Figure 2.2
Paper or plastic—the eternal question.
Because even the experts can’t agree. The ubiquitous question asked of shoppers by grocery baggers has been turned around in the past few years as it pertains to environmental choices. These are exceedingly simple options, most often comprising one part and fairly simple manufacturing processes. Their function, too, is incredibly simple and obvious in almost all cases. This makes it an easy question to start with. Let’s look at the pros and cons of each.
| Paper | Plastic | |
| Pros | Made from a renewable resource (trees) Biodegradable | Much lighter than paper bag Despite being made from fossil fuels, uses considerably less material and releases significantly less greenhouse gas in the manufacturing and transportation |
| Cons | Trees are renewable only if replanted and carefully managed Biodegradable only if not put in a landfill (basically, nothing in a land fill ever degrades) | Made from fossil fuels |
One camp contends that paper bags are better because they’re biodegradable and don’t rely solely on petroleum products for their manufacture. They also claim that paper bags don’t pose as much of a danger to wildfire (which turns out not to be much of a problem, in actuality[3]). So paper bags must be better.
Which bag is better for the environment, paper or plastic?
However, the other side claims that plastic bags are better than paper because they weigh so much less per bag that the gasoline and diesel burned to move them around (from the factory where they’re made to the stores where they’re used to your car taking your groceries home) save so much in emissions of carbon dioxide that they more than make up for the oil used to make the plastic. In addition, the production of paper bags generates 70 percent more air pollutants and 50 times more water pollutants than does the production of plastic bags because four times as much energy is needed to produce paper bags, and 85 times as much is needed to recycle them. Okay, then plastic bags must be better.
Unfortunately, both sides are correct.
But how can this be? One has to be better than the other, right?
This is one of the problems with sustainability. The issues are so complex and interconnected that even the experts are having difficulty coming to conclusions. Customers simply want to know which is the better product to buy. Most are, overwhelmingly, interested in buying products that support their values. However, we can’t give them the information they desire because we don’t yet know it ourselves.
There may be an even better answer, though. How about no bag? Or a reusable bag?
While some communities, such as the city of San Francisco, have begun to ban plastic bags, there’s no consensus among experts as to which is better. The ones who care most about greenhouse gases contributing to global climate change promote the use of plastic bags simply because their weight is so much less than if we were to add up the miles traveled from manufacturing to store to your car to your home, the resulting fuel and emissions saved alone is drastic over paper bags. In contrast, those promoting paper bags point to paper being biodegradable and sourced from a renewable resource (trees). However, this is true only if the trees felled to make the bags come from well-managed forests and are actually replaced and cared for until adulthood. Likewise, biodegrading waste is preferable to static waste, but people should know that almost nothing degrades in a landfill since it isn’t permeated by water, sunlight, and insects and bacteria that could break down the trash.
The answer isn’t easy. In fact, it’s probably a tie. If the paper bags are composted correctly and not put in a landfill, then they may be a better proposition—especially if they’re reused as many times as possible. However, most bags aren’t composted. So plastic bags, even though it seems less intuitive, may be the better option in the short run, especially as we move to reduce global levels of greenhouse gasses, like carbon dioxide.
There may be an even better answer, though. How about no bag? Or a reusable bag? Many times, stores automatically put purchases in bags, even when they’re not needed (such as when there’s only one item, or when customers already have another bag with them, or when the product itself comes in protective packaging—like an orange). Convenience is important but watching a grocery line for even a few minutes will show the amount of waste in bags that are used unnecessarily.
Dematerialization (see Chapter 5) teaches us that the less we use, the better. So, no bag is often the best answer. This highlights one of the first principles we can rely on for progress: less is often better. However, less is a tricky word. This principle isn’t saying that we should do with less (functionality), but use less material to deliver the same—or even better—performance. That’s the true meaning of less is more.
For a moment, consider another question: “Which is better for the environment, a paper cup or a ceramic mug?”
Finding the point at which one solution is better than another is difficult, especially when it relies on reuse. We can illustrate this with another example. At what point does it make more sense to reuse a ceramic or glass mug than constantly to use paper cups, once each?
Some would answer the ceramic mug, because it can be reused, whereas the paper cup is thrown away after (usually) one use. But ceramic is notoriously energy intensive to create (particularly the firing process). Mugs and glasses require a lot of energy in their creation—much more than a single paper cup.[4] In order to make a fair comparison, we need to measure all sorts of factors, such as how much hot water and soap is used to wash the mugs in between use. Fortunately, someone’s already done this for us, as shown in the following table.[5] The important factor here is number of uses. It would take 70 uses of the ceramic mug to offset the water, energy, and materials used in the production of paper cups. So, for a single use, the paper cup is far better. In fact, for up to 69 uses, the paper cups (all 69 of them) would be better for the environment. But, at the 71st use of a ceramic mug (and everything after that), it would be better for the environment. This requires us, then, to assess where and how drink containers are used. Perhaps, for temporary, transient uses (like on an airplane or for take-out), paper is better after all. However, wherever possible, if mugs can be reused (as in offices, homes, restaurants, and so on), they are better still.
| Paper Cup | Ceramic Mug | Glass |
| 1 use | 71 uses | 37 uses |
The lesson here is that, in order to determine which solution has less impact, we have to take into account how often it is used. Any dematerialization of an existing product may introduce issues that can only be accounted for by addressing repetitive use.
Other, similar, examples include disposable diapers versus reusable cloth diapers, and so on.
My mother (and probably yours as well) cares about the environment and wants to make good decisions when she purchases and uses things. However, like most people, she has neither the time nor the interest in becoming an expert in all of these disciplines just to make decisions in the grocery store. Nor does she have access to the data necessary to make better choices. This creates an important problem: if experts can’t agree or determine,