So you're saying that you're going to stop burning so much petroleum to get to work, and to do that you have to ignore anything that you do that has a lesser impact on the environment?

I can't say that I understand the single-mindedness, but congratulations on the electric car or the not commuting so far or whatever.

Unless what you're saying is that you're going to ignore everything that pollutes less than the important high-impact items that you're also going to ignore.

Yes. I use logic and reasoning and order of magnitude estimation to think about environmental impact.

I also think people who obsess over polyethylene grocery bags are bad at math. Unfortunately, many of these people manage to influence public policy to my inconvenience. It is religion, not science.

I am sure there are some who claim the small amount of oil that went into the production of a grocery bag is a problem, but my impression in general was that they were being legislated away in many places because of littering, hazards to wildlife, etc., and not so much that they are wasteful of fossil fuels.

I'm afraid it's an inherently proselytizing religion.

The restrictions on minor consumer items are a penitential hairshirt.

I think your "big-picturism" bypasses the immediate absurdity of consumer environmentalism, but leaves the deeper contradiction untouched.

"Rational" environmentalism implies some cost/benefit analysis. Is it "bad" for one person to burn 100 gallons of gas per day in his commute? Is it "ok" for 100 persons to burn the same amount? What if the one person produces as much "benefit" as the 100 persons? Who gets to define benefit?