As somebody who cycles as a primary form of transport, I prefer plastic. It weighs less, it's more compact, and it's waterproof (important when it's raining). If I had to use cotton that would incentivize using a car instead. It's not a huge difference, but it doesn't take many marginal cyclists switching to cars to wipe out all the theoretical environmental benefits of cotton.

That's great! Genuinely, I think you should keep doing that.

My point was not actually about plastic vs reusable. My point was, why is embodied energy always used in contrarian climate arguments. Why not talk about ergonomics, or the "bike waterproof-ness standard"?

I think embodied energy is being used in this article to push the author's specific views, which to fund atmospheric carbon extraction.