As editor of A Web site called Climate Culture got some attention today for an interesting Top 10 list -- the Top 10 Green Myths.
A few of the "myths" have a plastics angle:
No. 6: Given a choice between paper and plastic bags, go with paper. Fact: From a standpoint of carbon emissions, they're equally bad. Plastic is worst from a solid waste perspective. (But plastic is a littering problem in many places.) Most environmentally friendly of all, as you already know, is bringing your own resusable bags [which is, admittedly, easier if you aren't buying groceries for a family of four].
and,
No. 9: Buy milk in paper or glass cartons if you have the choice. Fact: Because half-gallon plastic milk jugs use much less material, they have lower life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions than glass or paper containers of the same size.
Judy Lowe of The Christian Science Monitor's Bright Green Blog challenged Zeke Hausfather, executive vice president of energy science at Climate Culture, to share the science behind the "myth" claims.
Here's what he had to say. Regarding paper vs. plastic bags, he said: "Paper and plastic bags both require comparable amounts of energy per bag for production, given that paper bags are considerably more massive than plastic ones, though paper bags are slightly preferred. Data on lifecycle carbon emissions for paper and plastic are taken from FRIDGE: Socio-economic impact assessment of the proposed plastic bag regulations. Other reports argue that paper bags have higher lifecycle GHG emissions, though methodologies and analysis boundaries differ across reports."
On the milk packaging question, he wrote: "This is based on a the revised version of the comprehensive lifecycle analysis of plastic, paper, and glass half-gallon milk containers from Franklin Associates."
Comments (4)
Your plastic vs. paper argument is about 20 years late. The debate now, for anyone who is seriously discussing it, is between disposable plastic bags and reusable bags (which may even be made of plastic). Disposable bags simply can't win that argument. Which may be why you'd prefer to focus on plastic vs. paper.
Posted by J McNichols | May 14, 2009 9:28 AM
Posted on May 14, 2009 09:28
@ J McNichols
Wrong. The article is linking/discussiing a "Top 10 Myths" press release. The blog here isn't advocating single-use bags over re-usable, and in fact, if you'd care to scroll up and read, that is directly written above.
I will quote it because your scroll wheel must be broken.
"Most environmentally friendly of all, as you already know, is bringing your own resusable bags"
So how is that, "Preferring to talk about plastic vs. paper," as you seem to be alluding that this blog is biased in support of plastic.
Try linking over to the "Climate Culture" site, and also read the linked press release. You'll come off alot more intelligently if you aren't directly contradicting what has been plainly written in both places.
I would be equally wrong if I assumed that you are starting from the mindset that "plastic=bad," and forming an opinion from there, instead of forming a mindset based on knowledge. But, hey, I won't do that because I don't like to make assumptions based on my preconceived notions.
~~ All Knowledge is Worth Having ~~
Posted by the1jeffy | May 14, 2009 9:44 AM
Posted on May 14, 2009 09:44
@ the1jeffy.
Good response. The problem here is not plastic or paper, the problem is ignorance and arrogance. When people make up their minds based on pre-conceived misconceptions which in turn are based on ignorance and arrogance, we have a problem. The case of the "beating up the teenage girl" is the same. What is needed is quality education of basic science and humility and ability in making decisions based on facts, which are in serious shortage.
Posted by arthur | May 14, 2009 12:28 PM
Posted on May 14, 2009 12:28
I agree with The1jeffy and Arthur but add that even DISPOSABLE (and recyclable) plastics bags have an edge over reusables as well as paper:
1. The many secondary uses, from packaging shoes to dog poo. People wil buy more bags to do these things, so bag consumption (and litter) won't be squelched as the plastophobes would like to see;
2. The paper-plastic issue isn't even close. Not only does plastic have a smaller carbon footprint, it uses less energy in life-cycle analysis and its disposal in (un)sanitary landfills its water absorption makes it a bacteria farm. Furthermore, paper mills are located in pristine areas and the product is hardly "natural" (except for birch bark).
3. Not all groceries are bought in planned trips, and very few reusables can fold tinily into a purse (they do exist). So buyers will need bags anyway, and the result is a combo of less market sales and a selective "tax" on th car-less and center-city people. Silver lining -- maybe it will get us to eat less.
Posted by Allan Griff | June 9, 2009 9:52 AM
Posted on June 9, 2009 09:52