Scott Madin

Let's begin with the fact that the Times tweet specifies an ORGANIC cotton tote bag. Most tote bags aren't made with organic cotton, and organic cotton uses three times the resources as regular cotton. So if your tote isn't organic, cut the estimate by two thirds off the bat.

But that's chump change compared to what's coming. The phrase "overall impact of production" is real vague, and isn't unpacked in the Times article. Does it refer to climate change impact? Fossil fuel use? Water consumption?

It's none of those things, it turns out. In fact, if you look at the chart above, you'll see that there's a climate change impact column, and it says that the cotton tote has about fifty times the climate change impact as the disposable bag.

(The study can be found at the link below, BTW, and the relevant chart is on page 79 if you can't read embedded JPGs.) https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-73-4.pdf …

So now we're at one use a week for a year rather than daily use for a lifetime to make the cotton tote a better bet than the disposable bag. And it turns out we can cut that in half again.

Because the study assumes that the plastic bag is being used for garbage disposal after being used to carry groceries. Which is great if it happens, but not remotely what happens to most grocery bags.

So cut the grocery bag use from two to one, and your tote has a lower impact on climate change if you use it two dozen times before throwing it away. And again, it's a better bag, so it's of more use—and thus more value—to you every time you use it.