Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday January 19 2017, @05:06AM   Printer-friendly
from the tree-huggers-may-be-surprised dept.

AlterNet reports

It's a basic question faced by millions of shoppers every day: paper or plastic? Making the best choice for the environment, however, is less simple.

Last November, Californians approved Proposition 67, which upheld a 2014 ban on the issuing of single-use plastic bags in grocery and drug stores. As a result, shops were able to continue charging customers around a dime for reusable plastic or paper bags. The ban seems effective because it should lead to a reduction in plastic waste. More importantly, the extra charge aims to incentivize people to bring their own reusable bags to the store. But let's face it, many shoppers still forget, which brings us back to that darn choice we often have to make at the checkout line.

So, which option is better?

[...]The U.K. Environment Agency, a governmental research group, conducted a similar inquiry around the same time period. Its report[PDF] was a life cycle assessment comparing the environmental impacts of a variety of grocery bags. From extensive research, some of the study's key findings concluded that:

  • Single-use plastic bags outperformed all alternatives, even reusable ones, on environmental performance.
  • Plastic bags have a much lower global warming potential.
  • The environmental impact of all types of bag is dominated by the resource use and production stages. Transport, secondary packaging, and end-of-life management generally have minimal influence on their performance.
  • Whatever type of bag is used, the key to reducing the impacts is to reuse it as many times as possible.

The ecological break-even point with a cloth grocery bag comes on its 131st use.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @04:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @04:51PM (#456103)

    What is the problem in using water? The water is not destroyed. The higher demand for water leads to more research and development in this area. Sequestering carbon in wood-pulp reduces atmospheric carbon. Also every so called "estimate" for amount of resources that go into something I have ever read has been wild speculation that is at least 2 orders of magnitude off. I personally will always use paper over plastic, glass over plastic, and wood over plastic where ever I have the option to do so.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20 2017, @12:19AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20 2017, @12:19AM (#456305)

    The issue is that we have a finite amount of fresh drinking water available at any given time. Getting more of it usually means having to pipe it in from far away and/or desalinizing ocean water. Both of which can be extremely expensive if you're in an area that doesn't have abundant fresh water available. Of that water, 20% is in Lake Baikal and unavailable to regions outside of Russia.