The Simplistic and Baseless War on Plastic Bags

From Beaufort, South Carolina to Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and from Jefferson City to Providence, a familiar policy script is playing out in statehouses and city councils across North America: ban the plastic bag, feel virtuous, and declare victory. What rarely follows is honest scrutiny of whether the ban actually helps the environment, or whether it quietly makes things worse while blocking the very technologies that could solve the plastic problem for real.

Let’s start with the bag itself. The war on single-use plastic bags has long been waged on the assumption that they are uniquely destructive and that swapping them for paper is an obvious win. The life-cycle science disagrees. A comprehensive Danish Environment Review found that a paper bag must be reused at least 43 times just to break even with the climate impact of a single plastic bag. Studies have found that the carbon footprint of a paper bag is more than three times higher than a single-use plastic bag. Plastic bags generate 39% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than uncomposted paper bags and 68% fewer than composted ones, and using paper bags generates five times more solid waste than using plastic.

When legislators in Cape Cod or Columbia debate a plastic bag ban, they are not choosing between pollution and cleanliness. They are choosing which environmental costs to impose and then pretending those costs don’t exist.

Paper bags contribute less to the impacts of littering but in most cases carry a larger burden on the climate, eutrophication, and acidification compared to single-use plastic bags. That’s the tradeoff ban advocates never put on the poster. They talk about the bag on the beach but not the acid rain or the deforested hillside that produced its replacement. Environmental policy that ignores inconvenient tradeoffs isn’t environmentalism.

The practical arguments against plastic bags are also weaker than advertised. Recyclers at a Kansas City-area facility who toured their Harrisonville plant with journalists this spring found that plastic bags are a sorting nuisance because they jam equipment and can shut a plant down. However, the facility already has to sort out and throw away about 22% of what it receives, with plastics accounting for just 8–9% of recyclable material. The answer to this contamination challenge is better consumer education and improved collection infrastructure, not blanket bans that shift the problem upstream to the paper mill.

None of this means plastic waste is a fiction. It isn’t. Only about 9% of plastic waste is currently recycled globally. The rest is landfilled, incinerated, or mismanaged, and that is a genuine crisis demanding genuine solutions. The question is whether bans or technology get us there faster. The answer is clearly the latter, which is exactly why the legislative push in Rhode Island to ban chemical depolymerization and advanced recycling facilities deserves the pushback it hasn’t been getting.

Rhode Island state Rep. Michelle McGaw has filed versions of a bill banning plastic-waste conversion facilities since 2022, and is now pressing for passage as the EPA considers reclassifying pyrolysis as manufacturing rather than waste management. That reclassification according to industry would unlock investment and which McGaw says would strip away environmental protections. That debate is legitimate. But McGaw’s characterization of advanced recycling as “incineration in disguise” is not.

Depolymerization and pyrolysis are not the same process, and conflating them to tar the entire category is a rhetorical move, not a scientific one. Advanced recycling technologies employing depolymerization can break heterogeneous polymers down into recoverable monomers, enabling material recovery rates of 70–95% and greenhouse gas reductions of 30–80% compared to conventional disposal methods. Compared with feedstock recycling approaches like pyrolysis, true depolymerization is more favorable in life-cycle analysis terms, precisely because it recovers material rather than energy. Banning it in Rhode Island doesn’t protect Rhode Islanders from pollution, it prevents them from capitalizing on a solution.

There is a recurring pattern in environmental policy where the perfect becomes the enemy of the achievable. Plastic bags are banned, paper bags fill the gap with a heavier carbon footprint, recycling infrastructure gets no investment, and breakthrough chemical recycling is preemptively outlawed. At every step, advocates congratulate themselves on having taken a stand. At no step does the plastic in the ocean actually decrease.

If legislators in Missouri, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island want to take plastic pollution seriously, they should invest in curbside collection infrastructure, fund chemical recycling pilots with real emissions monitoring and accountability, and let consumers make informed choices. What they should not do is run a morality play starring a grocery bag while the real solutions get banned before they scale.

The single-use plastic bag did not cause the plastic pollution crisis. A broken recycling economy did. Banning the bag and the technology that could fix that economy only deepens the problem.

David Clement is the Policy Director at the Consumer Choice Center. 

 

 

 

Source: The Simplistic and Baseless War on Plastic Bags | RealClearMarkets

Leftists Organize Counterprogramming to Official Freedom 250 Celebrations

 

Hopes that America’s 250th birthday would be a time of national unity and healing have not been fulfilled so far. After a bipartisan commission (America 250) formed in 2016 dissolved into internal squabbles with little to show for its years of planning, President Trump authorized his own commission (Freedom 250) to organize celebrations worthy of the occasion. But the Left refuses to approve anything touched by Trump, even if it simply cheers on America, so a band of committed leftists is now organizing their own summer events as counterprogramming to the official celebrations of America. Early signs suggest that their events, organized under the title “Next250,” will prioritize protest over celebration.

The Next250 movement is co-chaired by two former organizers of the Women’s March, Linda Sarsour and Carmen Perez. The Women’s March became the face of anti-Trump protests during his first administration, although it fell into disrepute after its leadership’s ties to notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan were exposed. Sarsour and other organizers stepped down in 2019, while Perez lingered to facilitate a leadership transition.

Sarsour announced the tone of the Next250 campaign on Sunday, “America’s next 250 years start with us. As attacks on voting rights continue, immigrant communities are targeted, and too many of our neighbors are pushed to the margins, this moment demands more than remembrance — it demands action.”

The Next250 website described itself as an effort to “retell US history from the perspectives and contributions of women of color and other marginalized identities.” It listed five policy demands: “Living Wage for All; Climate Justice for All; Reproductive Rights & Justice for All; Voting Rights for All; Gun Safety and Peace for All.”

Lest the organization seem totally partisan and not remotely patriotic, they shoe-horned in a Marxist manifesto but slapped a patriotic-sounding title on it. Next250 announced that it would “declare and demonstrate our shared values through a process that centers a new Declaration of Interdependence.”

Not in-dependence but inter-dependence. It would be an innocent inference in its own right, but in the pen of these leftists, it takes on the shape of group identity, ala critical theory.

“To begin the next 250 years of the American story,” the document declares, “we open our hearts and set free our radical imaginations to unlock a nation defined by interdependence, where everyone can participate, prosper, and reach their full potential.” We have to wonder if Next250 was secretly designed to show America what the 250th celebration would have looked like under President Kamala Harris.

“We are one nation,” it asserts, “interdependent, woven together by the strength of our ideals, our shared history, and the extraordinary land we live on — stewarded since time immemorial by Indigenous nations whose sovereignty and leadership continue today.”

The sentence started strong. The first half could have been uttered by any number of presidents. And then it petered away into an irrelevant land acknowledgement, which only ended the sentence in confusion (are the native nations part of the one nation?). Is this declaration trying to appeal to the spirit and ideals of America? Its left-wing base? Or is it caught in an incomprehensible middle by trying to do both?

In keeping with the vision of “Next250,” the declaration did not celebrate the America that has been as much as try to cast a vision for a future America. In a purpose statement, the declaration says it is offered “to achieve the promise of our nation and possibilities of this moment.” There is nothing wrong with a forward-looking vision. Nor is it necessarily bad to acknowledge that, “From its founding, the United States has existed in the gap between ideals and actions — the space between the ideals of liberty, equality, and justice for all, and the actions of genocide, land theft, and slavery.”

However, there is no tempering recognition that America, despite its flaws, remains the freest, most prosperous, and arguably greatest nation on earth. Those who read the declaration may also struggle to escape the conclusion that this document is a party platform, not a declaration of principles. Thus, it states:

“In this declaration of interdependence, we are building a nation where:

“All people are treated with dignity and respect.

“Everybody feels safe in every community.

“Access to clean, green spaces is abundant.

“Every person who works earns a living wage and benefits that allow families work-life balance.”

Finally, unlike the Declaration of Independence, which had a clear historical context that gave it a reason for existence, the Declaration of Interdependence just sort of flops gelatinously in an abstract breeze. Why does it exist? Perhaps not even the authors could tell that, at least not without mentioning the fact that Donald Trump is president.

With their guiding principles so poorly articulated, the Next250 movement has announced a kickoff event on Saturday, June 27. In their own words, the event is not a rally or celebration or memorial or anything of the sort. Instead, it is a “National Mobilization” — which sounds more like generic left-wing street protest than anything uniquely devoted to America’s 250th anniversary.

The National Mobilization event is sponsored by MPower Change, a positive-sounding name for the Muslim Grassroots Movement. Other sponsoring organizations include 50501 Events, People Power United, Blue Future, DemCastUSA, Free Speech For People, and 50501 D.C. Some of these groups are deeply embedded into the left-wing agitator network. For instance, 50501 is responsible for the “No Kings” protests and has been linked to CodePink, Antifa, the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), and the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL).

The Next250 itinerary features other events. For instance, a June 20 art exhibition in Brooklyn, N.Y. will seek to recruit people for the Black Liberation-Indigenous Sovereignty Collective. “We’re trying to reach the folks who might not go to a protest, they might not go to a rally, but they would come to a cultural gathering,” organization Co-Founder and Executive Director Trevor Smith said. “And then once we reach them through art and through culture, we can actually onboard them into movement participation.”

Once again, the agenda seems more like standard left-wing street activism than celebrating America’s 250th birthday.

Indeed, the funding stream for Next250 suggests that it is at least friendly with the Democratic Party. It has a funding page on the ActBlue website, an organization that raises money for Democrats. The page notes, “#Next250 is housed at One Fair Wage.” That means this hatchling organization does not have the infrastructure (such as bank accounts, a treasurer, etc.) to handle its own finances, but a larger, more established organization in the Democratic orbit is happily providing this service for it.

Some committed activists seem to be taking the agenda into their own hands. More than once already, organizers of Freedom 250 events on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. have encountered acts of vandalism against the equipment being set up (which is massive). In one recent incident, vandals cut a fuel line powering generators that ran the lights. As a result, 30 gallons of generator fuel leaked into underground cisterns that held rainwater. Nice work “greening” the planet there!


 

Source: Leftists Organize Counterprogramming to Official Freedom 250 Celebrations – Harbinger’s Daily

Today in the Word – Moody Bible Institute – Spiritual Milk

 

Read 1 Peter 2:1–3

Have you ever been at a prayer meeting at church or a small group where the prayer requests felt more like gossip sessions than times of genuinely seeking the Lord? In chapter 2, Peter picks up on his encouragement from yesterday that the church should “love one another deeply, from the heart” (1 Pet. 1:22).

In order to love others well, we must throw off many common vices that undermine community (v.1). The vices he lists are: “malice”—a mean-spirited or vicious attitude; “deceit”—craftiness or cunning in relationships; “hypocrisy”—insincerity; “envy”; and “slander” (v. 1). It is impossible to love one another well when this kind of culture is present. Peter challenges us to get rid of these sinful behaviors so the community will not be infected.

We might expect this list of vices to be followed by a list of virtues to cultivate. But that is not what Peter advises here. Instead, he says, “Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk” (v. 2). This is a call to be dependent on the Lord. “Milk” here does not refer to elementary Christian teaching as it does elsewhere in the New Testament (1 Cor. 3:1–2; Heb. 5:13). The analogy here is that just as a newborn craves milk, we also should crave pure spiritual food. What is that food? The context makes it clear; it is the “word of the Lord” (1 Pet. 1:25). We are to show our dependence on the Lord through our desire for and love of His Word. It is not possible to be full of hypocrisy, envy, and malice when we recognize our position before God.

The goal is to “grow up in your salvation” (v. 2). The best way to think about what that means is to look to Jesus.

Go Deeper

God uses His Word to help us become more like Christ. How have you seen spending time in God’s Word affect your relationships with others?

Pray with Us

Jesus, we look to Your example for how to edify our community. Help us cast off any malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander, and replace them with devotion to You and love for others.

Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation.1 Peter 2:2

 

 

https://www.moodybible.org/

Our Daily Bread – Remembering Who We Are

 

Ruth replied, . . . “Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God.” Ruth 1:16

Today’s Scripture

Ruth 1:11-18

Listen to Today’s Devotion

Apple LinkSpotify Link

Today’s Devotion

A restaurant employee discovered an unconscious man beside a dumpster. He was sunburned, bitten by ants, and showed signs of blunt force trauma. He had no memory of who he was. The man, later self-named “Benjamin Kyle,” lived in limbo for more than a decade. He couldn’t work, collect benefits, or even reclaim his past. His healing began when a community of strangers helped him rediscover his identity through genetic testing and investigation. “I have a history,” he said. “I’m not just some stranger that materialized out of thin air.”

The story of Ruth in the Bible can also be seen as one of rediscovered belonging. After losing her husband and leaving her homeland, she chose to bind herself to her mother-in-law Naomi and her people. She said, “Where you go I will go . . . . Your people will be my people and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16). Ruth connected her identity and destiny to that of Naomi and her people in life and in death. She was “determined to go with her” (v. 18)—prioritizing community over clarity, belonging over certainty. In doing so, she stepped into God’s redemptive story and is remembered forever as part of the lineage of Christ (4:18-22; Matthew 1:3-5).

When we as believers in Jesus forget who we are—or when life’s pain leaves us disoriented—God often uses community to reconnect us with our most authentic identity. In Him we’re beloved, chosen, and known.

Reflect & Pray

Who is God using to help you remember who you are in Him? What does it mean to be known by Him?

Dear God, please help me remember who I am in You.

Today’s Insights

Ruth’s devotion to her mother-in-law Naomi was a hard choice that carried with it the prospects of great difficulties. Ruth, a Moabitess, would’ve faced tremendous challenges in moving to Bethlehem. Moab, though a distant cousin of Israel, had become Israel’s enemy (Judges 3), resulting in significant hostilities. Additionally, being a widow in a strange land where she didn’t have the support of family and friends (aside from Naomi) would’ve been potentially dangerous. Through Naomi’s extended family (Boaz), however, God would provide both sustenance and safety (Ruth 2:1, 8-9). Ruth would eventually be enfolded into that community as the wife of Boaz and would become the great-grandmother of King David (4:17). For us today as well, God often uses community to remind us of His great care for us.

 

http://www.odb.org

Denison Forum – The consequences of rejecting God’s design for holiness and sexuality

 

Last week, we discussed what it means to trust God and his word as the source not only of our blessings but also of our sense of freedom and independence.

But what happens when a culture comes to see obedience to God as the source of persecution and disparagement? How can a nation live in a manner that the Lord can bless when it has come to accept a sense of toleration and an understanding of morality that are simply incompatible with the kind of morality that he asks of us?

Unfortunately, America seems intent on finding out. And there are a few areas in which that is more clearly demonstrated than in our approach to sex and sexuality.

So, in light of that struggle, what might God say to us today?

Abiding by God’s standards

In Genesis 13, we read that “the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the Lord” (v. 13). God called the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah “very grave” (Genesis 18:20) and could not find ten who were righteous in Sodom (Genesis 18:32).

Continue reading Denison Forum – The consequences of rejecting God’s design for holiness and sexuality

Days of Praise – Like-Minded

 

by Henry M. Morris III, D.Min.

“Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.” (Philippians 2:2)

This emphatic command, along with the parallel terms, helps us understand the concept of thinking the same thing. “Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits” (Romans 12:16).

Such thinking also includes “having the same love.” There are two aspects of this love. First, the term itself (agape) demands that all of Christ’s disciples “love one another: for love is of God” (1 John 4:7). This is often repeated to born-again believers so that our love for each other is so obvious that “by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples” (John 13:35).

Godly love then produces “being of one accord.” This phrase is the translation of the Greek word sumpsuchos, which is a compound of the preposition most often translated “with” and the word for “soul.” Thus, the agape that we are to share results in a connection “with-soul” that binds the “like-mindedness” in agreement with the mind and spirit of the Creator God.

We are finally commanded to be of “one mind”—slightly different from the “likeminded” opening charge of Philippians 2:2. The initial words are auto phronete—“I think.” The last use is phronountes—“same (way of) thinking.”

The entire context of the opening verses of Philippians 2 is to think like Jesus Christ thinks. “Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 2:5). “Set your affection [phroneo] on things above, not on things on the earth” (Colossians 3:2). This kind of thinking must have God’s love and soul embedded in the very core of our heart, soul, mind, and strength. HMM III

 

 

https://www.icr.org/articles/type/6

Joyce Meyer – Discover Your Identity and Worth

 

Yet the Lord is faithful, and He will strengthen [you] and set you on a firm foundation and guard you from the evil [one].

2 Thessalonians 3:3 (AMPC)

When a boy is growing up, he begins to realize that he is not like his mother, and he differentiates himself from her. His masculinity is defined by separation. He will normally seek his own identity and individuality. A girl does not feel this need and usually remains close to and dependent upon her mother.

About twice as many women as men experience depression, and about 70 percent of the mood-altering or anxiety-relieving drugs are taken by women. In her book Unfinished Business: Pressure Points in the Lives of Women, Maggie Scarf has suggested this reason:

Women are statistically more depressed because they have been taught to be more dependent and affection-seeking, and thus they rarely achieve an independent sense of self. A woman gives her highest priorities to pleasing others, being attractive to others, being cared for, and caring for others. Women receive ferocious training in a direction that leads away from thinking “What do I want?” and toward “What do they want?” They may be in danger of merely melting into the people around them and fail to realize they are an individual with rights and needs, and they need to establish independence.

Prayer of the Day: Lord, it is so easy to lose my sense of independence and get caught in totally depending upon others. Strengthen me and set me on Your firm foundation of freedom, amen.

 

http://www.joycemeyer.org