Should cities ban single-use "Styrofoam" products?

All of the companies have been using Styrofoam products for a long time. However,
environmentalists claim these products are causing unrecoverable high damages to the environment
and to the people who use them. On the other hand, companies that are against this claim are
claiming the lack of usage will result in small companies going bankrupt. At the same time, large
companies will increase their prices exponentially. Putting all these ideas and predictions in a pot,
we will consider orderly at the claims that are different from each other. At the end of this read, we
will answer this question and provide a solution to the problem at hand.

First of all, we all know the world has been struggling with environmental problems (climate
crisis, drought, pollution) for many years, and in addition to these problems, there is the usage of
Styrofoam the trademark name of expanded polystyrene foam, or shortly EPS. It is used to make the
production of white cups and cheap takeout containers and insulate buildings. It has a ubiquitous
network in our lives. It's less expensive, and it's lightweight (Text-2 lines 5-6) but why
environmentalists are trying to prohibit the EPS even though it does not seem like a problem?

EPS is made from petroleum, which is a non-sustainable resource (Text 2 lines 43-44). This
means that its resources will end in the future. At the same time, the used product, EPS, will mix
with soil, and damage the environment. Particularly, it will affect the air causing heavy pollution.
Moreover, those who work in styrene product manufacturing are regularly exposed to high levels of
styrene and have experienced some health effects (Text-2 lines 13-15), which include irritation of the
eyes or skin, headaches, mild depression, etc. As a result of these consequences, in California, some
cities banned the usage of EPS by companies, and additionally, they are working on how to ban EPS
statewide.

However, the Prohibition of EPS can not be the solution if we look at firms that use this
product in their sellings. So many people can ignore this argument, but EPS has a lot of advantages.
For example, it helps to keep food fresh longer is a benefit for food restaurants (Text-1 lines 8-9), it
can be transported easily as cargo in trucks, planes, or ships. Lastly, it uses less energy and resources
than its paper counterparts which means it isn't that bad for the environment.

We have seen the two sides of the moon; The Environmentalists and The Companies. Two of
them had their expectations about EPS and their claims regarding whether to ban or not EPS from
the market itself. When we think about these arguments about EPS. For our world and people, we
see that no matter how bad the EPS seems we are ending with a result that it's not about EPS but
the people and the firms who use that.

From our point of view, If we had a chance to ban all of EPS from the world, we would end
up in an economic crisis in the food industry. What we meant by the economic crisis is especially
there are alternatives for EPS, however, their costs will be more than double (Text-3 lines 22-23).
Also, we mentioned that the people who work to make that product are getting harmed, firms can
change their employees to mechanical ones (robots), so their employees are not going to be harmed
anymore. Additionally, these firms won't be forced to pay salaries, as a result of the prices will be
more affordable than before. While the issue of EPS's damage to the environment. It's just proof
that we didn't take action for these causes. The government can pay as a money prize with a
tournament to the citizens who recycle their EPS garbage which can be a solution to these problems.
 So in conclusion the debate on whether to ban single-use Styrofoam products is
complicated. It has good and bad benefits to ourselves. Governments, businesses, and citizens must
work together to encourage innovation, responsible consumption, and effective waste management.
A gradual change towards more sustainable alternatives is expensive now, but we can support
mechanisms in the first place to minimize the economic impact. Then, when we find a more useful
and profitable product, we can stop using EPS. Collaborative actions are key to achieving these goals.
So we need to learn to use the products more logically. Don't prohibit everything, just learn how to
use them with minimal harm.