Adam B. Summers, in his San Diego Union-Tribune article “Bag ban is bad for freedom and the environment” uses effective methods and great dialectal decision, justification, models, humor, measurable evidence, assertions of power, precedents of the daily life and good judgment, and attempts to make his point, particularly that a ban on single-use plastic or paper bags by Some large retail outlets in California would actually harm the planet, while clearly and unnecessarily encroaching on the opportunities of the population at large. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay In the main section of the article, Summers paints a picture of government disruption in close-to-home opportunities, bordering on a police state or "guardian state", in expressing "No substance to tell us how much water our toilets can flush or what type of light we can use to illuminate our homes, a few legislators and hippies are currently focused on choosing for us what type of medium we can use to convey our basic needs. Summers' choice of words makes these issues seem insignificant, and the general population who advise people in general on how to deal with these issues come across as eavesdroppers, even overbearing fools. It invites the reader to ask: "Why should anyone care about how much water I use to flush my latrine, what lights I use, or what kind of of bags that I use at the market. I haven't heard anyone stick their nose in my latrine. my own decisions since I was in middle school! These people can go throw themselves in a lake if they don't care about my decisions - I don't give them instructions! » In the second section, while stating the disappointment of the bill, Yet his California Assembly supports the goal of re-introducing the bill. Summers states, "Expect this bill to be reused rather than destroyed," contrasting a bill with waste that can either be reused or landfilled as non-recyclable waste, which "has a somewhat amusing impact. In the third section, Summers expresses that "open discussions about banning plastic bags often turn into 'please spare the planet, minerals, protect marine life, a little sanity and the point view is all together,” which portrays plastic packaging boycott advocates as being overly passionate to the point of stupidity. Unexpectedly, this statement itself is interesting to feel about, essentially suggesting that those who want to boycott plastic packaging are stupid neo-hipsters holding up trees in high school. In the fourth passage, Summers references an Environmental Protection Agency study that demonstrates that plastic packaging, wrappers, and bags account for only about 1.6 percent of all landfill losses. U.S. plastic packaging, and HDPE plastic packaging, the type typically used as essential bags, represents only 0.3% of this aggregate. This use of information makes the entire problem with the basic delivery package seem minor, but neglects the question of why consumers and retailers should not reduce this figure to 0.0% ifthis is possible. Nevertheless, Summers answers this question in his publication. In the fifth passage, the author uses ideas to support his argument that plastic packaging is actually better for nature than plastic bags, referring to measurements that show that plastic packaging consumes significantly less energy. energy and water to be delivered. He also notes that plastic bags require less energy to transport than paper bags because plastic is smaller and takes up less space. He neglects to refer to the source of these ideas, or perhaps the reference is excluded in the excerpt given, which weakens his claim slightly, but most readers will give him "opportunity to be vindicated" and will expect Summers to have a reliable source, which is certainly not a smart idea (Individuals occasionally lie or mutilate reality in daily publications). In the 6th passage, the author claims that reusable plastic bags also have a greater impression than single-use plastic packaging and refers to a review by two law professors (one from the University of Pennsylvania and the other from George Mason University) which demonstrates an increase in confirmations in war rooms following the boycott of plastic packaging in San Francisco. Summers refers to the law professors' review as expressing the Situation Room's claims that it was caused by a bacterial taint of the food, which was the result of the food being in packages that had been reused without cleaning appropriate. Ultimately, as the author stated, the accumulation of past foods allowed microbes to thrive, and the microorganisms invaded the new foods put in the packages, weakening the population. general who ate these foods. This involves the use of measurements from what appear to be solid sources, as well as a challenge to power (therapeutic sources and college professors tend to be accepted, and individuals who fight against these sources are faced with clear reactions such as "You are not an expert – how can you fight against what the specialists tell us?"). Obviously, this is also of great interest to feel – it basically says: “Reusing plastic packaging will make you sick Summers also forgets to refer to any source to support his explanation that reusable bags have a bigger carbon footprint than plastic packaging, and forgets! to note whether the larger carbon footprint is only linked to manufacturing and transport, or to the entire existence of the packaging. In other words, if a bag of material can be reused 50 times, at that point, the. Assembling and carrying 50 plastic packages should be compared to assembling and carrying a cloth bag, with some reward for how the bag of material is used. should be transported again from home to the store, slightly increasing the impression of the material package. The reader who sees this problem will likely accept the explanation for neglecting to address this issue: reusable packaging (material, plastic, etc.) actually has a smaller carbon footprint or potentially takes up less space in landfills once that all variables are taken into account. taken into account, and Summers deliberately “neglects” this point. This really weakens Summers' claim to those who see this point, and furthermore, the likelihood that regular compostable fiber bags are vastly better for the earth than the..