The Death Of Plastic Bags...

[Adrift]

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:

*emphasis mine

From the report, page 31



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.

Can you clarify what you think is being misreported? I don't see it, even with your emphasis.

From the refutation:
*emphasis mine

From the report:
*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:
*emphasis mine

I'm lost. I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

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...

The refutation you were citing was not from Nat Geo, it's the personal blog of Parkpoom Kometsopha, an industries consultant and sustainability specialist.

[Teallaura]

Can you clarify what you think is being misreported? I don't see it, even with your emphasis.

Incorrect scope - already said, it's minor.

I'm lost. I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

The figures they quoted are for composites, not cotton/organic cotton - yet the article says otherwise

The refutation you were citing was not from Nat Geo, it's the personal blog of Parkpoom Kometsopha, an industries consultant and sustainability specialist.

Oops... See? Rush jobs make mistakes!

[Sparko]

Oops... See? Rush jobs make mistakes!

that's ok. He is supposedly the more expert of the two (him and the Nat Geo reporter)

[mossrose]

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?

I was referring to future prophecy. You gave one scripture yourself in this passage.

Of course we know we are to be good stewards. But we also know, if we believe scripture, that God is ultimately in charge of this planet, and He has promised to keep it until the Day of the Lord, and all the enviro-fundy ideas are not going to do one whit to change the end result of God's plan. We can neither prolong the earth nor change it in any significant manner no matter what we do.

[KingsGambit]

We can neither prolong the earth nor change it in any significant manner no matter what we do.

I disagree with this part. God has not promised to save us from the consequences of what we do in the meantime. If by taking care of the land, we can stave off repeats of the Irish Potato Famine or the Soviet Holodomor, it's worth it, for instance.

[Sparko]

I was referring to future prophecy. You gave one scripture yourself in this passage.

Of course we know we are to be good stewards. But we also know, if we believe scripture, that God is ultimately in charge of this planet, and He has promised to keep it until the Day of the Lord, and all the enviro-fundy ideas are not going to do one whit to change the end result of God's plan. We can neither prolong the earth nor change it in any significant manner no matter what we do.

I don't know. There is nothing stopping us from nuking ourselves back to the stone age and then Jesus coming back, or even him waiting another thousand years.

[KingsGambit]

Also, making happy archaeologists isn't exactly a bad thing...

Please tell me this wasn't a serious argument.

[mossrose]

I don't know. There is nothing stopping us from nuking ourselves back to the stone age and then Jesus coming back, or even him waiting another thousand years.

And perhaps AGW, if it is a thing, is judgment for unbelief and it's leading up to Christ's return.

In which case we still can't stop it.

[Teallaura]

Please tell me this wasn't a serious argument.

Note the whistling smile.

[KingsGambit]

Note the whistling smile.

Yes but sometimes you use it when you're serious.

[Adrift]

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.

From my experience, your location sounds very much the exception, not the rule.

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 reject your demand that I must offer a workaround for an issue that was only ever brought to my attention for the first time in my life yesterday. Christians have been able to give food away for two thousand years. Somehow we made due without disposable plastic bags all that time. This is a non-issue.

[Teallaura]

Yes but sometimes you use it when you're serious.

Only rarely - but no, not serious.

It was funny, though...

[Teallaura]

From my experience, your location sounds very much the exception, not the rule.

I did offer that it might be.

I literally had a race with an older gentleman once to pick up a cup he had thrown in the trash but missed.

He won...

I reject your demand that I must offer a workaround for an issue that was only ever brought to my attention for the first time in my life yesterday. Christians have been able to give food away for two thousand years. Somehow we made due without disposable plastic bags all that time. This is a non-issue.

Christians weren't giving away canned goods for thousands of years, now were they? You are the one with the burden - it's your assertion that a workaround exists that makes this a non-issue despite my having pointed out the increased cost. Okay, so name it. I demonstrated the increase in cost - I'll go get you links if you like (I was sourcing paper bags a few weeks back for something I'm doing which is why I knew this) - show me the workaround you assert must exist.

Or at least own up that the cost will likely increase.

This is an odd hill to die on - I already conceded that the cost increase isn't prohibitive, just real and does divert resources.

[Adrift]

Incorrect scope - already said, it's minor.

What is the incorrect scope? That the report refers to grocery store bags used in Danish supermarkets, and rebuttal refers to grocery store bags used in the country of Denmark? I'm sincerely trying to figure out what you're pointing out here.

The figures they quoted are for composites, not cotton/organic cotton - yet the article says otherwise

I still don't get what you're getting at. Here's page 18 of the report Sparko linked,

Source: Life Cycle Assessmentof grocery carrier bagsEnvironmental Project no. 1985February 2018

Our final recommendations are the following:

. . .

• Organic cotton bags: Reuse for grocery shopping at least 149 times for climate change, at least 20000 times considering all indicators; reuse as waste bin bag if possible, otherwise incinerate.
  
• Conventional cotton bags: Reuse for grocery shopping at least 52 times for climate change, at least 7100 times considering all indicators; reuse as waste bin bag if possible, otherwise incinerate.

© Copyright Original Source

How is that different from the rebuttal's,

Source: https://medium.com/@papersinthewood/breaking-down-the-danish-study-on-the-environmental-impacts-of-grocery-carrier-bags-b8c97eb6c8fb

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.

© Copyright Original Source

[Adrift]

Christians weren't giving away canned goods for thousands of years, now were they? You are the one with the burden - it's your assertion that a workaround exists that makes this a non-issue despite my having pointed out the increased cost. Okay, so name it. I demonstrated the increase in cost - I'll go get you links if you like (I was sourcing paper bags a few weeks back for something I'm doing which is why I knew this) - show me the workaround you assert must exist.

No. I did not say a workaround exists (past tense). I said that "a workaround can be found," and I'm certain one can be.

Or at least own up that the cost will likely increase.

I see no reason to believe that cost is likely to increase.

This is an odd hill to die on - I already conceded that the cost increase isn't prohibitive, just real and does divert resources.

I completely agree. It is an odd hill to die on, so I'm not sure why Christians here are persisting, especially since they already accept that stewardship is part of the Christian call.