Survey Research Unit: Plastic Bags and the Environment
Assignment: Read the following sources carefully. Take a position that defends or challenges the assertion that
because of its negative affect on the environment, the use of plastic bags should be banned.
Refer to the sources to support your position. Avoid mere plagiarism or summary. Your argument should be central.
The sources should support or defend this argument. Refer to the sources as Source A, Source B, etc…
Source A: Berton, Justin. ―Feds Want to Survey, Possibly Clean up Vast Garbage Pit in Pacific‖
Source B: Dunning, Brian. ―The Sargasso Sea and the Pacific Garbage Patch‖
Source C: McNamee, Gregory. ―Plastics and Animals: Making the Wild Safe for Wildlife‖
Source D: Logomasini, Angela. ―The Whole Truth About Plastic Bags‖
Source E: Richardson, Annie. ―Plastic Bags and Oil Consumption‖
Source F: Canadian Plastics Industry. ―Plastic Myth Vs. Reality‖
Source G: Reuse.com. ―Plastic Bags‖
Source H. Plastic Bag Economics.com. ―Plastic Bags: Friend or Foe?‖
Source I: Englehart, Bob. Political Cartoon
Source J: Pritchett, John. ―Albatross Chick. Plastic Again!‖
Source A
Berton, Justin. ―Feds Want to Survey, Possibly Clean up Vast Garbage Pit in Pacific.‖ San Francisco Chronicle.
October 30, 2007 http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-10-30/news/17266687-1-great-pacific-garbage-patch-marine
The so-called Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a stewy body of plastic and marine debris that floats an estimated 1,000
miles west of San Francisco, is a shape-shifting mass far too large, delicate and remote to ever be cleaned up,
according to a researcher who recently returned from the area. But that might not stop the federal government from
trying. Charles Moore, the marine researcher at the Algalita Marina Research Foundation in Long Beach who has
been studying and publicizing the patch for the past 10 years, said the debris - which he estimates weighs 3 million
tons and covers an area twice the size of Texas - is made up mostly of fine plastic chips and is impossible to skim
out of the ocean.
"Any attempt to remove that much plastic from the oceans - it boggles the mind," Moore said from Hawaii,
where his crew is docked. "There's just too much, and the ocean is just too big." The trash collects in one area,
known as the North Pacific Gyre, due to a clockwise trade wind that circulates along the Pacific Rim. It accumulates
the same way bubbles gather at the center of hot tub, Moore said. A two-liter plastic bottle that begins its voyage
from a storm drain in San Francisco will get pulled into the gyre and take weeks to reach its place among the other
debris in the Garbage Patch.
While the bottle floats along, instead of biodegrading, it will "photodegrade," Moore said - the sun's UV
rays will turn the bottle brittle, much like they would crack the vinyl on a car roof. They will break down the bottle
into small pieces and, in some cases, into particles as fine as dust. The Garbage Patch is not a solid island, as some
people believe, Moore said. Instead, it resembles a soupy mass, interspersed with large pieces of junk such as
derelict fishing nets and waterlogged tires - "an alphabet soup," he called it.
Also, it's undetectable by overhead satellite photos because it's 80 percent plastic and therefore translucent,
Moore added. The plastic moves just beneath the surface, from one inch to depths of 300 feet, according to samples
he collected on the most recent trip, he said.
By Moore's estimation, the "floating landfill" is also simply too far from land to conduct any meaningful
cleanup operation. It's about 1,000 miles west of California and 1,000 miles north of the Hawaiian Islands - a week's
journey by boat from the nearest port. It swirls in a convergence zone located about 30 to 40 degrees north latitude
and 135 to 145 west longitude.
There's no doubt that a stew of marine debris exists in the convergence zone of the gyre, said Holly
Bamford, an oceanographer and director of the marine debris program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, but there is some debate as to its size.
Moore has led most of the research and publicity surrounding the Garbage Patch, so Bamford said her
federal agency, which oversees ocean conditions, is collecting its own data to assess the area and density. Bamford
said she has noted some "gaps in the research" that suggest the affected area is not as large as Moore estimates. Yet
there's no question that marine debris is gathering in the area and is having a negative impact on marine life, such as
fish who mistake the particles for food. "But before we embark on a huge removal process," Bamford said, "we need
1
to understand what we're dealing with." Bamford added that the agency had attempted to take satellite photos of the
area last year, but the overhead photos were inconclusive. "It's hard to distinguish a whale reaching the surface
versus a piece of plastic," she said.
Still, Bamford said the agency is considering flying unmanned aircraft that can be launched from boats to
skim the ocean's surface and collect data. But launching the drones is 18 months away, Bamford said. It could be
two years before a federal plan is enacted to remove the plastic - if it's warranted, Bamford said. "Once we get to
that stage, we'd need to ask, 'If we can remove it, what would be the best way? And what would we do with it
afterward? If we collect it, would we bring it back to shore - and then what, put it in a landfill?' "
In the meantime, as the production and the use of plastic continue to grow, so will the Garbage Patch,
Moore said. The only way to reduce marine debris, all sides agree, is to cut it off at its source - on land.
The dramatic growth in plastics use over the past two decades is what distresses activists like Moore. The annual
production of plastic resin in the United States has roughly doubled in the past 20 years, from nearly 60 billion
pounds in 1987 to an estimated 120 billion pounds in 2007, according to a study by the American Chemistry
Council, which represents the nation's largest plastic and chemical manufacturers.
Keith Cristman, a senior director of packaging at the American Chemistry Council, said the plastics
industry is aware of its connection to marine debris and said the council is working with federal and state agencies to
put more recycling bins on California beaches in an attempt to stop plastic bottles and bags from making their way
to the sea.
At the end of November, Cristman said, the council is co-sponsoring its first marine debris workshop with
state and federal agencies. Cristman said he'd rather see more plastic recycled than production slowed. "Plastic is a
valuable resource," he said. "It shouldn't be wasted, it should be recycled." Asked if the council would assist in any
cleanup of the Garbage Patch if the federal government called on it, Cristman said, "We're always interested in
working with NOAA and the EPA."
Moore said his crew had collected new data that suggested more plastic is entering the gyre, yet he was
hesitant to elaborate until he finalized the research.
"The ocean is downhill from everywhere," Moore said. "It's like a toilet that never flushes. You can't take
these particles out of the ocean. You can just stop putting them in."
Source B
Dunning, Brian. "The Sargasso Sea and the Pacific Garbage Patch." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 16
Dec 2008. Web. 18 Mar 2010.
The Pacific Garbage Patch
If we look at the center of the North Pacific Ocean, we see a phenomenon that is due to vortex suction — the Pacific
Trash Vortex, also called the Pacific Garbage Patch. One guy emailed me that he'd looked for it on Google Earth;
he'd heard there was a giant island of solid floating garbage twice the size of Texas in the middle of the Pacific
Ocean. The North Pacific Gyre is a clockwise rotation of ocean currents in the North Pacific. Wind and currents
combine to drive floating matter toward its center. You might have heard of the Pacific Garbage Patch before, and
are probably just now wondering why you've never seen any photographs of a giant island of trash. In fact, Hawaii is
right in the center of the Gyre, and if there were a Pacific Garbage Patch, Hawaii would be in its exact center. The
answer is simple: No such floating island of trash exists. Despite the fact that there is a huge amount of plastic waste
in the Pacific Ocean, and despite the fact that the Gyre does drive it all toward the center, there is no floating island.
How do we corroborate these two seemingly mutually exclusive facts?
One proposed explanation, put forward in a map created by Greenpeace, shows the garbage patch as two
separate patches on either side of Hawaii, both well clear of it; thus nobody ever sees them. The map also gets East
and West reversed, and is dramatically wrong in its depiction of ocean currents, splitting the North Pacific into two
counter rotating swirls, instead of one big one like it actually is. In 1988, Robert Day, David Shaw, and Steven
Ignell submitted a report to NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) detailing the results of four
years of sample collection and analysis of plastic fragments found floating in the Pacific Ocean. They found
concentrations highest in the North Pacific Gyre. The authors cited wind and currents as the primary force driving
the higher concentrations to the center of the Gyre. Concentrations of what? Number one, monofilament fishing line
fragments; and number two, something called neuston plastic. Neuston plastic refers to particles that have been
broken down to microscopic size. Most plastic floating in the open ocean degrades quite quickly, due primarily to
ultraviolet radiation. It becomes brittle and crumbles. When it reaches microscopic size, it competes with
phytoplankton as a food source for zooplankton, and enters the food chain. That's not good for anyone. The authors
used 203 sample stations, each about 450 square meters in size. 52.2% of these contained plastic fragments. Got
that? Only half of NOAA's football-field sized sample areas, in the center of the densest part of the Pacific "Garbage
Patch", contain even detectable levels of microscopic plastic. Unacceptable to be sure; but hardly a solid island.
2
The reason is that getting to the center of the Gyre takes more than enough time for plastic to break down.
Oceanographer and sailor Charles Moore estimates that garbage from Asia takes about one year to reach the Gyre,
and about five years from the United States. Moore is largely responsible for bringing the issue into the public eye.
Upon his return voyage from the 1997 Transpac ocean race from California to Hawaii, he wrote: There were
shampoo caps and soap bottles and plastic bags and fishing floats as far as I could see. Here I was in the middle of
the ocean, and there was nowhere I could go to avoid the plastic.
Although Moore is doing important work, some of his more overly dramatic descriptions like this one have
helped to launch the popular belief in Texas sized garbage patches. Bringing attention to the issue is good;
presenting an overdramatized representation of the facts to do so, not so much. Now, I'm not here to defend the
dumping of trash at sea, which is the default criticism I'm going to receive for pointing out that there is no Texas-
sized island of trash surrounding Hawaii. I remember once while sailing from Newport Beach to Cabo San Lucas,
about 100 miles offshore we crossed the path of a cruise ship that had passed in the night. It actually left a visible
path: mainly an oil slick, dotted with party balloons, plastic cups, and other junk. Very nice. I also remember the
first time I saw a garbage scow being towed out to sea, loaded with an acre of trash, to be dumped. I grabbed a
marine chart and saw there was actually a marked area offshore designated for such dumping. I couldn't believe it.
So while I do have opinions on the subject, on Skeptoid we focus on the truth of the stories about huge islands of
trash floating in the middle of the Pacific. And the truth is there isn't one.
Source C (excerpted)
McNamee, Gregory. ―Plastic Bags and Animals: Making the Wild Safe for Wildlife.‖ Encyclopedia Britannica
online. 8 December, 2008. http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2008/12/plastic-bags-and-animals-
making-the-wild-safe-for-wildlife/
The news comes with depressing regularity. A whale dies in an urban harbor and, on being autopsied,
reveals a stomach full of plastic, the most abundant detritus of civilization. Remarks a British marine biologist, ―We
have recorded plastic bags in the Bay of Biscay [in western Europe] over 120 miles from shore in waters over 4,000
meters in depth. Beaked whale species in particular are highly susceptible to swallowing plastic bags as they are
believed to strongly resemble their target prey, squid. Other species of large whales, which take large mouthfuls of
water during feeding, also take in plastic bags by accident and hence are also at risk.‖ Elsewhere, a flamingo
strangles itself on a bag, unable to twist its way out of the entangling plastic. A platypus suffers deep cuts from a
plastic bag entwined around its body, while a pelican dies after consuming plastic bags while diving for fish. Calves,
turtles, dolphins, seals—the list of victims goes on. Another scientist has recorded 170 kinds of land animals and
birds injured by plastics washed up on British beaches, joining myriad aquatic species who suffer the effects of
discarded bags in the environment.
The bad news continues. In November 2008 in Australia, a 10-foot-long crocodile tagged as part of a
government wildlife-tracking program turned up dead, having consumed 25 plastic shopping and garbage bags.
Whitey, as the crocodile was dubbed, had been relocated to a popular tourist destination called Magnetic Island, and
authorities at first feared that he had died as a result of eating garbage left behind by visitors. Said Keith Williams of
the group Australian Seabird Rescue, however, ―Whitey probably was picking up plastic long before [being
moved].‖
Plastics take hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of years to break down in most environments, such that it
is not a stretch to imagine a single bag killing more than one animal over a very long lifetime on land and sea. And
while the statistics are incomplete, some conservationists estimate that at least 100,000 mammals and birds die from
them each year, felled by the estimated 500 billion and more plastic bags that are produced and consumed around
the world; the numbers of fish killed by them are unknown, but they are sure to number in the millions.
Word of that devastation is spreading, and countries around the world have taken measures to limit or ban
the use of throwaway plastic bags. The first to do so was Bangladesh, which banned plastic bags in 2002; following
a particularly damaging typhoon, authorities discovered that millions of bags were clogging the country’s system of
flood drains, contributing to the destruction. In the same year, Ireland took another approach and instituted a steep
tax on plastics. According to the country’s Ministry of Environment, use fell by 90 percent as a result, and the tax
money that was generated funded a greatly expanded recycling program throughout the country. In 2003 the
government of Taiwan put in place a system by which bags were no longer made available in markets without
charge, and carryout restaurants were even required to charge for plastic utensils.
Larger economies have joined the cause. Australia has called for a voluntary ban, and thus far consumption
of the bags has fallen markedly as 90 percent of the country’s retailers have signed on to the program. In 2005,
French legislators imposed a ban on all nonbiodegradable plastic bags, to go into effect in 2010. Italy will also ban
them that year, and China has already prohibited bags less than 0.025 millimeters thick. ―Our country consumes a
huge amount of plastic shopping bags each year,‖ a spokesperson for China’s State Council said on announcing the
3
ban last May. ―While plastic shopping bags provide convenience to consumers, this has caused a serious waste of
energy and resources and environmental pollution because of excessive usage, inadequate recycling and other
reasons.‖
In the United States, however, measures to ban or curtail the use of plastic bags have met with official
resistance. With its powerful lobby, the plastics industry argues that jobs will disappear—and the industry employs
some two million workers, at least in good times—if the trade in plastic bags is reduced. But these are not good
times, bans or no, and critics point out that Americans alone throw out at least 100 billion bags a year, the equivalent
of throwing away 12 million gallons of oil, which seems an intolerable waste.
Could the plastic grocery bag one day be a relic, like the eight-track tape and the Model A? Given current
trends, it seems a very real possibility—and that is a most welcome development for wildlife around the world.
Source D
Logomasini, Angela. "The Whole Truth about Plastic Bags | Competitive Enterprise Institute."Competitive Enterprise
Institute. 18 Apr. 2008. Web. .
Starting this Earth Day, the supermarket Whole Foods will no longer offer plastic bags. Ostensibly, the
move will help "save the environment," but the alleged benefits of alternative paper bags over plastic are not clear.
Plastic has many overlooked benefits - many of them environmental.
For Whole Foods, the switch to paper supposedly meets their customer demands for greener businesses.
But why does Whole Foods need to remove the products entirely rather than continue to give consumers a choice at
the checkout? Given the option, some of Whole Foods' loyal customers might still chose plastic - and for good
reasons.
Plastics are lightweight, durable, reusable, and easier to carry. For those "environmentally" conscious
consumers who walk to the grocery, the durability plastic makes even more sense as plastics don't fall apart easily -
not even in the rain! Plastic is also much less likely to carry cockroaches into your home, which can be a problem
with paper bags. Common to supermarkets, cockroaches feed on the glue in paper bags and easily can hide in the
crevices of paper bag.
Then there is the issue of energy. Believe it or not, plastic bags are incredibly energy efficient. This very
green attribute is probably the main reason they were winning in the marketplace to begin with - because lower
energy costs mean lower costs for supermarkets and everyone else. Studies have shown that paper bags require as
much as 40 times more energy to make and transport, which is reflected in their price.
It might be true that paper bags are more recyclable. However, that does not necessarily make them
greener. For one thing, recycling doesn't always save resources because it is easy to use more energy and water and
produce more pollutants recycling a product than you save recycling. In any case, "recyclable" is not the same thing
as "recycled." Many paper bags still end up in the landfill.
In any case, worrying about landfill space isn't worth your time either. Landfill space is plentiful despite
what claims have been made to the contrary. In the 1990s, greens said we would run out of landfill space in five
years, professor Clark Wiseman of Gonzaga University pointed out that, given projected waste increases, we would
still be able to fit the next 1,000 years of trash in a single landfill 120 feet deep, with 44-mile sides.
Wiseman's point is clear: land disposal needs are small compared with the land available in the 3 million square
miles of the contiguous United States. And while there has been some political wrangling over where to place
landfills, enough are sited anyway. There is no landfill shortage.
But - you may still ask - isn't paper better because it decomposes in landfill? Nope. Nothing really
decomposes in a modern sanitary landfill because air and light are kept out. In a hundred years, we could probably
mine the old waste if we needed it! Researchers at the University of Arizona showed back in the 1990s that landfills
preserved the waste so well that they found perfectly intact 20-plus year old newspapers, hot dogs, and even lettuce!
What about the risks of chemicals leaking out of landfills? Doesn't paper leach less dangerous substances than
plastic bags? Nope. Since most things don't decay much, there isn't much leaching. In fact, the risk of landfills
causing health problems is slim to none.
According to one study conducted by academic researchers Kenneth Clinton and Jennifer Chilton modern
sanitary landfills pose a theoretical one in 10 billion risk of cancer for someone exposed to the chemicals for 70
4
years. This risk levels is so low is it unfathomable, especially when you compare it to the much higher risks
associated with things we consider relatively safe every day life.
For example, smoking 1.4 cigarettes during one year, traveling 300 miles by car, traveling 10 miles on a
bicycle, living two days in Boston, and eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter over a year's time all pose a
theoretical risk of one in a million - making these relatively safe activities far more dangerous than depositing
anything in a modern landfill.
It's a free country, and Whole Foods can do what it wants. But that doesn't mean all its shoppers will be
happy or that the environment will be any better off.
Source E
Richardson, Annie. ―Plastic Bags and Oil Consumption..‖ Wordpress blog. 16 July, 2008.
http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/plastic-bags-and-oil consumption/
Plastic bags are made from oil: it takes about 430,000 gallons of oil to produce 100 million plastic bags, and
the U.S. goes through 380 billion of them a year.
A statistics class at Indiana U did the math: more than 1.6 billion gallons of oil are used each year for
plastic bags alone. The more we use plastic bags, the more we waste oil.
Compounding the problem is the fact that, not only do we make tons of plastic bags (and use lots of oil in
the process) we only recycle 1 percent. One lousy percent. It’s pitiful.
But the plastic problem gets worse. Under perfect conditions a bag takes a thousand years to biodegrade,
and in a landfill, plastic bags decompose even slower. If buried, they block the natural flow of oxygen and water
through the soil. If burned, they release dangerous toxins and carcinogens into the air. The damage is even more
severe when the bags end up in the ocean, where thousands of sea turtles and other marine life die each year after
mistaking plastic bags for food.
Plastic bag litter has become such an environmental dilemma that Ireland, Taiwan, South Africa, Australia,
and Bangladesh have heavily taxed plastic bags or banned their use outright. How’s it working for them? In 2001,
Ireland consumed 1.2 billion plastic bags, or 316 per person. A plastic bag consumption tax, 37 cents per bag,
introduced in 2002 reduced consumption by 90%! Approximately 18,000,000 liters of oil have been saved due to
this reduced production. An outright ban in China is expected to save that country 37 million barrels of oil each
year.
How’s the idea of reducing plastic bags and saving millions of barrels of oil working for us? In March
2007, San Francisco became the first city in the US to ban plastic bags in retail stores. Before the ban, San Francisco
used 180 million plastic bags per year. The ban cut the city’s plastic bag use by five million each month. Other US
cities are considering implementing a similar ban or tax but we have a long way to go. In the meantime, we can all
make a difference by bringing a reusable bag or box along when we shop. It’s easy, effective and just may influence
someone else to do the same.
Source F
―Myths Vs. Reality.‖ Canadian Plastics Industry. 10 March, 2010. http://www.plastics.ca/Recycling/PlasticBags/
MythsVsReality/index.php
Myth: Plastic shopping bags are a large component of litter.
Reality: Plastic shopping bags are NOT a major component of litter.
Studies of Greater Toronto Area communities (City of Toronto, York, Durham and Peel Regions) show plastic
shopping bags account for less than one per cent of urban litter. In Peel Region, of 4,363 large litter items, only three
were plastic shopping bags (.07%) and in the City of Toronto, of 5,243 large items only 11 plastic shopping bags
were found (.2%).
Myth: Plastic shopping bags are a large component of landfills.
Reality: Plastic shopping bags make up a very small proportion of landfill.
If all plastic bags used in Canada went to landfill, they would make up less than one per cent of residential solid
waste by weight. Organic food accounts for 34 per cent and papers products 16-30 per cent.
5
Myth: Degradable plastic shopping bags will solve our litter problems. Reality: Public education is the
solution. Litter is pervasive involving many materials and products. Plastic shopping bags are a minor
component of litter. Audit studies show that plastic shopping bags account for less than one per cent of urban
litter. Education, as well as responsible use and disposal of materials and products, is fundamental to anti-littering.
Myth: Degradable plastic shopping bags in landfill are good for the environment.
Reality: Any type of degradable materials in landfill could do more harm than good.
By decomposing, biodegradables in landfill release leachates into groundwater and methane into the atmosphere – a
potent greenhouse gas that traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide. This will make
Canada’s efforts to combat climate change and meet our Kyoto commitments even more difficult. In fact, countries
around the world are restricting the amount of biodegradable material going to landfill sites.
Independent waste audit studies show that 50 per cent of plastic shopping bags are reused for waste going to landfill.
These bags, if made biodegradable, will likely decompose – when the objective is to reduce the amount of
biodegradable materials in landfill.
Myth: Plastic shopping bags are not re-used.
Reality: There is high re-use of plastic shopping bags in Canada.
Plastic shopping bags are commonly reused around the home. Independent research in Canada shows that 40-50 per
cent of plastic shopping bags are reused to contain garbage or to carry recyclables to the curb. In England,
government research shows that 80 per cent of people re-use their bags. Plastic bags are reused as liners for
household wastebaskets, storage, book and lunch bags, and to pick up after pets.
Myth: Plastic shopping bags are not recycled.
Reality: In Canada, 44 per cent of the population (almost 14 million people) has access to plastic bag
recycling through curbside programs, drop-off depots, or at-store bag take-back programs. Recycling across
the country varies depending on geography, population density, distance to markets and collection/processing
systems.
Plastic shopping bags can be recycled into new bags and other durable products, such as plastic lumber for decking,
park benches, picnic tables and waste receptacles. The number of plastic recycling businesses in North America has
nearly tripled over the past several years. Whole new product categories are emerging that use recycled plastic
shopping bags, such as the composite lumber market, which is valued to reach $1.4 billion U.S. by 2007.
Myth: Plastic shopping bags are a waste of resources.
Reality: They account for less than one-tenth of one per cent of the hydrocarbon use in Canada and can be
recycled.
The vast majority of hydrocarbons (88%) in Canada are burned as fuel for cars and trucks and to generate heat and
electricity.
Source G
―Plastic Bags‖. Reuse.com. 15 March, 2010 http://www.reusablebags.com/facts.php?id=4
Introduced just over 25 years ago, the ugly truth about our plastic bag addiction is that society's consumption rate is
now estimated at well over 500,000,000,000 (that's 500 billion) plastic bags annually, or almost 1 million per
minute.
Single-use bags made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) are the main culprit. Once brought into
existence to tote your purchases, they'll accumulate and persist on our planet for up to 1,000 years.
Australians alone consume about 6.9 billion plastic bags each year, that's 326 per person. According to
Australia's Department of Environment, an estimated 49,600,000 annually end up as litter.
In 2001, Ireland used 1.2 billion disposable plastic bags, or 316 per person. An extremely successful plastic
bag tax, or PlasTax, introduced in 2002 reduced consumption by 90%.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the U.S. goes through 100 billion plastic shopping bags annually. An
estimated 12 million barrels of oil is required to make that many plastic bags.
Four out of five grocery bags in the US are now plastic.
Plastic bags cause over 100,000 sea turtle and other marine animal deaths every year when animals mistake
them for food.
In a dramatic move to stem a tide of 60,000 metric tons of plastic bag and plastic utensil waste per year,
Taiwan banned both last year.
6
According to the BBC, only 1 in 200 plastic bags in the UK are recycled.
According to the WSJ Target, the second-largest retailer in the U.S., purchases 1.8 billion bags a year.
As part of Clean Up Australia Day, in one day nearly 500,000 plastic bags were collected. Unfortunately,
each year in Australia an estimated 50,000,000 plastic bags end up as litter.
The average family accumulates 60 plastic bags in only four trips to the grocery store.
Each high quality reusable bag you use has the potential to eliminate an average of 1,000 plastic bags over
its lifetime. The bag will pay for itself if your grocery store offers a $.05 or $.10 credit per bag for bringing
your own bags.
Windblown plastic bags are so prevalent in Africa that a cottage industry has sprung up harvesting bags
and using them to weave hats, and even bags. According to the BBC one group harvests 30,000 per month.
Source H
―Plastic Bags: Friend or Foe?‖ Plastic Bag Economics.com 15, March 2010
http://www.plasticbageconomics.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=45
"Paper or plastic?" is a question everyone in American has been asked at least once in their lifetimes. Many people
have debated over what’s better, but economist have a simple answer: plastic. Plastic bags are much more resource
efficient. Plastic bags require much less energy than paper bags to manufacture. An average paper bag takes 2511
BTUs to manufacture, while an average plastic bag takes only 591 BTUs (roplast). This is mainly because it takes
1/8 of the material to make a plastic bag as it does to make a paper bag.
Paper bags also come from trees while plastic do not. This means that the more paper bags are consumed the more
trees are being cut down. Cutting down forests is a huge resource cost. Once the bags are made they still need to be
transported to their final destination. They are transpoted on ships and trucks. Because plastic bags are much thinner
and lighter than paper bags, it would take seven 45 foot trucks to transport the same amount of paper bags as one 45
foot truck of plastic bags. This is a large comparable savings on fuel, congestion and smog caused by the shipping of
the bags. Paper bags are made by heating wood chips in a chemical solution under pressure. These chemicals
produce high amounts of air and water pollution. In fact paper bag production produces 70% more air pollution and
50 times more water pollution than plastic bag production.
Disposing of paper bags is also inferior to plastic bags. The amount of waste by weight is 400% higher with paper
than plastic and the amount of waste by volume is higher by more than 250%. These last two figures are of
considerable importance if either bag ends up in a landfill. Landfills are running low on space and here plastic bags
give much more bang for the buck. Even if we The energy required to recycle is 1444 BTUs for a typical paper bag
while only 17 BTUs for a typical plastic bag. If the bags are not recycled but instead burned, plastic bags release
almost as much energy as oil. Plastic bags release 19,900 BTUs compared to oil's 20,000 BTUs. Paper pails in
comparison with only 8,000 BTUs.
7
Source I
Englehart, Bob. ―No Plastic Bags, Please.‖ The Hartford Courant. 10 May 2007.
http://www.cagle.com/politicalcartoons/pccartoons/archives/englehart.asp?Action=GetImage
Source J
Pritchet, John S. ―Albatross Chick. Plastic Again!‖. "BBC - Devon - Features - Plastic Bags Banned Forever." BBC -
Homepage. Dec.2007. http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/content/articles /2007/11/02/modbury_plastic_bags_forever
_feature.shtml
8