Sure Plastic Bags Are Better For The Environment, But Is That The Real Question?
I’ve noticed that a number of cities around the country are considering passing ordinances that would ban plastic bags at grocery stores.
I thought we were done with this discussion. Okay, I’ll end it now. As between paper grocery bags and plastic ones, plastic is the better choice for the environment. There, that one’s done.
Next topic: What does the term “better” mean?
That’s the real question, isn’t it? Like so many things environmental, what is "better" depends a lot on what you count.
Rather than rehash all the literature, I’ll just give you the highlights and you can decide:
• In 1999, 14 million trees were cut down to produce the 10 billion paper grocery bags used by Americans in that year;
• Paper sacks generate 70% more air and 50 times more water pollutants than plastic bags;
• It takes 594 BTUs of energy to produce a plastic bag and 2,511 BTUs for a paper bag;
• It takes 91% less energy to recycle a pound of plastic than it takes to recycle of pound of paper;
• In today’s landfills, neither plastic nor paper will degrade;
• It takes 12 million barrels of oil to produce the 100 billion plastic bags used in the U.S. annually;
• The average American family accumulates 60 plastic bags in only four trips to the grocery store.
With regard to one of the primary reasons to ban plastic bags -- the killing of animals -- David Santillo, a Greenpeace marine biologist, told the Times of London:
It's very unlikely that many animals are killed by plastic bags. The evidence shows just the opposite. We are not going to solve the problem of waste by focusing on plastic bags. It doesn’t do the Government’s case any favours if you’ve got statements being made that aren’t supported by the scientific literature that’s out there. With larger mammals, it's fishing gear that's the big problem. On a global basis, plastic bags aren't an issue. It would be great if statements like these weren't made.
Given the energy costs (and the CO2 implications), I would say that the plastic bag wins. At a minimum, it’s a wash and wouldn’t justify a change in the law.
But in the end, that’s not really the point. Some would say that everything we throw away causes some level of harm to the environment. (My belief that all landfills are just future archaeological treasure troves hasn't really caught on). That’s why there is so much discussion about the bag debate being a false choice. If you deem it desirable to reduce the amount of environmental damage, you don’t do it by choosing one bad thing over another. In this case, that would just increase the use of paper bags, which is "worse" for the environment. You do it by eliminating the waste stream all together. You do it by finding a way to get rid of the disposable bag.
The cities that are talking about passing laws to ban plastic bags are missing the point by ignoring the science. Moreover, they are missing a golden opportunity. If there is the political will to outlaw plastic bags, certainly there is the will to devise a solution that actually gets rid of the waste stream. Maybe the bag debate isn't the most pressing environmental issue of the day. But (and this is important for politicians) it is a visible one. It's time to get creative. Just don't make the problem worse by banning plastic bags.
RELATED POSTS: The Grocery Bag Dilemma: Some Suggested Solutions
What a shame we can't seem to change our human habits in this culture!
A FEW of our plastic bags are used for storing things, the rest are ALWAYS taken back to the store for recycling.
Our deck is made from composite decking made form the darn plastic bags, milk jugs, etc. Why can't people simply take 'em back to recycle? Nonetheless, they don't so banning is better than watching them float somewhere.