Skip to content

Letter: Columnist picks and chooses facts

Re: B.C. Views ( Gazette , April 11)
11516035_web1_GNG-LettersToEditorHeadGPS

Re: B.C. Views (Gazette, April 11)

Once again I am left ‘filling in the gaps’ for one of Tom Fletcher’s ‘environmental rants’ – this time his “Bag ban may make things worse” column.

Fletcher is correct that substituting a cotton bag for disposable plastic bags requires the cotton bag be used many times before the environmental impact equals that of the disposable plastic bags per use. The 7,100 number from the Danish study he cites is higher than most, which put it at under 1,000, but the point is well taken.

The problem with Fletcher’s take, however, is his usual one; he suffers from binary thinking. The choices are not either a disposable plastic bag or a cotton one. The vast majority of reusable bags out there are made of new or recycled plastics. That same Danish study indicates using those bags only requires reuse between 35 and 84 times (depending on which plastic and manufacturing process) after which their impact will be less than the equivalent number of disposable plastic bags (and, by the way, the researchers assumed each disposable bag gets reused at least once – for trash). However, many bags are just disposed of in the trash, because too many accumulate.

The Danish study mentions the above numbers are based upon the cumulative environmental impact for each bag type. If one’s principle concern is climate change impact, those reusable plastic fabric bags only need two to eight uses before their climate change impact falls below that of disposable plastic bags. Then again, Fletcher doesn’t believe in man-caused climate change.

There’s a pattern in Fletcher’s columns. He picks and chooses his statistics and facts and leaves behind the meaningful ones which disprove his premise thus misleading the reader. In some circles that’s called lying by omission.

Arthur Entlich

Metchosin


Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter