Comment by _aavaa_
4 days ago
> That conveniently ignores the drilling, extracting, transporting, refining, and transporting again to make "polyethylene resin".
It also ignores the energy requirements to grow the cotton. This isn't the gotcha you think it is.
The energy requirements for growing cotton being largely the sun, and a resource which makes up most of the universe (yes, I know water is several steps from hydrogen). ((And the tangentials like the fertilizers, dieslel etc.))
Compared to the energy requirements of petroleum based products: Incredible density and pressure acting on sufficient organic matter(thousands of times greater than growing cotton), on millenium time scales, then requiring several incredibly expensive and commoditization refining/distribution practices, and the end product is then ceremoniously burned off as poison or discarded into the aether.
It is 100 percent the "gotcha OP thought it is". However I do see/realize the fallacy you're pointing out in that the lesser of two evils is still evil.
I think the main point is that this post is not a good faith attempt to convince people otherwise. It's a shoddly researched opinion piece that has little to no merit as it ignores the complexities of producing either item.
True, I have fallen for the classic blunder:
(1) assuming a HN submission and the discussion around it is in good faith/informed on the topic
(2) Arguing about said topic and not the merits of the submission/discussion