BioBag’s in an aerobic environment will degrade. SOme m ethane like all living plants, humans, squirrels, etc..give off methane gas as part of natural decomposition. Methane is a relatively potent greenhouse gas with a high global warming potential of 72 (averaged over 20 years) or 25 (averaged over 100 years).[1] Methane in the atmosphere is eventually oxidized, producing carbon dioxide and water. As a result, methane in the atmosphere has a half life of seven years.

The abundance of methane in the Earth’s atmosphere in 1998 was 1745parts per billion, up from 700 ppb in 1750. In the same time period, CO2 increased from 278 to 365 parts per million. The radiative forcing effect due to this increase in methane abundance is about one-third of that of the CO2 increase.[2] In addition, there is a large, but unknown, amount of methane in methane clathrates in the ocean floors. The Earth’s crust contains huge amounts of methane. Large amounts of methane are produced anaerobically by methanogenesis. Other sources include mud volcanoes, which are connected with deep geological faults, and livestock (primarily cows) from enteric fermentation.

The end of the world is not projected to be via Methane gas. All plants, humans and animals “breaking wind” let out methane gas into the atmosphere as do volacanoes. But to suggest that BioBags are more dangerous than plastic is possibly the same as quoting Ted Danson in 1978 indicating that the oceans will rise 30 feet by the year 2000. Junk science is exactly what it is..Junk science. Bio Bags degrade in to Biopolymers which are harmless to the earth as corn stalks in Kansas.

One would have to be taken in by Al Gore and global warming to go down the same path as yourself. But consider more evidence to refute your position:

It seems you are putting up a straw man in order to be able to kick in the methane issue. The skeptics are not that dumb. They do come up with some reasonable objections to the AGW hypothesis. It is not all rubbish what they say, nor always with bad intentions or hidden agenda’s. If someone can be expected to have an agenda then it is an American politician who thinks that this will lead him into the White House. The simplistic reasoning and applied demagoguery of Al Gore (in fact, he makes himself a straw man) give the skeptics an easy target to attack. Al Gore’s movie can hardly be qualified as being properly peer reviewed. I am flabbergasted by the gullibility of the otherwise critical environmental groups for embracing this politician so uncritically. I wouldn’t want him to pull my bandwagon.

Talking about CO2. How come that the Southern Polar Monthly Mean Temperature Anomalies show a cooling trend for the last 27 years, yet the Antarctic is believed to be melting. There is certainly no relationship with the gradually increasing CO2 concentrations

But Please do not misstate or place misinformation out there that plastic bags which last 400-1000 years, in your opinon as an armchair wizard of all, create a better environment. That is blatantly false, untrue and exactly what a plastic industry lobbyist might wish people to believe.

Like I said, there’s no perfect answer here. Fortunately in Oakland, we are not required to bag our garbage, so we don’t use any bags at all. And really, the only garbage we have is M’s non-recyclable plastic (since all my plastic is stashed in the closet) and some non-compostable laundry lint. (Non-compostable because the fibers are not all natural.)

Here’s a page that compares both aerobic and anaerobic composting methods. The reference to “noxious gases” in the anaerobic section includes methane.

http://www.rivenrock.com/composttypes.htm

Indeed, in my first attempt with the compost tumbler, I didn’t tumble it enough and I got some noxious smelling greenhouse gases!

I am still confused about anaerobic vs. aerobic decomposition. Would a decomposing bio-bag not produce methane gas in a compost bin?

Of course, I was looking for an excuse to justify my continued use of (mostly scavenged) supermarket bags for the trash can.