flood waters subsided. Also see scholars above on how best to contextualize passages referring to the earth passing away.

And seer was commenting on stewardship, otherwise his response to Christian3 is meaningless. Our own bodies that we currently reside in will most likely see dust, but they will be raised again, restored and glorified. Does the fact that our bodies will one day die mean that we can do anything with them that we like? Of course not. Why wouldn't we think of the earth in the same way? Why are people even attempting to make that point in this thread if we all know we ought to be good stewards?

[Adrift]

I have cousins that vacationed in Germany - this wasn't one of their observations - and they really love Germany.

I lived there for 4 years. You literally have to be blind not to see the difference. It's uncanny how clean the place is.

A bulk of paper bags is around $45 here - which is enough to feed a family for a week. A similar bulk of totes would feed them for more than a month. Where, exactly, are the alternatives? Soup kitchens?

You're sort of blowing my mind right now. You're really willing to make a stand on this argument that plastic grocery bags are absolutely vital to food giveaways? Really? I don't even know how to reply to this. I don't know what the alternative would be, but I sincerely believe it's creating a mountain out of a molehill. Somehow the food will get to the right people in states that ban plastic grocery bags. I guarantee you it will.

[Teallaura]

There are biodegradable plastic grocery bags out there.

And the plastic grocery bags we currently use are actually more environmentally friendly than the alternatives: cloth reusable bags and paper bags. The Danish even did a study on it.

---
======
Kroger's Feel-Good Ban On Plastic Bags Is Worse Than Pointlesshttps://www.investors.com/politics/e...n-environment/

The Danish Report: https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publicatio...93614-73-4.pdf

Wow...

[Teallaura]

I lived there for 4 years. You literally have to be blind not to see the difference. It's uncanny how clean the place is.

Er, maybe the problem is where you live and not as bad where we do?

You're sort of blowing my mind right now. You're really willing to make a stand on this argument that plastic grocery bags are absolutely vital to food giveaways? Really? I don't even know how to reply to this. I don't know what the alternative would be, but I sincerely believe it's creating a mountain out of a molehill. Somehow the food will get to the right people in states that ban plastic grocery bags. I guarantee you it will.

Sure, it will - but there will be slightly less than before because the cost has to come out of the budget.

No, they aren't vital - they just happen to be the most cost effective means. In my area of the country, the savings is significant. $45 wouldn't feed a family one day in the North or the West - but it WILL feed a family for a week here. And yes, I CAN do it.

We recycle the heck out of the things and they degrade quickly in sunlight giving even more possibilities.

Banning is a knee jerk reaction that won't solve the problem - the same folks trashing your cities will just use trash bags instead. It's the culture you need to convince. In the South, we view it more as good stewardship and good management - besides being rather proud of homemaking skills. Do we have litter problems? To us, heck yeah, that's why we have so many different clean up methods - but it's not what you are describing. It took years to convince people, sure - but I don't see trash everywhere, not even in town. I dunno, Atlanta might have those kinds of problems - but it's largely populated by Northern ex-pats these days. But I don't recall seeing what you're describing in any of Alabama's large towns - and I've worked areas that most people won't even visit.

[Adrift]

There are biodegradable plastic grocery bags out there.

And the plastic grocery bags we currently use are actually more environmentally friendly than the alternatives: cloth reusable bags and paper bags. The Danish even did a study on it.

---
======
Kroger's Feel-Good Ban On Plastic Bags Is Worse Than Pointlesshttps://www.investors.com/politics/e...n-environment/

The Danish Report: https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publicatio...93614-73-4.pdf

National Geographic points out that

The Danish Society for Nature Conservation contests this conclusion, claiming that the report is scientifically faulty on many counts, among them not giving greater weight to the more serious impacts, giving "misleading" results for cotton bags, and not taking into account the pollution that plastic bags are causing in nature when they're disposed of.

Here's a breakdown of the paper pointing out its weaknesses:
https://medium.com/@papersinthewood/...s-b8c97eb6c8fb

There's also a short breakdown of the paper's weak points by the Italian, Scientific Committee of Assobioplastiche (no tittering, class) here:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...677896653.html

[Teallaura]

In what sense was it destroyed? When we read 2 Peter 3:5-7,
...does it refer to the absolute destruction of the earth? Obviously not, because the earth survived after the flood waters subsided. Also see scholars above on how best to contextualize passages referring to the earth passing away.

And seer was commenting on stewardship, otherwise his response to Christian3 is meaningless. Our own bodies that we currently reside in will most likely see dust, but they will be raised again, restored and glorified. Does the fact that our bodies will one day die mean that we can do anything with them that we like? Of course not. Why wouldn't we think of the earth in the same way? Why are people even attempting to make that point in this thread if we all know we ought to be good stewards?

Er, back up a sec. Taken literally, is the quote incorrect? No. Does it mean we shouldn't be good stewards? No. Does it mean that we cannot literally save the planet and might it be a reaction to the opposition hyperbole? Yup.

That's literally what we've been force fed for years - recycle and save the planet! (We Southerners 'recycle' like crazy - but we're just cheap! ) Sort your trash and save the planet! (No way in heck - I've already reused everything I possibly can... or am stock piling it for a project... ) Do whatever crazy thing we've come up with this week and save the planet!

No. Give me good reasons - or good reuses - and I'm with you. But the hype wore out on me and a lot of other folks years ago. We saved the whales, the snail darter and got rid of paper wrappers on our burgers only to have to bring them back - no, I already gave at the office. Not saving the planet - am looking for ways to better garden, build soil and reuse things - but that's just good management, not heroically pretending to save the planet.

Give the hyperbole a rest.

[Adrift]

Er, maybe the problem is where you live and not as bad where we do?

I mean, I've lived all throughout the US. I doubt that's the issue.

No, they aren't vital - they just happen to be the most cost effective means. In my area of the country, the savings is significant. $45 wouldn't feed a family one day in the North or the West - but it WILL feed a family for a week here. And yes, I CAN do it.

I'm absolutely certain an affordable workaround can be found. This is a non issue.

Banning is a knee jerk reaction that won't solve the problem - the same folks trashing your cities will just use trash bags instead. It's the culture you need to convince. In the South, we view it more as good stewardship and good management - besides being rather proud of homemaking skills. Do we have litter problems? To us, heck yeah, that's why we have so many different clean up methods - but it's not what you are describing. It took years to convince people, sure - but I don't see trash everywhere, not even in town. I dunno, Atlanta might have those kinds of problems - but it's largely populated by Northern ex-pats these days. But I don't recall seeing what you're describing in any of Alabama's large towns - and I've worked areas that most people won't even visit.

I don't know what to tell you. I think it's pretty much common sense by now that plastics are an issue for a variety of reasons. Banning plastic bags is not a knee jerk reaction. It's a calculated reaction to very real and present issue. We can always do more, but it's a decent place to start.

[Adrift]

Er, back up a sec. Taken literally, is the quote incorrect? No. Does it mean we shouldn't be good stewards? No. Does it mean that we cannot literally save the planet and might it be a reaction to the opposition hyperbole? Yup.

That's literally what we've been force fed for years - recycle and save the planet! (We Southerners 'recycle' like crazy - but we're just cheap! ) Sort your trash and save the planet! (No way in heck - I've already reused everything I possibly can... or am stock piling it for a project... ) Do whatever crazy thing we've come up with this week and save the planet!

No. Give me good reasons - or good reuses - and I'm with you. But the hype wore out on me and a lot of other folks years ago. We saved the whales, the snail darter and got rid of paper wrappers on our burgers only to have to bring them back - no, I already gave at the office. Not saving the planet - am looking for ways to better garden, build soil and reuse things - but that's just good management, not heroically pretending to save the planet.

Give the hyperbole a rest.

Replace the words "recycle and save the planet" with "eat well and save the body." That's the sense I take "save the planet" to mean.

I honestly don't get the argument the Christians in this thread are attempting to make. Since you're all willing to admit that we are to be good stewards of the earth, then why even bring into the discussion whether or not the earth is going to be destroyed one day? How does that factor in at all in your decision process on how to treat the earth today? And did you read the scholars I commented on earlier who pointed out that much of this earth destruction language is likely metaphorical? The earth isn't going to be utterly demolished and thrown away, it's going renewed and restored much like our glorified bodies, but that's neither here nor there. That has nothing to do with whether or not we should pollute the earth in the here and now. The simple answer is that we shouldn't.

[Christian3]

We are not going to save the planet, the planet like the universe is slated for death.

Then I guess there is no point in recycling.

[Sparko]

National Geographic points out that

The Danish Society for Nature Conservation contests this conclusion, claiming that the report is scientifically faulty on many counts, among them not giving greater weight to the more serious impacts, giving "misleading" results for cotton bags, and not taking into account the pollution that plastic bags are causing in nature when they're disposed of.

Here's a breakdown of the paper pointing out its weaknesses:
https://medium.com/@papersinthewood/...s-b8c97eb6c8fb

There's also a short breakdown of the paper's weak points by the Italian, Scientific Committee of Assobioplastiche (no tittering, class) here:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...677896653.html

Oh yay, google fu. - are you turning into Shunyadragon?

The first link is someone's personal opinion from a blog.

The second link is only complaining that they didn't do a proper comparison with biodegradable plastic bags. Great, let's use biodegradable plastic bags then.

[Teallaura]

National Geographic points out that

The Danish Society for Nature Conservation contests this conclusion, claiming that the report is scientifically faulty on many counts, among them not giving greater weight to the more serious impacts, giving "misleading" results for cotton bags, and not taking into account the pollution that plastic bags are causing in nature when they're disposed of.

Here's a breakdown of the paper pointing out its weaknesses:
https://medium.com/@papersinthewood/...s-b8c97eb6c8fb

There's also a short breakdown of the paper's weak points by the Italian, Scientific Committee of Assobioplastiche (no tittering, class) here:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...677896653.html

Yeah - absolutely NOT.

Oh, I'll read them - grrr - but let me point out right now that any article beginning 'last week X study came out' means that the paper refuting it is half - backsided garbage. You cannot give fair reading or consideration - and write a complete paper - in that time frame.

From your refutation:

which assesses the environmental impacts of various carrier bag types used in the country and later compares the results between them.

*emphasis mine

From the report, page 31

The carrier bag alternatives investigated were those available for purchase in Danish supermarkets in 2017.

Right off the bat, the article misreports the scope of the study. Yeah, it's minor - but it is also the sign of a rush job.

From the refutation:

Accordingly, one of its conclusions was that the conventional and organic cotton bags must be used at least 7,100 and 20,000 times respectively in order to meet the environmental performance of LDPE plastic bags.

*emphasis mine

From the report:

The results are provided for the climate change impact category, as well as across impact categories. The result score across all impact categories was obtained by calculating the number of primary reuse times necessary for each impact category, and identifying the maximum score across all impact categories. This maximum score represents the maximum number of reuse times that would be required to obtain the same environmental performance of the reference LDPE carrier bag considering all impact categories. Results for each impact category, minimum-maximum ranges between number of reuse times and average number of reuse times are provided in Appendix C.

*emphasis mine

Yeah, across ALL impact categories. Climate change - a mere 150 and 53.

But this is misleading - because neither COTorg or COT is merely cotton - they are both COMPOSITES. That's right - if you blend cotton and polyester you get a very high carbon index on this scale.

Here's what it says about cotton and organic cotton:

The absolute highest number of reuse times for the climate change impact category was obtained for composite and cotton carrier bags. In particular, conventional cotton carrier bags should be reused at least 50 times before being disposed of; organic cotton carrier bags should be reused 150 times based on their environmental production cost. This calculated number of primary reuse times for cotton bags complies with results of previous studies. For example, Edwards and Fry (2011) calculated a number of around 130 reuse times required for cotton carrier bags to provide similar climate change impacts in comparison to HDPE carrier bags, which were chosen as reference in that study

*emphasis mine


And that's in ten minutes of searching a pdf and looking at an article. Yeah, just lost a lot more respect for Nat Geo...

Source Refutation
Source Report

I'm skipping your 'refutation' and reading the actual report because it interests me.

[Adrift]

Oh yay, google fu. - are you turning into Shunyadragon?

The first link is someone's personal opinion from a blog.

The second link is only complaining that they didn't do a proper comparison with biodegradable plastic bags. Great, let's use biodegradable plastic bags then.

I suppose then you didn't google your "Kroger's Feel-Good Ban On Plastic Bags Is Worse Than Pointless" article? You just had it saved on your hard drive just for this conversation?

No, the first link is not someone's personal opinion from a blog. The first link is a link to National Geographic's page. The second link is a blog post, but it's not by a complete nobody giving his non-expert opinion,
https://www.metabolic.nl/team/parkpoom-kometsopha/



The third link is directly referring to the type of plastic bag mentioned in your source. It's a direct reply to the Denmark paper, so don't get upset with me simply because I was able to find sources that found issues with the paper you yourself googled and linked.

[Teallaura]

I mean, I've lived all throughout the US. I doubt that's the issue.

Well, I don't see trash every where - heck, the few times I've seen something on the street, it's usually a race to see who can put it in the trash can first. Not kidding.

I'm absolutely certain an affordable workaround can be found. This is a non issue.

Name it. If this is a non-issue, then you should already know what the workaround would be - that stands to reason and is simple common sense. Name it.

I don't know what to tell you. I think it's pretty much common sense by now that plastics are an issue for a variety of reasons. Banning plastic bags is not a knee jerk reaction. It's a calculated reaction to very real and present issue. We can always do more, but it's a decent place to start.

It results in using less environmentally friendly plastic options - trash and zip lock bags - so I'm highly dubious that it is either calculated or a decent place to start.

Been here before - in point of fact, that's how plastic grocery bags came into being! They were to save the trees (didn't because we farm trees but whatever). Everybody hated them initially (they were pretty crappy early on). Now we have to bring our own bags - oh please. There is no end to the nonsense - and frankly, someone should study the environmental impacts of all the danged conversions over the years. First it was use Styrofoam/plastic instead of paper. Now it's don't use plastic use composites (that's what most of the cheap reusable totes are made of) which aren't reused very often (and are gosh awful when they are - ugh! I've been handed bags as a cashier that I wouldn't let my dog play with! Not good at all!).

Paper is no longer cost effective for grocery stores - they do still make them but not in the same quantities - it would take time for prices to reduce.

Honestly, if (and it's unlikely) Alabama got hit with such a ban, I'd just buy paper and reuse those until I can recycle them as heating material (wood burning stove for the win!). Those other totes are only good as earth bags...

[Teallaura]

I suppose then you didn't google your "Kroger's Feel-Good Ban On Plastic Bags Is Worse Than Pointless" article? You just had it saved on your hard drive just for this conversation?
....

I'm in the process of reading it.


And the danged Mueller report...


FYI: all papers have issues - there's no perfect research study. But to actually dig in and find out whether or not they are wrong, that requires a lot more than a mere pdf search and some cherry picking.

[Sparko]

I suppose then you didn't google your "Kroger's Feel-Good Ban On Plastic Bags Is Worse Than Pointless" article? You just had it saved on your hard drive just for this conversation?

Actually yeah. I had it saved because I have another thread I started on this same topic from several months ago.

No, the first link is not someone's personal opinion from a blog. The first link is a link to National Geographic's page. The second link is a blog post, but it's not by a complete nobody giving his non-expert opinion,
https://www.metabolic.nl/team/parkpoom-kometsopha/

I was referring to your two links at the bottom. Your national Geographic article was just another personal opinion piece and didn't even give any sources. Like saying the Danish Society for Nature Conservation refuted the paper but I don't see any links to that?

The third link is directly referring to the type of plastic bag mentioned in your source. It's a direct reply to the Denmark paper, so don't get upset with me simply because I was able to find sources that found issues with the paper you yourself googled and linked.

And it doesn't refute anything about what the report says about reusable bags. It only had a problem with how they compared to biodegradable plastic bags and how they degrade.