From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: "Paper Or Plastic?"
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:13:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <1992Sep10.162227.11718@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.053947.22838@edsi.plexus.COM> grimmund@edsi.plexus.COM (Grimmund Blackwing) writes:
>>eugene@ksr.com (Eugene Yi-jen Pan) writes:
>>
>>>In article <53056@dime.cs.umass.edu> kim@.cs.umass.edu writes:
 
>>>> Which is better for the environment, paper grocery bags or plastic ones?
 
>>>> I'm a novice environmentalist.

>Although everyone seems to agree that reusable bags are better, the
>argument that plastic is better than paper is based on some assumptions,
>that although correct for many people, may not always apply.

>Since paper bags can be recycled many times until the fibers are not
>reusable, many plastic bags may be thrown out by the time a paper
>one is so that a one-to-one comparison is not appropriate if the
>bags are recycled.

I assume you mean reused by the individual (* grammatical peeve: use
of the word 'individual' to mean person is pompous and silly, unless
you are contrasting against a group) rather than recycled by the
community.

Once it gets into the waste stream, paper is much bulkier than plastic.

Also, we've had convincing arguments here that the production cycle is
far more damaging for paper.

I assure you that I recycle and compost fairly scrupulously,  and
believe this to be A Good Thing. However, I would not lose much sleep over
it if I did not. If the garbage stream were reduced to zero, the world 
would be in very nearly the same amount of trouble it is in, as it would
if the garbage were quadrupled. The main difference would be in the
amount of siting problems the local political system would have to deal
with. Of course, avoiding such problems is fine and decent, but it 
represents no serious impact on the genuine environmental problems 
(assuming that the dumps are well designed and administered).

Most of the serious problems have to be dealt with at a societal level,
imho, but as individuals the most important thing we can do by far
is to limit the number of children we have. Beyond that, limiting
the amount of driving, and heating/cooling of households, and being
careful to properly dispose of toxic materials, are the main impacts
an individual can have. Control of other problems must come from a
societal, probably governmental level, like it or not. I agree with
those of you who are fuming at the mere mention of government that these
controls should be as unintrusive as possible consistent with the safety
and integrity of the planet. Just not more unintrusive than possible.

So our other task as individuals is to learn as much as possible about
the world, learn to separate the BS from the reality, and avoid the
ridiculous extremes of hysteria and complacency that are so common in
the discussions on this newsgroup, so as to be able to support and
implement measures commensurate with the problems. 

One of the extremes is the confusion of everyday trash with serious
toxic waste problems. You are not "saving the world" by giving up on
disposable pens. Our city recycling program is called "PRIDE": People
Recycling in Defense of the Earth. Now _that_ is rubbish.

Habitat loss, biodiversity loss, groundwater pollution, aquifer depletion,
global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain are serious problems. Babbling
nonsense about working nuclear plants being comparable to Chernobyl or
getting all high and mighty about a styrofoam cup only gives ammunition
for those who claim that all such concerns are self-righteous nonsense.


mt
Newsgroups: sci.aquaria