Time out for women tote bag 201611/8/2023 They’re given away with purchases at galleries, bookstores, eyeglass boutiques, grocers, tattoo parlors. He notes that because the bags are large, flat, and easily printed on, they’re great for embellishment and product placement. Siegel identifies designers as particular culprits in the oversaturation of tote bags. Fuel economy and emissions standards for cars and trucks are considered, barely, but not those of oil tankers, container ships, military escapades, which can produce tens of millions of times the amount of carbon. Biodegradable plastics proliferate as single-use containers and utensils, greenly filling the demand for disposable goods rather than questioning it. Studies show that Kenya-grown roses flown to England have a lower carbon footprint than those grown and shipped from Holland, that it’s less ecologically damaging for Americans east of the Mississippi to import wine from France than from California. Conscientiously piled garbage overflows from public trashcans to rot in the street. Meat eaters decry the water usage demands of almond groves. This low-grade, unfocused mania for averting impending ecological disaster seems to be more harmful than helpful, which is a problem throughout popular environmentalism. Their abundance encourages consumers to see them as disposable, defeating their very purpose. Because of their ubiquity, tote bags that have been used very little (or not at all) can be found piled on curbs, tossed in trashcans in city parks, in dumpsters, everywhere. Like plastic sacks, tote bags, too, now seem essentially unending. In a 2009 article about the bags for Design Observer, the Urban Outfitters designer Dmitri Siegel claimed to have found 23 tote bags in his house, collected from various organizations, stores, and brands. Totes are handed out as promotional gifts by nonprofits and businesses, a gesture that sends contradictory messages: one of conscientious consumption, another of conspicuous consumption. Designers have latched onto the form and increased its stylishness. Many stores offer inexpensive (or even free) reusable bags at the register, stamped with logos. (Although they weren’t included in the study, one can presume that designer totes, made with leather adornments, metal, and so on drive the required number of uses into basically astronomical numbers.) Their abundance encourages consumers to see them as disposable, defeating their very purpose.Īs the esteem of its environmental benefit has fallen, the tote has simultaneously grown in stature and ubiquity. Tote bags made from recycled polypropylene plastic require 26, and cotton tote bags require 327 uses. For paper bags, seven uses would be needed to achieve the same per-use ratio. The UKEA study calculated an expenditure of a little less than two kilograms of carbon per HDPE bag. And they remain, long after their usefulness is exhausted. For all those reasons, they’re ubiquitous. They produce less carbon, waste, and byproducts than cotton or paper bags. But even though they don’t easily degrade, they require very few resources to manufacture and transport. They lodge in trees, catch in the esophagi of animals, fester in landfills, clot cities, and are reduced to small particles floating in ocean gyres-for hundreds of years into the future. Such results feel deeply counterintuitive. Cotton tote bags, by contrast, exhibited the highest and most severe global-warming potential by far since they require more resources to produce and distribute. Conventional plastic bags made from high-density polyethylene (HDPE, the plastic sacks found at grocery stores) had the smallest per-use environmental impact of all those tested. Surprisingly, the authors found that in typical patterns of use and disposal, consumers seeking to minimize pollution and carbon emissions should use plastic grocery bags and then reuse those bags at least once-as trash-can liners or for other secondary tasks. In 2008, the UK Environment Agency (UKEA) published a study of resource expenditures for various bags: paper, plastic, canvas, and recycled-polypropylene tote bags. Bag-recycling programs have been introduced nationwide.īut canvas bags might actually be worse for the environment than the plastic ones they are meant to replace. Many businesses have stopped offering plastic sacks, or provide them for a modest but punitive price. Municipalities across the country have moved to restrict the consumption of plastic shopping bags to avoid waste. Disposable bags, on the other hand, are dangerous. Reusable bags are good, we’re told, because they’re friendly for the environment. For at least a few decades, Americans have been drilled in the superiority of tote bags.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |