Sunday, February 20, 2011

When 'green' isn't very 'green' after all!


I'm amused to find that the 'eco-friendly' reusable cloth shopping bags touted by some as a more environmentally responsible alternative to plastic shopping bags . . . aren't.

Cotton bags offered by many supermarkets may be less 'green' than plastic carriers - and may cause more global warming, according to scientists.

As a greater amount of energy goes into making a cloth carrier than a polythene one, a cotton bag has to be used 131 times before it has the same environmental impact than its plastic counterpart

And if a plastic bag is re-used as a bin liner, a cotton bag has to be used 173 times - nearly every day of the year - before its ecological impact is as low as a plastic bag on a host of factors including greenhouse gas emissions over its lifetime.

But most of us only use the bags around 51 times before they are thrown away, researchers found.

Paper bags - used by some clothes chains such as Primark - need to be used three times to fall below the environmental impact of the thin plastic carrier, while bags for life - made of stronger plastic - have to be used four times to start having less ecological impact.

The government sponsored research, 'Life Cycle Assessment of Supermarket Carrier Bags' by Dr Chris Edwards and Jonna Meyhoff Fry looked at the environmental impact of six different types of bags.

Although completed in 2008, it has not yet been published, with plastic bag makers claiming the findings have been suppressed - although the Environment Agency said it is awaiting 'peer review' - checks by other scientists.


There's more at the link.

It's typical, isn't it? There are huge campaigns to convince us of the need to avoid certain things 'for the good of the environment' . . . then it turns out that the 'eco-friendly' alternative is worse than the original problem! This brouhaha over shopping bags is only one example. There's compact fluorescent light bulbs, which are supposed to last much longer and consume much less electricity than old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs - but turn out to have significant environmental issues which render them a less than satisfactory alternative. There's ethanol as a fuel additive, allegedly reducing the amount of oil needing to be extracted and refined - but which also renders automotive gasoline less efficient, and has many undesirable side effects economically, environmentally and overall. The list goes on and on . . .

I'm beginning to wonder whether any claim by the eco-weenies should be automatically distrusted until it's been independently tested and proven. It seems to be the only way to find out for sure whether or not they're talking through their (environmentally friendly, woven of natural-growth straw) hats!





Peter

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Given that these reusable bags often hold more, what effect would that have on the comparison? It still looks pretty dismal and I doubt I've undermined your point, but I have one from the local chain and it will hold a fair bit more than a plastic bag.

Jim

suz said...

Thanks for that bit of salve for my conscience. I like the plastic bags because I DO reuse them - they're so handy and they fold up so small I can carry one in my purse or pocket.

I do like the compact fluorescent bulbs. For some reason, incandescents burn out after a couple of months in my house, and the fluorescents last about two years!

Stan said...

Just as a by the by your link that is supposed to go to ethanol problems is just a repeat of the CFL link.

That said good post.

Peter said...

Thanks for the heads-up, Stan. I've changed the link.

Dave Sohm said...

The problem with corn-based ethanol, is that lots of fossil fuels are used in the production of the fuel. Modern industrial farms use fertilizer that is petroleum based, and then some kind of fossil fuel is burned for the heat process of turning the corn into liquid fuel. So they use lots of petroleum to create ethanol so that we don't have use so much petroleum in our cars.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Suz. From my experience, the fluorescent bulbs last longer than the incandescent ones...and they're brighter, too.

CenTexTim said...

"a cotton bag has to be used 173 times - nearly every day of the year"

I thought a year had 365 days...?

Otherwise it's another example of leap before you look by the greenies.

Cargosquid said...

"I'm beginning to wonder whether any claim by the eco-weenies should be automatically distrusted..."

Beginning?

Dude....what's taking you so long?

Ritchie said...

Take a close look at those "cotton" bags-some of them are textured plastic.

The Raving Prophet said...

Heck, I just like the reusable bags not for their impact on the environment, but because they won't split open and drop the milk on the garage floor, leaving me something to clean up and negating the trip to the store.

I prefer three reusable bags to twelve plastic ones; not because of the environment, but because it's just easier to deal with.

Mikael said...

Ritchie, that's probably an improvement ecologically. "bags for life - made of stronger plastic - have to be used four times to start having less ecological impact."

Anonymous said...

I'm glad someone has better luck with the CFL bulbs. The ones at Festung Kleinrot tend to burn out just as fast as the old ones. It may be because they are in recessed fixtures, but so far I'm not impressed. And I don't care for the color of the light, either. Add in the mercury disposal problem and my general reluctance to buy things made in China and I'm not an especially pleased camper.
LittleRed1

On a Wing and a Whim said...

Oh, so they increase global warmening? Awesome! I'll make sure to use 'em, except when I need more bin liners around the house. Throw another log on the fire - we're all sick of shoveling global warming off the driveway!

Captn' Ralphie said...

I was under the impression that "global warming" was proven to be a lie???