From a practical standpoint, plastic bags are still a brilliant invention. They are waterproof inside and out, weigh almost nothing, and can carry up to a thousand times their own weight. They can be folded small enough to fit in any pocket. Depending on material thickness, they can be reused multiple times.

Nevertheless, plastic bags have a poor public image, which has led to bans on them in some parts of the world. Their bad reputation stems from being seen as disposable items, even though they can be reused many times and for long periods before eventually tearing. The public perceives paper or cotton alternatives as more environmentally friendly because they come from plants. That might sound reassuring - but it’s not. Take paper bags: the extraction of raw wood, the manufacturing of paper, and the transport to consumers consume far more resources than comparable plastic packaging. A paper bag would have to be reused more than 40 times to match the environmental footprint of a single-use plastic bag. Sten Gustaf Thulin foresaw this. More paper means more wood, which threatens forests.

A cotton bag made from organic cotton would need to be used at least 130 times to be a truly sensible alternative. That’s because growing these plants requires large amounts of fertilizers and water. Over time, this leads to soil salinization and reduced fertility.

Those advocating for a ban on plastic bags may also underestimate consumers' rational behavior. Where plastic bags have been banned, demand for them has dropped - but demand for trash bags has risen. These are also made from plastic, as the material offers unbeatable qualities: impermeability and tear resistance. Before the ban, many consumers reused their shopping bags multiple times and finally used them for collecting recyclables and residual waste.

That would have been exactly what their inventor intended. In an interview with a British outlet, his son once said: “My father would have found it bizarre if people simply threw away such a practical item.