backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 92 comment(s) - last by East17.. on Mar 25 at 5:03 AM

Another in a long line of baseless environmental scares bites the dust

You've all heard the claims -- plastic bags kill marine animals.  Hundreds of thousands of them.  And not just the slimy, icky ones, but the cute ones too, like baby seals. 

Have you ever seen a animal more adorable than a baby seal?  How could anyone in good conscience possibly carry home groceries in a plastic bag?

So dutiful consumers lined up shoulders to bandwagon, and millions called on their politicians to solve this critical problem.  Nations like Ireland placed a whopping 20 cent tax on each bag.  San Francisco banned them outright, and cities from Boston to Portland considered following suit.  Even in areas without a ban, stores made spent tens of millions of dollars to make paper bags available to outraged costumers.

The only problem?  It was all bunkum. 

Apparently, the problem started with a typo in an 2002 Australian Government report.  It attempted to quote from an Canadian study 15 years earlier, which found that up to 100,000 marine animals had been killed over four years by "discarded nets" from the fishing industry.  Somehow, the 2002 report replaced that phrase with "plastic bags."  The statement was quickly seized upon by environmentalists looking for a cause.  Somewhere along the way, the "four years" was dropped as well, and the myth of our shopping bags strangling hundreds of thousands of poor animals every year sprang up.  Voilà!  ... a star was born.  Protesters carried placards, and thousands of complaisant reporters parroted the claims.

The Australian report was eventually corrected four years later, but no one noticed.  The myth was now self-supporting, with hundreds of sources all pointing to each other for verification.   A few scientists tried vainly to correct the record, but no reporter was interested in interviewing them.

But finally science seems to be winning out.  According to David W. Laist of the Marine Mammal Commission, and author of a primary research paper on the subject, "plastic bags don't figure in entanglement.  The main culprits are fishing gear, ropes, lines and strapping bands."  Professor of Marine Biology Geoff Boxshall concurred, “I’ve never seen a bird killed by a plastic bag".  

Quick, someone tell San Francisco. 

Plastic bags are much cheaper than paper, which is why stores favor them.  They take less resources and energy to produce, they're far cheaper to ship and store, they're recyclable and some are even biodegradable.  Those savings aren't just for the stores, they translate into lower food costs and less damage to the environment.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Nitpicking...sorry.
By Le Québécois on 3/10/2008 4:14:05 PM , Rating: 1
Well, let me begin by saying its a good blog. Stupid environmentalists...

Now with the nitpicking:
quote:
Viola ... a star was born.


You probably meant "voila" or if you want the exact French spelling, "voilà". The problem here is that "viola" also means something, it's the conjugation (third person, singular, past tense) of the verb "To rape" or "the act of forcing sexual activity" if you prefer...

It's not the first time I see that error(not specifically from you) so I just though I would let you know.




RE: Nitpicking...sorry.
By noirsoft on 3/10/2008 4:22:06 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure he meant "viola" as in the musical instrument.


RE: Nitpicking...sorry.
By masher2 (blog) on 3/10/2008 4:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks! Article corrected. I do make that mistake on a regular basis.


RE: Nitpicking...sorry.
By Le Québécois on 3/10/2008 4:43:19 PM , Rating: 2
You're welcome. I enjoy reading what you write and I'm glad to have been able to help, even if it's not much.

I see you even added a little finishing touch:P, the ! .


RE: Nitpicking...sorry.
By TomCorelis (blog) on 3/10/2008 5:32:03 PM , Rating: 2
You know, I liked the original word. People should use the word 'viola' more in everyday speech. I think it would make the world a funnier place.

*panicked* "What ever are we going to do, my good sir?"
"Viola! An idea has entered my understanding!"


RE: Nitpicking...sorry.
By Le Québécois on 3/11/2008 12:16:34 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I've got no problem with that except maybe... what would "viola" means? Since it's close to the french Voilà, taking the meaning in French could happen a lot and lead to "rape".

But there's a lot of other meaning in a lot of other language, including english...

So, what would your "viola" means?;)


RE: Nitpicking...sorry.
By ElFenix on 3/11/2008 10:51:53 AM , Rating: 2
viola is a musical instrument similar to a violin but smaller and higher pitched.


RE: Nitpicking...sorry.
By DeSade on 3/11/2008 2:32:28 PM , Rating: 2
It's the other way around. The viola is slightly larger than the violin and of a deeper pitch. Orchestral instruments from highest pitch to lowest are violin, viola, cello, bass.


RE: Nitpicking...sorry.
By Nuckpang on 3/10/2008 8:07:11 PM , Rating: 4
More Nitpicking, though a little more relevent to the subject. The Irish plastic bag tax of 15c (later raised to 20) had nothing to do with sea animals being caught in them, and everything to do with the countryside being littered with windblown bags that had got caught in trees and bushes, and it's worked very well. This is the first time I've ever heard of plastic bags killing sea life, everywhere I've read of has put levies or taxes on them because they're just a damn nuisance, littering the countryside, blocking drains, and the like.


Plastic Bags
By isorfir on 3/10/2008 1:42:21 PM , Rating: 5
I could have told you that plastic bags don't kill animals.

For some reason, my cat loves playing in plastic bags, and they don't even kill one of him per year.




RE: Plastic Bags
By Lightning III on 3/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: Plastic Bags
By Spivonious on 3/10/2008 1:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
<tasteless>
Doritos come in a foil bag.
</tasteless>


RE: Plastic Bags
By Lightning III on 3/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Plastic Bags
By Procurion on 3/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Plastic Bags
By drebo on 3/24/2008 4:11:56 PM , Rating: 1
What?!

My cat practically lives inside empty 12-pack boxes, and she's never been killed by one.

I guess the only logical conclusion left is that dogs are stupid.


RE: Plastic Bags
By clovell on 3/10/2008 3:40:36 PM , Rating: 4
Thus the problem with relying on direct observation as the pinnacle of truth.


RE: Plastic Bags
By geddarkstorm on 3/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Plastic Bags
By clovell on 3/11/2008 11:39:16 AM , Rating: 2
That's what I meant to say >.>


RE: Plastic Bags
By Xerio on 3/10/2008 2:04:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
For some reason, my cat loves playing in plastic bags, and they don't even kill one of him per year.


Now that is funny


RE: Plastic Bags
By BMFPitt on 3/10/2008 5:23:46 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently there are a lot of people who store their babies in plastic bags. Fortunately we now have warning labels for this.


A good old cloth bag
By ChronoReverse on 3/10/2008 12:44:55 PM , Rating: 3
Call me old-fashioned, but I use a shopping bag.

With that said, if I forget my bag or have more groceries that can fit, I never had any second thoughts about getting a plastic bag (Vancouver BC Canada).




RE: A good old cloth bag
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/10/2008 1:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
Fortunately, this is a case of "getting it wrong" without actually disrupting the natural order of the universe too much. Of course a reusable bag is best -- though I'm sure I can dig up evidence somewhere of some coal powerplant that spews more harmful toxins into the atmosphere in a day than the entire paper-plastic grocerybag industry can in a year.

We got it wrong with the best of intentions, and the outcome might have even been a little beneficial. But that doesn't give researchers and the media a free pass.


RE: A good old cloth bag
By dever on 3/10/2008 2:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
outcome might have even been a little beneficial
How exactly?


RE: A good old cloth bag
By PlasmaBomb on 3/15/2008 9:27:24 AM , Rating: 2
Fewer plastic bags in circulation?
Greater thought by customers as to whether they need a plastic bag or not?
Reuse of plastic bags?


RE: A good old cloth bag
By homerdog on 3/10/2008 1:12:42 PM , Rating: 2
If I were to bring my own shopping bag into the local Piggly Wiggly and start stuffing it with groceries they would give me a blank stare for a few seconds and call the cops. It's in a bad part of town.


RE: A good old cloth bag
By Spivonious on 3/10/2008 1:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
Me too. I have about 5 sturdy, large cloth bags that I use to do my grocery shopping. I got tired of having 35,000 plastic bags on top of the refrigerator.

Doesn't IKEA make you buy the plastic bags you use?


RE: A good old cloth bag
By Xerio on 3/10/2008 2:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
I have 35,000 plastic bags on my refrigerator. I keep meaning to take them to the local supermarket to their recycle bin, but never do. And my plastic bag pile keeps growing and growing...

And yes, IKEA does make you buy plastic bags.


How does Michael Asher know this to be true?
By schmandel on 3/11/2008 1:46:56 AM , Rating: 4
So, a "typo" changed "discarded nets" to "plastic bags", or it just happened "Somehow". Right.

A verifiable source citation is required here, not that Asher's overall credibility is anything to take seriously to begin with.

Who would pay him to slough off this sort of dreck, Daily Tech? Why not just transcribe some street wino rant and save a buck?




RE: How does Michael Asher know this to be true?
By Pythias on 3/11/2008 2:06:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who would pay him to slough off this sort of dreck, Daily Tech? Why not just transcribe some street wino rant and save a buck?


Because when you can't argue, impugn the source. Classic.


RE: How does Michael Asher know this to be true?
By eegake on 3/11/08, Rating: 0
By onelittleindian on 3/11/2008 10:53:46 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
It's amusing when low-end comedians/entertainers like Asher are regarded as if they have some sort of veracity. It reveals just how uncommon critical thinking really is.
It took me all of 10 seconds to verify his story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...

If you paid for that class on critical thinking, I'd ask for a refund.


RE: How does Michael Asher know this to be true?
By eegake on 3/11/08, Rating: -1
By onelittleindian on 3/11/2008 2:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
This article had more references than the one in the Times and I don't see you complaining about that one. I don't usually see any links in most CNN or MSNBC stories, for that matter.

The level of thinking that believes a story is valid if it has a link (no matter what that link points out) and isn't if it doesn't is pretty shallow. Since I already showed the story is accurate, I can't decide if you're being stupid or you just don't like the author.


By ToeCutter on 3/11/2008 11:39:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Who would pay him to slough off this sort of dreck, Daily Tech? Why not just transcribe some street wino rant and save a buck?


Voted to 6...


honestly..
By kattanna on 3/10/2008 2:29:10 PM , Rating: 3
is anyone even remotely surprised that enviromentalists got it wrong or that the press ran with it?

seriously, anyone?




RE: honestly..
By Xerio on 3/10/2008 2:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
Nope


RE: honestly..
By Ringold on 3/10/2008 3:17:07 PM , Rating: 2
I am surprised they got it so badly wrong, but maybe I just give too many people the benefit of the doubt. I figured they at least had some sort of legitimate, bought-and-paid-for research that backed up their claims. As it turns out, they had absolutely nothing except their own claims.

Whenever I'm trying to look in to something new, I for one always try to find the actual research that backs it up; hell, even if I just skim to the relevant parts. This speaks volumes of the intellectual rigor of the environmentalists when they think that each others claims are appropriate sources that can be cited, but nothing I didn't already suspect.


RE: honestly..
By ToeCutter on 3/11/2008 11:37:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
is anyone even remotely surprised that enviromentalists got it wrong or that the press ran with it?


One horribly written "article" on DT and you've concluded that to be the case?

If I write an article espousing the nutritional value of plastic bags and it made it to DT, would eat a 7/11 sub without unwrapping it?

(Promise pictures and I'll fire up Word immediately!)


RE: honestly..
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/12/2008 12:21:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'm more than happy to run counter-point blogs on DailyTech if its well written and stands up to our editorial guide. Please feel free to send me an email at kristopher@dailytech.com for more information.


Biodegradable?
By chaosrain on 3/11/2008 3:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of people argue that plastic bags are quite biodegradable when, in fact, they are quite confused about the concept. Many plastic bags are made by binding together small plastic molecules with a biodegradable binding agent. These bags do break down (leave one in your yard for a year and when you pick it up it'll fall into 1000's of pieces), but do not truly biodegrade. In the end you are left with extremely small, but everpresent plastic bits. These bits find their way to your storm sewer, creek, river, then finally the ocean where they sit in the top layer of circulating water (due to their density). Surface currents move that top layer of water and give you the miracle that is the GPGP or the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Most of the pictures of the GPGP seek to show the larger plastic items like bottles, shoes, etc. when the greatest single pollutant in the region is actually molecular plastic which is usually too small to be seen by the naked eye, but still finds it's way quite effectively into the digestive tracts of a variety of marine animals.

So, to clarify a bit...if you're talking about a true plastic bag (made with petrochemical plastics) it may break down, but it'll never, never biodegrade to become naturally reusable. The plastic bits just become too small to see anymore, but they never really go away.




RE: Biodegradable?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/11/2008 3:24:06 PM , Rating: 2
> " but it'll never, never biodegrade to become naturally reusable. The plastic bits just become too small to see anymore, but they never really go away"

I'm sorry, but this isn't correct. Shopping bags are made of polyethylene, which does fully biograde, just that the process takes years. There are additives which can be added to the material that make the process proceed much faster. Here's a research paper on the topic:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/cxywukbufra18x...


RE: Biodegradable?
By ToeCutter on 3/11/2008 11:29:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm sorry, but this isn't correct.


Did you even read the article you linked? It basically describes the process that chaosrain described: Plastics don't degrade, they simply get smaller. So small that plankton can (and do) consume the particles, and then eventually die from clogged digestive tracts.

Every single long-chain hydrocarbon molecule produced since their invention in the Forties is still here today.

Long-chain hydrocarbon molecules simply do not degrade. They are synthetic, they have no natural analog. Because they're synthetic, no microorganism has evolved the ability to digest and thereby convert them back into organic compounds. (Perhaps the same crackpots here advocating for plastic bags might not have a firm grasp on the concept of evolution either).

But, don't take it from me, Google is your friend:

Plastics 'poisoning world's seas'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6218698.stm

The Indestructibles
http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/indestructi...


RE: Biodegradable?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/11/2008 11:51:40 PM , Rating: 3
> "Every single long-chain hydrocarbon molecule produced since their invention in the Forties is still here today."

I'm sorry, but this isn't even remotely correct.

> "Did you even read the article you linked?"

You mean this part?
quote:
More than 200 different degradation products including alkanes, alkenes, ketones, aldehydes, alcohols, carboxylic acid, keto-acids, dicarboxylic acids, lactones and esters have been identified in thermo- and photo-oxidised polyethylene
Polyethylene is biodegradable. It's just not a fast process.

> "Because they're synthetic, no microorganism has evolved the ability to digest and thereby convert them back into organic compounds"

First of all, plastics are organic compounds. Secondly, There are many ways besides "digestion" to break down a long-chain molecule. Oxidation (particularly when aided by heat or photolysis) is the most common path.


Oh God
By DASQ on 3/10/2008 2:24:48 PM , Rating: 3
My paper bag empire!




Im sorry but..
By Salman on 3/10/2008 10:07:27 PM , Rating: 3
I'd never heard of this animals getting caught in plastic bag thing until today. However, I've been to a few countries in South Asia which banned polyethylene bags long before the 2002 error mentioned in the article because recycling methods in these countries are primitive and people usually burn their trash (including the black plastic bags) which causes visible noxious pollutant haze in the area on a daily basis.

Also, the plastic bags that aren’t properly disposed litter the cityscape, beaches and gardens and cause a lot of problems for people as well as the wildlife which I'm sure gets affected by the hundreds of thousands of plastic bags floating in lakes and littered all over forests.

In such circumstances, isn’t it better for the environment to use paper bags? (which I was surprised very few people do here in Singapore as opposed to some third world countries I've lived in). Also, aren't recyclable paper bags made using recycled paper, which is made by using paper already in existence? (I know that still means trees are cut down initially, but it still slows the exponential deforestation required to make fresh paper as opposed to recyclable paper).




Litter and Landfill
By oneils on 3/11/2008 3:14:51 PM , Rating: 3
In my municipality, the debate over banning plastic bags is not over protecting wildlife. The goal is to reduce litter and the amount of bags filling up our landfills. Most of these bags still take years to biodegrade.

I strongly doubt that other municipalities are banning them because of baby seals or whatever, they are just tired of seeing them litter the landscape.




But wait
By pxavierperez on 3/11/2008 6:02:56 AM , Rating: 2
Reading from the Australian report itself, how is a plastic bag be involved in the fishing industry? It's not like they use it to catch fish. I doubt they used it to store fish either. From that statement alone it should immediately raises question of its validity, at least from anyone with a bit of common sense.




By Zensen on 3/11/2008 7:36:18 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/03/05/12044025...

to be honest, I recycle my plastic bags all the time. To store things in, re-use it as a rubbish bag. It's when silly people think its necessary to go to the shop and put a can of baked beans in a plastic bag that irks especially if they will have no use for it later.

The govt in australia esp that nut garrett who at times has good idea just carries it to far wants to ban these bags and I for one dont agree. We still need to buy bags for rubbish collection etc.

Sure, every little bit helps but to swap something for another which does little to stem the problem - I am all for alternatives though but to stretch the truth??




By Andy35W on 3/20/2008 7:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7303385.stm

If this is not caused by man

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44501000/gif...

then what is causing it?

Certainly not the 11 year sunspot activity/ solar activity and associated cloud formation that masher sometimes grasps at straws with

22 year cycle and it is down, down, down!

C'mon climate skeptics, what is the cause for this if it is not manmade? Or are you going to plan B where high CO2 is good for the earth anyway because plants like CO2?

I love that flip flop style of arguing.




everyone
By meepstone on 3/11/08, Rating: 0
Asher's an ass...
By ToeCutter on 3/11/08, Rating: -1
PLASTIC
By Lightning III on 3/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: PLASTIC
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/10/2008 1:49:57 PM , Rating: 3
Machiavelli would be proud


RE: PLASTIC
By Lightning III on 3/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: PLASTIC
By Ringold on 3/10/2008 3:20:30 PM , Rating: 4
Instead of trolling, why not pull up some research that backs your view?

And for the love of all that is, was, or ever will be holy, punctuation. Please.


RE: PLASTIC
By clovell on 3/10/2008 3:32:15 PM , Rating: 4
Dude, get with it, when the facts don't go our way, we call people names. It's not about what's right, it's about being right.


RE: PLASTIC
By masher2 (blog) on 3/10/2008 3:42:06 PM , Rating: 4
> "masher is a shill for the petro chemical industries..."

You're certainly welcome to your viewpoint, but I've made a career here of pushing nuclear power over fossil fuels.


RE: PLASTIC
By Xerio on 3/10/2008 4:00:45 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of nuclear power, is there an organization that is working to educate the public about it? I think that if more people understood the reality that nuclear power is safe, we wouldn't have so many people lobbying against it.


RE: PLASTIC
By BBeltrami on 3/10/2008 7:15:12 PM , Rating: 3
There are literally hundreds of organizations educating the public already, including GreenPeace, The Sierra Club, Earth First!, and many, many more. With the assistance of Hollywood and it's appetite for apocalyptic hyperbole, "Nuclear is Bad" is a foregone conclusion.

Here in Northern California Plastic Grocery Bags have already been outlawed by several local City Councils and the County is going to consider the ban, next. All of this follows on the heels of the big GMO ban of a few years ago.

It sure is a good thing that we've cured sickness, eliminated crime and violence, fed the hungry and sheltered the homeless. Now we can focus on REALLY important stuff: plastic bags.


RE: PLASTIC
By arazok on 3/10/2008 8:29:59 PM , Rating: 3
You don't educate the public. You come up with a catchy phrase, and repeat it ad nauseam.


RE: PLASTIC
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 3/11/2008 12:03:09 PM , Rating: 1
Egads, what a mo. Kill a tree or clog a landfill, your choice, mate.


RE: PLASTIC
By masher2 (blog) on 3/10/2008 1:50:12 PM , Rating: 3
> "Plastic is a petrochemical product every little bit helps"

Trees are harvested, transported, and converted to paper with a large variety of fossil fuel-powered tools, trucks, and manufacturing plants.

If you're willing to use a cloth bag for all your shopping, more power to you, but in the contest between paper and plastic -- plastic wins.


RE: PLASTIC
By cplusplus on 3/10/2008 2:01:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Trees are harvested, transported, and converted to paper with a large variety of fossil fuel-powered tools, trucks, and manufacturing plants.


And they just teleport all the materials used to make plastic bags? That oil has to be "harvested" and transported as well.


RE: PLASTIC
By masher2 (blog) on 3/10/2008 2:20:54 PM , Rating: 3
> "And they just teleport all the materials used to make plastic bags?"

Of course not, but since the bags weigh far less, and are considerably more compact, they're much easier to transport. They're also substantially easier to recycle, if you are so inclined.


RE: PLASTIC
By Lightning III on 3/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: PLASTIC
By grenableu on 3/10/2008 2:28:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but all you have to do is open your mark one eyeballs for some direct observation
So you've "directly observed" some animals killed by plastic bags? Or did you miss the point of the article?


RE: PLASTIC
By clovell on 3/10/2008 3:38:41 PM , Rating: 3
Direct observation doesn't trump the scientific method. In fact, the entire reason there is a scientific method is to make sense of all the 'direct observations' out there.

Open your eyes as much as you want, the fact is that this hysteria was generated from fabricated reports.


RE: PLASTIC
By Lightning III on 3/10/2008 4:27:39 PM , Rating: 3
First who was hysterical

The fuzzies were the poster child for the cause just like every other marketing campaign.

or it's for the kids

10 years ago styrofoam was high on my list of clean up items.

now it's getting rarer because of the pressure exerted on Mcdonalds and others.

So if the end result is a more beautiful greenbelt or waterfront park.

who really cares

you got to love unintended consequeces


RE: PLASTIC
By clovell on 3/11/2008 11:36:41 AM , Rating: 2
> First who was hysterical

I'm guessing you weren't in school back when all this stuff came out - my teachers certainly made a huge deal about it, in much the same fashion as the media makes a huge deal about AGW.

> now it's getting rarer because of the pressure exerted on Mcdonalds and others... So if the end result is a more beautiful greenbelt or waterfront park.

No, sorry, pal, it doesn't work that way. McDonald's didn't stop using cups - they just switched the kinds of cups they used. It's not going to result in less litter.

>who really cares

Investors and businessmen who lose money on older, less efficient technology, that actually does more to increase our carbon footprint (if you care about that sort of thing) via cutting down trees, milling, and transporting, than plastic does.

>you got to love unintended consequeces

Yes, I <3 the Iraq war [/sarcasm]. Get a freaking clue, dude.


RE: PLASTIC
By Polynikes on 3/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: PLASTIC
By TomZ on 3/10/2008 4:43:10 PM , Rating: 3
Rain forests aren't torn down to make paper, c'mon. Most of our paper (and lumber), at least in North America, comes from managed forests (tree farms).


RE: PLASTIC
By Ringold on 3/10/2008 8:57:23 PM , Rating: 3
Correct! Rain forests are instead falling victim to slash-and-burn clearing to fuel our insane desire for ethanol.


RE: PLASTIC
By TomZ on 3/10/2008 11:08:43 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly! Go environmentalists!


RE: PLASTIC
By Shuxclams on 3/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: PLASTIC
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/10/2008 3:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting. I was always curious how this started.


RE: PLASTIC
By Fenixgoon on 3/10/2008 5:59:37 PM , Rating: 4
most oil usage is in the form of fuel.

synthetic polymers account for only a small fraction of crude oil.


Useless post
By funduck on 3/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: Useless post
By ChronoReverse on 3/10/2008 3:19:14 PM , Rating: 2
There are newspapers in landfills from 50 years ago that are still perfectly readable.


RE: Useless post
By funduck on 3/10/2008 3:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
Must have been covered in other waste then that prevented the bacteria from eating away at it. If you're debating what I'm saying stick a piece of newspaper outside along side a plastic bag and watch for a few months to test for yourself.


RE: Useless post
By grenableu on 3/10/2008 3:30:31 PM , Rating: 3
Paper decays 10 times faster. But it takes 10X as much to make a paper bag as plastic. You have to cut down trees too.

And when you pick paper, it rips and drops a bagful of groceries on the concrete, you lose double time.


RE: Useless post
By kattanna on 3/10/2008 3:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, no.. its you that is missing the point


RE: Useless post
By Spyvie on 3/10/2008 3:57:58 PM , Rating: 3
Mashers posts are an excellent counterpoint to the often less than throughly vetted or even purposely deceptive mainstream agendas. In this case he's simply pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. Revealing the truth, particularly with regards to public policy and cultural beliefs is always honorable, no matter who it may offend.

I can read about the latest chip architecture or ray gun prototype anywhere, it is writers like Mr. Asher that set this site apart.


RE: Useless post
By tigen on 3/10/2008 9:38:51 PM , Rating: 3
Pointing out problems is fine and good. But he goes beyond that to go on the offensive and make assertions which aren't directly supported (e.g. "plastic bags... translate into less damage to the environment").

Not that I necessarily disagree with him. But it's pretty clear that plastic in general is creating a big mess even if it doesn't directly kill tons of animals. (Though some plastic does end up getting eaten and messing up some animals.) Pointing out one bogus study doesn't debunk as much as he claims.


RE: Useless post
By TomZ on 3/10/2008 6:23:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyways plastic bags are clearly worse for the environment than paper bags and obviously reusable bags.

You're right, but only if you narrowly look at that one aspect. If you look at the whole lifecycle of a bag - from creation through disposal - that is where you see the environmental and cost advantages of plastic bags.

Personally I hate plastic grocery bags simply because my family gets much better re-use out of paper grocery bags. But that's just my "personal world view."


RE: Useless post
By arazok on 3/11/2008 1:45:30 PM , Rating: 1
Rocks aren't biodegradable either, but nobody complains.

Plastic bags only environmental impact is that they are ugly. If you built a plastic bag factory for the sole purpose of tossing every bag produced into the air to float away, not a single living thing would die as a result. So what's all the fuss about?


The environment and the US economy
By borowki on 3/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: The environment and the US economy
By TomZ on 3/10/2008 11:10:55 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, all of the same applies to Clinton...and McCain. Really, our country cannot afford any of the likely candidates.


By StormEffect on 3/11/2008 12:07:54 AM , Rating: 1
I keep seeing these kinds of posts around the net.

I'd assumed they were just election spambots...but they are actually REAL PEOPLE!

Someone actually wrote that! It wasn't even all cut/paste!

*sigh*


By robinthakur on 3/11/2008 10:38:06 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Barack Obama has no experience rescuing marine mammals or strangling baby seals.


That's good to know...even if his middle name IS 'Hussein'!

I'd be willing to bet that if a line of baby seals/baby polar bears or just plain babies stood between her and the white house, Hillary Clinton would strangle them all to get in. I'd like to assume that you were being ironic with the whole post, but since you're likely American, you probably don't even know what the word means.


By arazok on 3/11/2008 2:37:15 PM , Rating: 1
The way the media is covering him, you'd think Barak was a baby seal.


By East17 on 3/25/2008 5:03:55 AM , Rating: 1
Which one is more ecological to make : the plastic bag or the paper bag ?

All plastics are made using oil and the fact that we're so dependent on plastics will drive us into a crisis sometime into the distant future when oil runs short ...

On the other hand, paper is made from wood and chopping down trees is not good for the environment .

Lets assume that we don't use anymore oil and no more wood . This way we get to the most important point : if both, plastics and paper can be recycled, which process uses less energy ? Recycling plastic or recycling paper ?


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki