Every now and then I'd come across articles from this source and thought that they were decent. Perhaps not the best, but reasonably well researched and argued. But coming across this statement kind of sealed the deal for me in the wrong way:

> Instead of paying more to recycle, we could spend that money far more effectively on other environmental mitigation measures like carbon capture.

Pure unadulterated bollocks, I'm sorry to say. I shall flag this source whenever emerges in my feed.

> Sufficiently well-worn cotton tote bags can beat plastic for environmental cost, but only for the most consistent among us.

We simply don't need to rely on the "most consistent among us", because these things -- and so, so many others -- can be legislated, enforced, stopped, controlled etc. Businesses make and sell plastic bags because no one stops them and they're convenient (as well as a serious environmental problem). Should governments do the job they are supposed to do (or simply step aside and let the society organise in that particular respect), plastic bags would cease to be a problem.

I am somewhat disappointed, I guess.

I didn't flag the article, but I have similar feelings to you. The weird part: This media source is usually high-quality with well-researched and well-written (balanced) and articles. They really fell flat on this one. And yes, the carbon capture comment made me clench my fist. I have been listening to that hogwash for at least twenty years with very little progress made. I'm not saying that it cannot work, but I doubt with current technology it can be done in an economical manner.

I agree with a lot of what you’re saying but flagging a post because you no longer trust the source is a misuse of the functionality.