Plastic bags - are they that bad?

**JohntheBike** · 23rd October 2019, 07:20

Originally Posted by TwoWolves

Not saying the climate isn't changing, or that human activities aren't causing it. Just that CO2 emissions may not be the cause, there are suggestions that it is a following indicator, rather than cause. I'm old enough to remember quite a few times when the whole scientific community went up a blind alley.

Before you ask, I am not entirely a layman as I graduated in TP and wrote a research piece on tropospheric interferometry. Not saying one way or the other either, just that it's not settled.

I'm old enough to remember quite a few times when the whole scientific community went up a blind alley

So am I. Don't the statistics show that in a time of increased manufacturing activity, i.e. 1940 to 1970, the average temperature fell?

Also, we were being warned of a possible mini ice age in the early 1960's by the scientific community, after the Winter of 1962/1963.

**JohntheBike** · 23rd October 2019, 07:23

Originally Posted by ladymuck

I saw that programme. It was really quite interesting.

It's annoying how different councils have different recycling policies. HWMBO's council accepts foil and has food waste composting. Mine doesn't do either. His doesn't collect glass, mine does.

Then there's all the crap about the right plastic. And you can't include shredded paper so a lot of my paper waste can't be recycled because I shred most documents before disposal.

The trouble is, is that there isn't a market for recycled plastic that makes the process economically viable. Recycled plastic isn't as durable as new and costs more to produce. Really the answer to to work out what to use instead of single use plastics. And the simple way to do that is to look at the pre-plastic era, take a few lessons and make improvements.

If HMG were really concerned about plastic use, the should introduce legislation that required all liquids to be dispensed in glass bottles, as they were in my youth. Even mineral oils were dispensed in bottles in the early days.

**JohntheBike** · 23rd October 2019, 07:24

Originally Posted by ladymuck

There are other gases that have a more harmful effect on global warming. Methane is one and there's at least one other but I can't remember at the moment. If we all went meat free and stopped farting, that would help.

My personal bug bear is the demand to go 'zero-carbon' which is literally impossible. We are made of carbon, we eat carbon, we excrete carbon. There will always need to be a certain level of carbon in the environment in order for it to function. All life cycles rely on there being carbon in various forms.

and stopped farting

but then our effluent would still pollute the oceans.

**original PM** · 23rd October 2019, 07:36

We have done this before - but to re-cap.

1) The earth is a closed eco system (a big one designed for long term use but closed)
2) A closed eco system can only support so many living things before the balance of the ecosystem collapses.
3) You can only recycle your tulip so many times before there is nothing left to recycle.
4) Therefore the only true way of ensuring long term survivability is to have population control.

So who gets to play god?

**JohntheBike** · 23rd October 2019, 07:48

Originally Posted by original PM

We have done this before - but to re-cap.

1) The earth is a closed eco system (a big one designed for long term use but closed)
2) A closed eco system can only support so many living things before the balance of the ecosystem collapses.
3) You can only recycle your tulip so many times before there is nothing left to recycle.
4) Therefore the only true way of ensuring long term survivability is to have population control.

So who gets to play god?

generally agreed, but the argument then is about sustaining civilisation, not the planet. If all humans became extinct, and we are told there have been near extinction events in the past, then the planet would still survive and another life form would dominate, just as the dinosaurs did before we even existed.

**original PM** · 23rd October 2019, 08:13

Originally Posted by JohntheBike

generally agreed, but the argument then is about sustaining civilisation, not the planet. If all humans became extinct, and we are told there have been near extinction events in the past, then the planet would still survive and another life form would dominate, just as the dinosaurs did before we even existed.

Ok - even then given that the sun will go red giant in about 4.5 billion years what we actually need to do to save civilisation is to colonise as many planets as possible so that we no longer rely on just one.

Although even then we are will still be fighting the heat death or big rip of the universe.

So what we really need to focus on is ensuring we sue the resources of this planet to ensure that civilisation can continue in areas other than the surface of the earth...

so yes, not polluting your oceans with plastic bags is probably a good thing..

**MasterBait** · 23rd October 2019, 08:16

Originally Posted by BrilloPad

How plastic bags were supposed to help save the planet - BBC News

"To be as environmentally friendly as a single plastic bag that is being recycled, a paper bag needs to be used at least 3 times while cotton bags need to be reused 131 times to have the same environmental impact".

Article also points out that plastic bags were designed to be reused. The issue is lazy humans.

So it seems the only way to save humankind is less humans.....

It may take more energy and resources to produce a paper or cotton bag, but it take hundreds of years longer to degrade a plastic bag 100% whereas paper and cotton will quickly decay.
So the whole statement is a bit silly.
Also the pollution problem is not only plastic shopping bags, but also all other stuff made out plastic including the totally useless packaging around vegetables and fruit for example.