I think one of the problems is that people very much overestimate how big a problem "plastic bags at the grocery store are", because they're big, and white, and loud when they move around, and they're something so many people deal with. But they're also whisps of plastic nothingness. Save up all the bags you shop with, and see how long it takes for them to equal the mass, of, say, this: https://www.amazon.com//dp/B07HKV9339 You're going to be saving for a long time... and you're going to be saving long past the point where your best efforts have squashed those bags into the same apparent volume.

Plastic bags and straws aren't the problem. "Solving" the not-a-problem is burning people's limited give-a-damn on pointless wastes of time, and psychologically rewarding people for doing useless things to their own detriment that helps nobody.

1. Restructure society to become carbon neutral.

2. Restructure society to end throwaway culture.

I understand that to some people 2 is a secondary value derived from 1. For me, both are independent primary values, not derived from any other deeper value, or from each other.

I am fairly certain that, while local moves towards the two values sometimes seem in conflict, I think on the global scale, they are roughly in the same direction. So yes, I will buy cotton bags every half decade or so, so I don't use and throw away a minuscule volume of plastic bags, that are a symbol of the throwaway culture.

It is not clear to me if you are advocating for everyone to not use plastic bags. If you choose to do net very-slight harm to the environment to take a stand against some thing you find aesthetically displeasing, that's find by me, because we're talking negligible values on all sides here. No sarcasm; I truly have no objection. We all tend to spend much greater on things much sillier. And you're putting your skin in the game, at your expense. No sweat.

If you are advocating that everybody should do so, that is at the very least questionable, though, and downright wrong at the government level. If the government is going to decide that environmental damage is a concern it has, which is fine, then at the very least they could use those powers to actually help the environment, rather than helping some particular people's sense of aesthetics, and their sense of aesthetics at other people's actions no less, while failing at their stated goals.

My point which I articulated poorly is that when we push environmental friendly things we should push for things which are more/actually effective, e.g. make sure you use your car for as long as possible, and build smaller, well insulated, energy efficient homes.