Reusable Grocery Bags Are a Menace to the Environment

Reusable Grocery Bags Are a Menace to the Environment

One method of demonstrating self-righteous moonbattery to the world is to use a bacteria-infested reusable tote bag at the grocery store instead of paper or plastic. No one will mistake the symbolic rectitude — although according to the moonbats at Alternet, the reusable bags are actually worse for the environment unless you use them many, many times:

In a U.K. Environment Agency study, researchers crunched the environmental tally of various carrier bags such as the standard high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic bag you’d get from the supermarket, as well as paper, cotton and recycled-polypropylene bags. …

All told, as Business Insider noted from the UKEA study, a conventional plastic bag has a total carbon footprint of only 3.48 lbs.—compared to the whopping 598.6 lbs. emitted by a cotton bag.

If we pretend to believe in “carbon footprint” B.S. for the sake of argument, that means you have to use a cotton bag 172 times before it is less environmentally sinful than a vastly more hygienic plastic bag. By then the handles will have torn off and the food will be falling out the holes in the bottom.

Trending: The 15 Best Conservative News Sites On The Internet

The story stays ridiculous but gets less funny:

According to the World Wildlife Fund, cotton crops account for 24 percent of the global market for insecticides and 11 percent for pesticides. In 1995, contaminated run-off from cotton fields killed more than 240,000 fish in Alabama alone.

Those who wear cotton clothes murder innocent fish (a.k.a. “sea kittens”) in Alabama.

Cotton is also incredibly thirsty. “It can take more than 20,000 litres of water to produce 1kg of cotton; equivalent to a single T-shirt and pair of jeans,” the WWF says. Cotton isn’t even regularly recycled—at least many grocery stores have plastic bag recycling bins.

Lefties regard water as a nonrenewable resource, evidently unaware that the water we consume has been consumed before and will be consumed again.

They will demonize most anything, then try to restrict our access to it. If salt could be a “public health threat” to be targeted with repressive regulation, why couldn’t they proclaim cotton to be a crime against the environment?

Then there is the slavery connection. Cotton is wrong.

On a tip from R F. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!