If you are like me, you have 1000 different reusable bags. They are made of all assorted colors, designs, sizes, and materials. You also probably have at least one in every room of your house, a bunch hidden in the closet, and 20 more In the car truck in case you forget. Ok, while this may be an exaggeration, the fact that buying reusable bags as a trend is not an exaggeration.  

So, are reusable bags really better for the environment? 

The short answer is yes, but there are other factors to consider, including manufacturing costs, product lifespan, and time spent in actual use. 

Why are Plastic Bags bad?

Environmental impact 

Plastic bags are from the same source as all plastic: crude oil. Like everything else manufactured from this non-renewable resource, it has two major drawbacks: manufacturing it emits considerable amounts of pollution, and the product is not biodegradable. In other words, it is difficult to produce, and nearly impossible to get rid of once produced. According to the Natural Environment website, 60 to 100 million barrels of oil are required to manufacture a year’s worth of plastic bags worldwide, and it takes approximately 400 years at least for a bag to biodegrade.

Human Impact  

On land, plastic bags are one of the most common types of litter worldwide. Build-ups of plastic bags are notorious for causing blockages of local drainage systems in developing countries. For instance, in the floods in Bangladesh in 1988 and 1998, and frequent flooding in Manila is believed to have been caused by blockages caused by this litter. Plastic bags also pose serious health hazards to populations as over time they leach toxic chemicals into drinking water supplies. 

Plastic bags are hugely difficult to recycle. Many of the plastic bags collected by recycling companies cannot be reused or recycled, and when they don’t end up in the natural environment or a landfill, they are shipped to Asia. There, sweatshop workers pick through the trash looking for plastics that can be melted down and reused there. 

The Animal Impact 

Plastic bags are harming animals by the dozens. Thousands of birds die every year due to ingesting substantial amounts of plastic bag remnants. At least 260 other species of animals are also at risk of ingesting or getting entangled in plastic bags. 

Most marine animals mistake plastic bags for jellyfish and feed on them. Sea turtles are in danger of becoming endangered due to the mass ingestion of plastics. These animals eat so many plastic bags that their stomachs have no room for actual food, leaving them in danger of starvation. 

Other dangers of plastic bags on animals is suffocation and strangulation from becoming caught in plastic bags. Dolphins, seals, sharks, flamingos, seagulls, pelicans, and other animals and birds have been found dead due to getting stuck in plastic bags. 

Another major impact of plastic bags on the environment is that they degrade into smaller pieces and get eaten by aquatic organisms, small fish, and jellyfish. The toxic chemicals from the plastic waste then enters the food chain increasing concentrations as larger fish feed on smaller ones and other animals feed on the fish – including human beings.  

Comparison of Reusable bags and Single-Use Bags 

Before we can get into this, we must talk about how we can compare reusable bags to nonreusable bags in the first place. As this is a debated topic, there are different perspectives we must consider about rating the overall environmental impact of bags.

Here are the main 3 areas and some of the considerations of each: 

1. Production – What is the impact of producing one bag 
   • Energy input 
   • Natural resource use 
   • Transportation 
   • Emissions from manufacturing
2. Use – How use of the product impacts humans or the environment 
   • Impact on human health 
   • Lifespan of the product 
   • Environmental impact of use (if any) 
3. Post Use – How disposal of the product impacts the environment 
   • Pollution of natural environment 
   • Emissions from disposal (gasses from breakdown in landfill or incineration) 
   • Cost of recycling 

In addition, here are some different types of bags we will be discussing. 

Disposable Bags: 

1. Basic Plastic (HDPE) – High Density Polyethylene – this is the lightweight single-use plastic bags you find at almost every grocery store.
2. Paper – Paper bags are less common than plastic bags but can still be found in some stores. They are the original “disposable” bag and are intended for single use.

Reusable Bags:

1. Cotton – These bags are often referred to as “totes”. They are woven from cotton and are build to be reused many times. 
2. Polypropylene – This is one of the most common types of reusable bags now being distributed by retailers. Made from a more durable plastic than the HDPE bag, this reusable bag is build to be reused many times and often has a rigid insert in the bottom for added strength.

Impact of Different Bags 

The environmental impact of 1 bag when looking at the total life. 

Note that this is from a study from 2004, but I found the information to be very clear and well researched!  

Reusable bags require more material and more energy input than disposable bags which gives them a bigger environmental footprint when comparing them 1 to 1. 

For 1 bag we can see that the standard disposable bags (HDPE) has the lowest impact. 

But since the average person uses hundreds of plastic bags every year, we have to consider how many plastic or paper bags you displace by using a reusable bag. 

Note: Cotton bags are not included in this graph. The study states that the global warming potential of cotton bags is more than 10 times the impact of any other bag. 

Break-Even Point?

When does a reusable bag become more environmentally friendly than a disposable bag? 

To be more eco-friendly than a disposable plastic bag you would need to use these alternatives this many times: 

Paper Bags: 4 Times 

Polypropylenes: 14 Times 

Cotton: 173 Times 

Other Important Considerations 

There are many variables to consider when trying to reduce your environmental impact that can affect your decisions. 

Reusing Disposable Bags 

When you reuse plastic bags multiple times (even if you use them as a trashcan liner) that will bring down their environmental impact. When you do not have the option to turn down plastic bags, reusing them is the best way to reduce their impact. Get creative with them and make them last as long as possible! 

Other Materials 

As this study proves, not all bags are made equal. If you can use repurposed or recycled materials to make your own tote, you will reduce your carbon footprint even more. I have seen on Pinterest so many ideas on turning old shirts into bags, so really, there is no excuse! 

Using raw materials will almost always have a larger impact on repurposing existing materials. Before you buy a reusable bag you may want to see if you already have a worthy substitute at home, or if you have a friend who already has too many… 

Too Many Bags? 

Reusable bags are becoming more popular and many brands give them out for free as promotional items. If you start to accumulate reusable bags you can actually increase your environmental impact.  

Remember that the best way to reduce your impact is to use less and reuse as often as possible. 

Key Takeaways 

Ok so this was a lot. I know I learned a lot, and I hope you did too! Here is a little recap if your last brain cell took a nap! 

• Producing 1 plastic bag has a relatively low environmental impact. The impact of this type of disposable bag comes from using so many of them. 
• Paper bags are only more eco-friendly when reused 4 times or more. 
• Polypropylene bags are a good choice when considering a reusable alternative. After only 14 uses this bag is already more eco-friendly than conventional plastic bags. 
• Cotton bags have a surprisingly high environmental impact because of the effort that goes into growing cotton and producing the bags. If you can keep this bag for a long time, it will be more eco-friendly than plastic bags, but it requires over 173 uses to break even. 
• The more times you use a bag, the more environmentally friendly it becomes. Take care of your bags and don’t accumulate more than you need. 

 Sources 

https://sciencing.com/pros-cons-synthetic-polymers-8435350.html  

https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/whats-so-bad-about-plastic-bags/  

https://www.ecofriendlyhabits.com/why-plastic-bags-are-bad-for-the-environment-should-be-banned/  

Fun Fact: This idea came to me last semester during a group project about the environment. My group was just chatting about reusable material and items and the TA started questioning us about our comments. He was asking how we knew it was better for the environment and that it might just be another case of greenwashing. This got me super-heated and I had to research the answer right away. The survey I talked about in this blog is the one I found from that research, and I am glad I got to talk about it again!

 

Ever since I took an environmental course my junior year of high school, I have religiously been doing Meatless Mondays. I have even documented my Monday meals on my Instagram to not only keep me accountable but show my friends how easy it is and that this simple action is doable. Since I live with my family, Meatless Mondays have been adopted by all of them (at least for dinner), which I think is a big step for a meat-eater family. Now in college, I continue with this tradition, and while there are limited options for a vegetarian meal for a picky eater like me, I am dedicated to keeping following through with it. I have even started to influence the friends I eat lunch with to join me on no meat Mondays. 

Now, the real question is why am I doing this? Will eating no meat for only one day a week really have any positive benefits on the environment? Well, let’s find out! 

Brief History:

Surprisingly, the reason for Meatless Monday, or any day of advertised no meat, started over 100 years ago in the United States as an effort to ration food for the war. Then in 2003, Meatless Mondays resurfaced to encourage people to eat less red meat for health reasons. Now in 2021, while there is a multitude of reasons for eating no meat, the biggest factor is an environmental one.  

The Issue: 

Greenhouse gases (GHG) are gases that act as a thermal blanket for the earth, keeping the surface of the Earth warm enough for humans to survive. Over the last century, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased greatly, much of it caused by human activities, primarily burning of fossil fuels (coal, hydrocarbon gas liquids, natural gas, and petroleum) for energy use. Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human activities that have caused increased levels of GHG in the atmosphere. Global GHG emissions come from different sectors, including electricity, transportation, industry and agriculture. While agriculture sector may seem insignificant to other sectors, it should not be overlooked. GHG emissions from agriculture have increased by 10.1 percent since 1990. In 2010 the food system overall emitted an estimated 5.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents, and three-fourths of these emissions were from the production of animal products. Researchers estimate that between 2010 and 2050, in the absence of technological changes and mitigation measures, the environmental impact of the food system could increase by 50 to 92 percent due to a growing population and changing diets. 

Water Use: 

With water scarcity being a global issue, it is important to reduce our water usage whenever we can. It takes a lot of water to produce meat, especially beef, which has the highest water footprint of all foods. The water footprint of any animal-based food is larger than the water footprint of many plant-based foods with similar nutritional values. Considering all stages of production, one kilogram of beef requires nearly 40 times more water compared to the same amount of vegetables. A hamburger made with one quarter pound of beef requires 425 gallons of water to produce. The water use primarily comes from growing feed crops, raising the animals, and waste treatment. Eating a more plant-based diet could decrease agricultural water use by 50 percent. 

Land Use: 

Raising animals for meat, dairy, and egg production requires a significant amount of land, leading to deforestation and the loss of other carbon-sequestering natural lands. Livestock production uses 75 percent of the earth’s agricultural land, primarily for beef and dairy cattle grazing and growing crops for animal feed. Rain forests and other natural lands are also cleared for cattle grazing and feed crop production, which further intensifies the carbon impact of animal production. The meat industry is the most significant driver of land-use change. Approximately 13 billion hectares (50 million square miles) of forest area are cleared for agricultural purposes each year. Shifting to a more plant-based diet could decrease agricultural land use by 80 percent. 

Biodiversity and Species Loss: 

Livestock production is the biggest human contributor to species decline and has led to over 60 percent decline in species populations since 1970. Agricultural activities cause eutrophication, a process whereby excessive algal growth depletes the aquatic oxygen supply, creating what are referred to as “dead zones.” Eutrophication is the leading cause of habitat loss globally. Wide-scale dietary shifts from heavy meat consumption to plant-based diets, would provide benefits for soil health and biodiversity. 

Shifting to a More Plant-Based Diet: 

Reductions in meat consumption can have a profound effect on the environment. A systematic review of potential changes in GHG emissions, land use, and water use from shifting current dietary patterns confirmed the greatest positive impacts of dietary shifts will come from eating less meat from ruminant animals, eating less dairy and meat from other sources, and eating more plant based foods. Another study calculated the impact of following global dietary guidelines for red meat, sugar, fruits, vegetables, and total energy intake and predicted a decrease in GHG emissions by 29 percent compared with 2050 “business as usual” projections. Note how it only says, “dietary guidelines” and not a full vegetarian or vegan diet. One does not need to cut out meat completely for changes to occur, they just need to reduce their consumption. Further replacing most animal products with less GHG-intensive food types (greater amounts of vegetables, fruit, nuts, and legumes) in a flexitarian diet would represent a 52 percent decrease in GHG from what is projected with “business as usual” scenarios. Addressing food waste and technology solutions would reduce GHG emissions even further. 

Meatless Mondays? 

With meat consumption increasing rapidly around the globe, the developed world needs to shift to a more sustainable approach to meat consumption. Meatless Monday is the perfect first step to make this sustainable change. Just as it did for me, it promotes a healthier lifestyle of thinking about your food choices and eating food that has a lower carbon footprint. We don’t need only meat to survive, but if you can’t give up on meat, reducing your consumption of it is also a great start. In the US, substituting meat with plant-based foods one day a week could reduce one person’s diet-related GHG footprint by nearly 5 percent, based on the typical US diet. If 30 percent of the US population practiced Meatless Monday, the overall decrease in diet related GHG emissions for the United States alone would be about 1.5 percent, which is equal to the impact of the estimated number of current vegans and vegetarians! This once again emphasizes the point that we don’t need 100 people eating no meat, but 1,000 people eating less meat! Globally, eliminating meat for one day per week could reduce diet-related GHG emissions by an estimated 1.0 to 1.3 Gigaton (Gt) per year relative to predicted scenarios based on current consumption patterns. Reducing emissions by 1.3 Gt would be equivalent to taking 273 million cars off the road, based on the typical passenger vehicle in the United States, which is equivalent to the number of cars in the US in 2017. 

Conclusion: 

While there is still so much to research on this topic (animal cruelty, health benefits, “fake” meat, etc…), I think it is safe to say eating no meat a day does have an impact. If given the chance, try reducing your own meat consumption and maybe start your own Meatless Monday traditions. The more the merrier! 

Sources:

Environmental Research About Meatless Monday – Meatless Monday. 28 July 2020, www.mondaycampaigns.org/meatless-monday/research/environment#_edn2.

Meat and Climate on Your Plate. Oct. 2019, clf.jhsph.edu/sites/default/files/2019-10/global-meatless-monday-climate_0.pdf.

Parker, Cindy L. Slowing Global Warming: Benefits for Patients and the Planet. 1 Aug. 2011, www.aafp.org/afp/2011/0801/p271.html.

Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 4 Dec. 2020, www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions.

PS: This isn’t related to the blog, but I wanted to let everyone know of my misfortune that when I was halfway through writing this, my computer decided not to save anything for when I opened it the next day… but oh well:’)