04-30-2016, 05:33 AM
I would support the ban if it was written intelligently, for example if it only applied to non-biodegradable polystyrene. You can do your own Googling on the paper/cardboard versus polystyrene argument so you can fact-check the source but for example "If you’re concerned with making the eco-friendly choice between the two, Styrofoam wins on many fronts. Unless you’re using a paper cup that is biodegradable (most are not), there are some aspects to consider. A standard paper cup takes more than 20 years to decompose in a landfill environment. This is mostly due to the wax lining on the inside of the cup. The trendy paper cup also takes more energy, raw material and money to make. For example, in comparison to Styrofoam, a paper cup requires 12 times the amount of water, 36 times the amount of electricity and costs double the amount of money to produce." (I understand this isn't a cup issue but the materials involved are the same). These stats don't even get into the amount of toxic chemicals paper and cardboard factories use and the fish that are killed by their discharge. Go breathe the brown air in Beijing and drink some of their unfiltered river water and then report back to us.
If you are looking at an environmental "net result" simply banning all polystyrene may be more damaging to the environment in the long run.
If a cheaper biodegradable polystyrene becomes available, it would be unfortunate if merchants couldn't use it because it was banned due to law writers without any vision or understanding on how factories consume resources and pollute the environment making these "environmentally friendly" alternatives. Unless they are written correctly, these are reactionary "feel good laws" with a net environmental impact that is opposite to it's intent.
If you are looking at an environmental "net result" simply banning all polystyrene may be more damaging to the environment in the long run.
If a cheaper biodegradable polystyrene becomes available, it would be unfortunate if merchants couldn't use it because it was banned due to law writers without any vision or understanding on how factories consume resources and pollute the environment making these "environmentally friendly" alternatives. Unless they are written correctly, these are reactionary "feel good laws" with a net environmental impact that is opposite to it's intent.