If the concern is over how much our landfills are stuffed with plastic that will still be there centuries later, cotton seems like one viable means of helping mitigate that.
Not really, growing cotton has an environmental cost as well. The best choice, environmentally speaking, are LDPE re-usables.
The nanny state is banning the hygienic product.
I trust people to try, not necessarily deliver on hygiene.
Homeless camps and food trucks are adding to the potential to spread illness.
Coming down from rhetorical extremes, there are no perfect solutions to anything. However, the inability to deliver perfect change solutions is not a basis for insisting on the correctness of the status quo. All those non-degradable single use bags are choking the oceans at this point. Options need to be looked out in terms of overall cost benefits. The fact that an option has a potential cost does not invalidate it, nor does it justify continuing to maintain the status quo.
I would have stuck with paper grocery bags and glass containers for food and beverage products.
If you are interested in my solution…I would blend in paper and glass as economics and consumer demand warrants.
Milk is awesome in glass jugs.
You are right! Plastic bags was a “tree hugger” liberal idea of the past.
1 Like
Any evidence, any data, any facts, that the chemical companies that create plastic products are a domain of liberals.
Or is this an example of thinking along the lines of something is wrong so it must be those even “liberals”?
2 Likes
Oh if something is wrong it definitely traces back to a liberal cause alright, it never fails. 
Liberal bleeding heart and tree hugging environmental nut jobs played a big part in pushing plastic bags over biodegradable paper bags.
Some of us don’t have the liberty to life in your evidence-free, fact-free world. Can you present any evidence to support your angry assertions or are you just yelling at liberals because you are angry?
2 Likes
We know the answer to that one.
Your question doesn’t relate to what Roxie said.
Tree huggers wanted to save trees. “No more paper.” Plastics manufacturers geared up to meet the new paradigm.
We should just go back to paper. Solves all the problems. Trees are renewable. Paper is recyclable. (Or compostable.)
All hail to Chinese Communist…right libs?
I had no problem with paper either.
Mostly, my plastic bags are from Target. I save them and use them to line trash baskets. Why buy trash liners when they work perfectly?
A while back the city of Dallas banned stores from using so called single use bags from stores. The result was people going over to the stores in suburbs, so the rule was quickly dropped.
It spoke directly to the issue – you are describing a causal process. Having worked with a couple of manufacturers of plastic products, I never once heard them tie their business strategy to the wishes of tree huggers. The shift to plastic was much more like a matter of cost… just asking Roxie or you to provide evidence for your claims.
It was the mid 1980’s when plastic began to really replace paper.
I think the saving trees argument was more for marketing and economics than anything else.
The only down side to paper was…rain…which can be very bad for heavy loads.
I am good with going back to paper.
Pulp wood is eco harmonious.
They certainly did market plastic as saving trees.
I think the motive was actually cost though…which is what it always is when the smoke clears.
1 Like
Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
I’ll just repeat my position on this:
We should just go back to paper. Solves all the problems. Trees are renewable. Paper is recyclable. (Or compostable.)
As far as I am concerned, the move to plastic caused more problems than it solved. Ban them. Go back to paper. I really wish they would.
And rather than make paper out of tree pulp, consider using hemp.
Advances in cellulose based plastics are looking good. Plastic that composts (i.e. rots) doesn’t last forever and make islands in the ocean.
Also, AFAIK, the problem with plastic bags is the disposal. Manufacture doesn’t put more carbon in the atmosphere. Transporting them does, but changing material doesn’t address that issue, we are still working with a culture where everything we own came from a great distance away.
This is the same government who has a million people of their citizens locked up in concentration camps, one of biggest abusers of human rights, communists, protector of N.K., biggest coal producers. I don’t have any trust in them like I said they have been saying one thing but doing another for quiet sometime. Why anyone thinks they will follow through on this pledge when they didn’t any of the others is blind naive hope.
They constantly lie what is different this time?
