Virtue Signaling Is Complicated: Choosing Grocery Bags in the Church of Climate
21 hours ago Charles Rotter
There are few modern rituals more spiritually affirming than standing at the checkout counter, gazing into the cashier’s eyes, and declaring, “No bag, thanks. I brought my own.” It’s a moment of environmental piety—a reusable tote pressed reverently to the chest, cotton fibers woven with the smugness of 149 plastic bags not used (but, as it turns out, probably still made). The problem is that like all good sermons, the gospel of the grocery bag is riddled with contradictions, caveats, and a whole lot of carbon.
The New York Times, ever ready to preach the faith of “climate responsibility,” recently published a piece titled “What Shopping Bags Should I Use?” It’s a fascinating read, not because it provides clarity, but because it demonstrates just how convoluted eco-virtue has become. Spoiler alert: you can’t win. But you can feel like you’re winning, and maybe that’s the point.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/24/climate/shopping-bags-paper-plastic-grocery-totes.htmlLet’s start with the usual demon in the pews: plastic. Plastic bags, we are told, are the spawn of fossil fuels, and as such, must be banished. Their recycling rate is a dismal 10%, and their afterlife often involves floating past a turtle’s nose or breaking into confetti-sized microplastics that haunt us for centuries. But here’s the twist—according to not one but two studies cited by the article (from Britain’s Environment Agency and Denmark’s Environmental Protection Agency), those unholy plastic bags actually have the smallest environmental footprint of the lot when judged by greenhouse gas emissions.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/03/26/virtue-signaling-is-complicated-choosing-grocery-bags-in-the-church-of-climate/
