[skrebbel]

> American Recyclable Plastic Bag Alliance

This is a lobby group. Their goal is to produce and sell as much plastic as they can. The more people reuse plastic bags, the less money they make. Their argument is worth as much as that of the tobacco lobby. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong, just that they sure won’t quote any ideas or statistics in favour of reuse.

Don’t forget, folks: “recyclable” is an extremely low bar. Most things are recyclable. But many recyclable products are still so expensive (and energy-hungry) to actually recycle that the term is borderline meaningless.

Reuse trumps recyclable by a wide margin and anybody telling you otherwise is either working in a very narrow set of industries (eg paper) or malicious.

[devoutsalsa]

Lobbying groups are important. Great work was done by the National Frozen Pizza Institute to educate us all on the health benefits of eating frozen pizza => https://web.archive.org/web/20120704101823/http://www.frozen...

[paulmd]

Very healthy except for 6-8th graders, you mean

[up2isomorphism]

Can we get to the fact without first pointing out they are your dislike? This is a very bad argument and gets you no where.

In this case, which part of the statement in the above claim is not true?

[hn_throwaway_99]

It's not really about the claim being "true" or "untrue". It's about being clear from the outset, based on their obvious conflicts of interests, that this organization is only going to report on study outcomes that benefit their perspective, even if they are true. For example, given all the evidence I've seen on this topic, I believe all of the following are highly likely to be true:

1. Disposable plastic bag bans significantly reduce plastic bag litter and its effects on urban quality of life and the environment.

2. Most reusable plastics bags are only used once or few times before they are discarded.

3. Given #2, the amount of fossil fuels used to produce the reusable bags makes them a net negative in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

The basic problem with all discourse these days is that depending on your "side", you only talk about the items that benefit your viewpoint. American Recyclable Plastic Bag Alliance only talks about #2 and #3. At least the group referenced in the original article agrees that the current situation leads to more plastic being generated and should be corrected:

“Grocery stores, restaurants and retail shops should not be permitted to distribute plastic film bags of any thickness at checkout. Stores should be required to charge a fee of at least 10 cents for single-use paper bags. A 10-cent paper bag fee will limit the expected increase in paper bag use after a bag ban is imposed and may even reduce paper bag consumption altogether.”

[up2isomorphism]

It doesn’t matter nearly as much as you think where they are coming from as long as yourself follows on logic and facts. Almost every one in such a discussion is biased. You can still point out what they ignored or misled than merely stating a universal argument when you disagree.

[swells34]

The point isn't that the original commenter doesn't like them, it's that this is a lobbying group. As such, they have no credibility on this topic. So, in any discussion involving them, everything they say needs to be looked at as a ploy in support of their agenda, because it is their job to do that. To treat their word the same as anyone else's on this topic would be very stupid.

[lolinder]

Pointing out that research was paid for by an organization that has an inherent conflict of interest is an extremely valid argument. It doesn't necessarily mean that the research was biased or shoddy, but it absolutely should cause us to take their conclusions with a healthy helping of salt.

[up2isomorphism]

You will still need to point out the actual ignored facts or false claim to substantiate the bias claim, otherwise it is an extremely cheap argument that everyone else could use the same argument as most people represent some interest group.