I read with interest the front-page article, "Students work to ban Styrofoam," in your Thursday, April 17, 2014 edition, which described an effort by students to gain popular support for a ban on polystyrene dishes in campus restaurants. The rationale for this action was an environmental one, specifically the reduction of atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which are released upon polystyrene decomposition. However, this fact alone does not justify such a draconian change.
The total relative environmental effect of polystyrene products versus paper products is not clearly understood. To identify the true impact of polystyrene, or any other material, many factors must be considered, including the required energy and raw materials for production; the weight of the final product (denser materials, like paper, use more fuel in shipping); energy expended in recycling, cleaning, and disposing of the products; and others. These and similar issues were not broached in the article (not for want of access; it took me five minutes on Google to collect more information than I care to read on the subject).
One easily-determinable fact that was not raised is that polystyrene cups tend to cost much less than paper cups-in many cases, half as much-which leads to the inescapable conclusion that a ban on polystyrene cups would increase the cost of a meal on campus anywhere from ten to fifty cents. Though this may seem relatively inconsequential, consider how many meals are served on campus in a year. The yearly expense of the proposed ban would certainly run in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. Whether it be the student body, the university employees, or the taxpayer (or, most likely, a combination of the three), someone must pay this cost.
This last point is ultimately what inspired me to put fingers to keyboard. Different people can hold whatever views they want, as long as they do not affect me. Like most rational people, I am willing to foot the bill for a program if it clearly promotes societal good. However, if I am going to pay more in my per-meal cost, tuition, or taxes due to the ideals of a few enthusiasts, they had better give me a good reason. The argument for a polystyrene ban (as given in the original article) is too narrow to persuade me that the monetary expense will be worth it.
