Email Debate: Paper or Plastic?

When Stephen saw a study on his favorite blog purporting to show that the production of plastic bags generated fewer carbon emissions than their reusable counterparts, and that it would take up to 131 reuses of said reusable bag to make for the increased carbon emissions it took to produce it, his eyes lit up.  Had he finally found the noble sword to drive into the stone that his longtime scourge called a heart?  Sure, we may be talking about environmentalists, who care about things like clean water and sea turtles.  But after many years of doing battle with Matt - Mr. Eco-Action - on issues related to environmental protection, Steve sensed he may have found the knockout punch he so craved.  A lively debate ensued:


Stephen: Matt, in light of this study, will you join in me in saying the environmentalist crowd has gotten this one wrong? 

Matt: The article you linked is simplistic at best, and the dumbest thing I've ever read at worst.  First, their measure of "better for the environment" is extremely narrow - the study measures carbon emissions but says nothing about waste.  The carbon emissions finding is insightful, for sure, and should make people think twice before they reflexively assume a "reusable" bag has no impact.  But the article says nothing about plastic bags ending up in landfills or waterways.  Does that not impact the environment?  The DC bag tax, which I assume you don't support, wasn't created as a high-minded local solution to global warming... they did it to keep plastic bags from ending up in the Anacostia River.  Alternatively, have you ever heard of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch? 

Despite the scorn with which you and the author to this article refer to the "environmentalist crowd," you've taken a simplistic study and used it to justify a wasteful status quo and then beat your chest about it.  The biggest problem with plastic bags isn't that they exist, it's that they are overused and then wasted.  The best thing anyone can do for the environment is use less, and in a country that values thrift when it comes to our economic decisions, I've never understood why some people look down on the idea that we shouldn't waste our other resources.

Read Stephen's response after the jump...

Stephen: Let's look at your argument.  It breaks down as follows: the real cost of plastic bags is not their carbon footprint but their pollution impact. So am I to take it that climate change, which you are telling me is the most important thing to address in our entire world, actually takes a back seat to plastic bags in rivers? That's good to know that climate change is the most important thing to environmentalists unless they get fixated on something else.

As for the plastic bag problem, my new best friends at Political Calculations have also looked at the scope of that problem.

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2012/06/scope-of-plastic-shopping-bag-problem.html?m=1

When really looked at, the numbers YOUR side cites are incredibly underwhelming. They cite numbers that 500 billion bags are used annually, while 354 thousand are found in shorelines. That's a whopping one in every 1.4M bags. Finally instead of restating his arguments I'll just quote:

"Despite never having been done before, meaning that about as many bags as could be found would be found during the Ocean Conservancy's one-day long campaign to clean up the world's coastal areas in September 2003, just 354,000 bags were collected. Most, but not all, were made of plastic."

Then he points out that this number hasn't increased over the past 10 years which he points out is odd since the usage of plastic bags is up over this period.....

What's your take, Matt. I can't wait to see how you try to wiggle out of this one. I'm sure it will be another purely unbanked claim. 

Matt: It's not even really the argument about plastic v. other here that I'm objecting to - it's the triumphalism with which you and the author to the article linked repeat the statistics, as if it's some ultimate vindication of your anti-environmentalist worldview.

As I said - I actually think this is a pretty fascinating study, in that it challenges our existing assumptions about such loaded terms as "better for the environment," or "reusable."  That's productive.  But what's not productive is to then use a study about plastic bags to act like it justifies every objection you've ever had to the notion of conserving resources or keeping the planet clean, and to the people who promote these foolhardy ideas.  By railing against "environmentalists," what point are you actually trying to make? 

You could probably feed a small horse stable with the structural composition of the gigantic strawman you've built in "breaking down" my argument.  I was merely pointing out that there are things that impact the environment other than burning fossil fuels.  That doesn't make global warming any less serious of an issue, and it's also worth noting that environmental activists were focused on plastic bags long before climate change hit the public consciousness, so don't act like it's some sort of ADD-driven diversion. 

So I'm glad that plastic bags are apparently not as bad for the environment as they are made out to be.  Let's still try and use fewer of them.  Isn't that a good thing?  On the other hand, my question to you and every other conservative out there who wants to bash the "environmentalist crowd" remains:

What do you have against efficiency?  

Stephen: Matt that was the longest response you've ever had to me without saying a damn thing. Sounds like someone is bitter. The argument I made that you don't seem to have a response to, as usual, is that how much can you care about climate change when you are promoting policies that would negatively affect this... under your own assumptions about climate change??

"But the article says nothing about plastic bags ending up in landfills or waterways.  Does that not impact the environment?  The DC bag tax, which I assume you don't support, wasn't created as a high-minded local solution to global warming... they did it to keep plastic bags from ending up in the Anacostia River." 

Your words, not mine.  Please tell me how I misinterpreted you.  Sure I'm all for efficiency. You know this. But a tax does not create efficiency.

Matt: Efficiency is a general principle.  You're referring to it as if it only applies to economics.  

The environmental movement isn't some monolith that only cares about climate change.  Long before anyone knew global warming existed, modern environmental activism (post-WWII) arose primarily out of more localized concerns around the effects of suburban development on air, water, land, and non-human species.  These are real issues too. 

Did I promote any policies?  Yes, climate change is a big deal.  But I'm fairly certain that I merely pointed out that the author of the article you sent me included only one measure of environmental quality in his incredibly self-congratulatory analysis.  So I raised a relatively minor criticism with a study whose findings I've generally accepted.  The production of plastic bags is better for the environment than the production of canvas bags.  Fine. 

But you've been conspicuously silent on the issue of what to do with this finding, other than bow down to conservative wisdom.  Should we halt all efforts to keep plastic bags out of the waste stream?  Should you drive a flatbed truck to the Gulf of Mexico and dump every plastic bag you've ever collected into the ocean?  This is a good finding you've sent me, and I want to use our new piece information to make better decisions.  It's unclear what your motives are beyond scoring points against environmentalists, your longtime scourge. 

As usual, you've shown an unwillingness to consider an issue in its full complexity.  

Stephen: So all that sounded like the sweet sound of victory. Ladies in gentlemen, on this blog that's about as close to a flat out concession as we'll likely ever see. 

As for what we do with this knowledge, there are 2 things you (an environmentalist) can do:

1. Decide that climate change is the more serious threat, and oppose this kid of tax that encourages carbon intensive bags.
2. Decide that plastic bags in rivers is the more serious and stand behind these laws. But in doing so you cede much of the strength in your argument that climate change is the most important issue out there. 

You are also very susceptible to the second argument that despite increasing global usage of plastic bags, the pro-ban/tax side is citing a number that isn't increasing and is quite small (so small that it's actually twice as likely you will be struck by lightning -according to NOAA- than any one bag will be in a waterway).  So I guess you can take your pick. 

As for me, I take this as a solid argument as to why these laws are just another case of stupid people getting behind an idea that got trendy but the backers weren't nearly as educated on their subject as they wished to appear.  I think it says very little about climate change's existence except that if it's real, I guess I'm more eco-friendly then environmentalists. Go figure.  

Matt: Considering there is a massive patch of decomposing garbage in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, driven by ocean currents and composed largely of plastic products, I'm going to go ahead and guess that this at least partly explains the relative absence of said bags on shorelines.  But I digress. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

In a world without any such thing as complexity, your style of argument might stand up to scrutiny.  All you conservatives really do think the same.  Go in, make more incendiary statements than everyone else, shout down all appeals to nuance, and then declare victory.  Mission accomplished, bro. 

Yet despite your affinity for turning every policy decision into an either/or scenario, both options you've cited are not only possible but desirable.  For one, your study measures the use of grid electricity, still heavily produced from fossil fuels.  Given that people who care about climate change generally favor a large-scale conversion to cleaner sources of energy for our electricity needs, we would have a slightly different scenario on our hands if we enviros got our way (at least in terms of co2 impact).  Second, the bag tax is on consumption.  It's not an incentive to go out and buy a canvas bag; it's an incentive to use less plastic, or even reuse your plastic bag. 

You still haven't addressed the conservation angle.  You're clearly more interested in hating on environmentalists.  But here's a nice line from the study: 

"Whatever type of bag is used, the key to reducing the impacts is to reuse it as many times as possible and where reuse for shopping is not practicable, other reuse, e.g. to replace bin liners, is beneficial."

Just three percent of plastic bags in the US are recycled.  If we increased this number tenfold, still well below half, that would keep quite a few bags out of rivers. 

Overall, you've introduced an interesting nugget of knowledge into my environmental rolodex, one that will inform my future decisions on the use of paper or plastic.  I'm still not sure where you stand on what the findings of the study mean for your personal consumption habits, or should mean for any potential policies on the issue.

Stephen: Excellent job at getting your irrelevant talking point back into the discussion!  By your own admission these laws were not to solve world problems but local ones that you seem to be conceding aren't much of a problem.

As for your "new nuanced" argument, this is true this is an example of our contrasting styles. I live and make policy for an existing world where most electricity is powered by fossil fuels due to their relative cheapness. In this world, the main manufacturing of all these bags is also China, which is even more hostile to the global warming crowd than I.  So just switching the grid to more expensive power generators seem to be at worst an example of you living in fairyland; at best you tagging up before the catch.  As for the consumption tax argument that might be the worst I've ever heard you make.  Consumption taxes are intended to incentivize you to act differently.  Since it would be very difficult to purchase and transport groceries without a bag of some sort, if you create incentives against one type of bag you cannot really be surprised if other types are used more. 

Ultimately though, in these closing remarks I'll remind you that Matt seems to lack an answer as to which "most crucial" cause to get behind. And remember, if you don't use plastic bags you hate the Maldives or some crap like that.

Matt: Excellent job at not addressing the point I repeatedly brought up about conserving the plastic we do use. You still haven't told me whether you use a plastic bag more than once, recycle it, or throw it in the trash after the grocery store gives you several times more than you actually need.

Overall though you've drawn a completely false contrast between using fewer plastic bags and cutting down on global co2 emissions... if you were making an honest argument, you would acknowledge that plastic bags represent a small fraction of a small fraction of the carbon dioxide we humans burn every day. 

I'll let our readers judge the merits of your black and white fallacy, but I've got nothing more to say.

Want to weigh in?  Join the debate in our comments section...