Talk:Reusable shopping bag

Mergee

Bag for life is a British name and the article describes such bags in use in UK. Babakathy (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC) I agree with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.125.19.37 (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Content Reorganization

I suggest the content for reusable shopping bags use the following Headings: History, Function, Design (integrated handles, folding into its own envelope, belt loop, etc.), Composition (nylon, cotton, hemp fibre, canvas, etc.), Durability ("one less bag", social mores about branding), Management (eventual reuse or recycling of a busted reusable shopping bag), Environmental effects (reduced disposable bag use with known ecosystem impact, increased resource requirements per reusable bag; note that the shopping bag is only the last container in the overall supply chain that can generate a lot of packaging waste.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.67.6.14 (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

American Chemistry Council

It appears much of the information in this article is directly from one of two places. (1) The American Chemistry Council or (2) thetruthaboutplasticbags.com

Many of the claims have no reference in this article other then the self referencing back to these two sites. This article has a ton of problems and smacks of a PR group editing the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.100.144.8 (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Intro

I am not sure what to do about the the statement in the first paragraph "Reusable shopping bags require less natural resources such as oil and less emission of carbon dioxide to produce that plastic bags." Somebody had this written in as the justification of "citation needed": dubious as stated; only re-use makes them less polluting, production of a single bag each is likely the other way round, entered in February of 2011.

I didn't notice this until today, but I agree with them. Only reuse would make the bags environmental impact go down, but initially, the reusable bag uses more resources. The "hope" is that people use them enough to make up the difference, but it doesn't explain that right now. I am going to try to find some stats on this and re-frame this. If anyone has any insights on this, please weigh in. I am going to do my best to clean it up. Jeannetttt76 (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Life Cycle Assessment of Supermarket Carrier Bags Report

The claim that "An unpublished report from the UK's Environment Agency found that, measured by the relative cost to a plastic bag, a canvas or cotton reusable bag would have to be reused a total of 171 times to offset the higher carbon emissions" is sourced to a 2011 newspaper article about an as of then unpublished government report. The report has since been published and the actual numbers are not what the story reported. Moreover, cotton bags were only one type of bag studied in the report. As written, this sentence is at best out of date and inaccurate and at worst intentionally misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomwill2000 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

False. The report claims reuse of a canvas bag at least 131 times to share environmental impact with HDPE one-use. It also claims 327 times if the HDPE bag is reused exactly once, for example as a trash bin liner. Numbers for non-cotton are better, notably 11 or 26 times for a Polypropylene reusable bag. Canvas bags may last 52 uses, while non-woven polypropylene may last much longer. HDPE bags thus remain one of the most environmentally sustainable options in modern use; canvas is one of the worst; and polypropylene potentially a good alternative. --John Moser (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reusable shopping bag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090106140944/http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/YourRubbish/asp/06/Food.aspx to http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/YourRubbish/asp/06/Food.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Soft/flexible plastic recycling in the UK

I made this change [1] since the claim made was uncited and although I don't live in the UK a quick search finds stuff like [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] which suggests the UK is like most of the world and still has limited options when it comes to soft plastic recycling. Most schemes seem to rely on specific pick up points such as at supermarkets rather than kerbside collection. The wording seems to be incorrectly assuming the plastic type means it can be easily recycled, whereas I believe the problem with soft plastics is most machinery etc (including that used for sorting after collection) used for normal recycling cannot handle them, they get stuck and clog the machinery hence they are often not allowed in kerbside collection schemes and also may not be recycled along with bottles made from LDPE (or whatever). [7] A quick look found this was introduced back in 2018 by an IP [8], however I have not reintroduced the text they removed as it was similarly uncited even if it could be partially correct. Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Title

The title of this article has been "Reusable shopping bag". Someone has just changed it to "reusable bag" without any discussion or voting. This was an improper change. There are many types of reusable bags; reusable shopping bags are only one type of reusable bag. Since this article is about reusable shopping bags, the title should be changed back to "reusable shopping bag". Pkgx (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• I agree. Nearly every bag is reusable. This article is about a specific type of bag. I've undone the move. Natureium (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Pkgx and Natureium: As the person who moved the page, I would like to explain my reasoning regarding the move. When a do a search [9], reusable bags almost always refer to shopping bags. I wasn't able to find another use of reusbale bags that are not related to shopping, so I performed the move. I will not move the page at this time. Interstellarity (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree with you. I would also point out that most bags can be used for shopping, just as most are reusable. -- Calidum 18:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I get it now. I never thought about the title that way. Based on the comments above, I think it is best to keep the title at its current location, so I will not an RM. However, if I thought the title should be moved, then I would make an RM and seek a consensus. Interstellarity (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
        • Actually I agree that it is at least worth discussing the title. -- Calidum 19:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Thank you Pkgx (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)