This was written “with tongue partly in cheek,” but despite that, where it counts it is factual and accurate.

Question 1: Are paper bags better than plastic bags, ecologically?

Answer: Absolutely not. They do more damage in almost every way. They destroy trees which eat carbon dioxide. You get about 1400 paper bags from a single tree. Plastic removes no trees. It takes more than four times as much energy to manufacture a paper bag than a plastic bag, which means a much bigger carbon footprint per bag in manufacture. The chemicals used in paper production contribute to acid rain and water pollution. Paper bags generate 70% more air pollutants and 5000% more water pollutants than plastic bags. Additionally, it takes 91% less energy to recycle equivalent weights of plastic than paper. Paper isn’t even much more degradable in landfills.

This, of course, is why China, Rwanda, Eritrea, South Africa and the city of San Francisco have banned the use of plastic bags in retail.

Question 2: What can we do to save the polar bears?

Answer: Collect plastic bags and recycle them so they can be made into large reinforced polystyrene blocks coated in melamine. We can then set these blocks floating in the Arctic Ocean. When the ice disappears, the polar bears will have something to scramble on to when they get tired of swimming. They’ll be able to sit there and sun themselves as they snack on baby seal pups and wave to the passing whales.

This green idea would work extremely well if cities, and even whole countries, didn’t keep banning the use of plastic bags.

Question 3: Is methane (CH4) worse than carbon dioxide (CO2)?

Yes it’s fifty times as bad. It’s so bad that nowadays eco-responsible people regard “methane” as a cuss word. They breathe in deeply whenever they use the M word. Currently, the Earth’s crust contains huge amounts of methane. Large amounts of methane are produced anaerobically by methanogenesis. Other sources of methane include mud volcanoes, which are connected with deep geological faults and cows, which are connected with hamburgers.

Question 4: So should I eat hamburgers?

What? Are you kidding? Hamburgers are a complete disaster - except when served in a sesame seed bun with white onions, a tomato slice, jalapenos and cheddar cheese that knows how to melt properly. Nevertheless, even if you can get hamburgers made this way (hint: try Poodies Hilltop Bar and Grill, a honky tonk on rt 71 to the west of Austin) you might like to reflect on the fact that:

While they are preparing to be hamburgers, cows chew grass all day or eat animal feed grown on fields that could have been growing wheat, soya bean or anything that can be made into ethanol. While chewing grass all day they emit methane, which is not only rude, but also a greenhouse gas. They have to be taken to the slaughterhouses via train or truck, because the days of Rawhide are long gone and nowadays cowboys spend all their time at rodeos riding bulls. Once dead and packed, more greenhouse gases are pumped into the atmosphere as the meat is distributed across the US to steak houses and burger joints

According to someone who’s spent an awful lot of time with a calculator, the carbon footprint of all the hamburgers eaten in the US is about equivalent to the carbon foot-print of all the gas-guzzling SUVs that are driven in the US (click here for the details). So stop eating hamburgers (except those referred to above from Poodie’s).

«- 1 2 -»