Profile image
By Moonbattery (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

Reusable Grocery Bags Are a Menace to the Environment

Wednesday, November 2, 2016 7:37
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

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.

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.


We encourage you to Share our Reports, Analyses, Breaking News and Videos. Simply Click your Favorite Social Media Button and Share.

Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Top Global

Top Alternative



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.