Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
mark1447

New York City mayor wants to ban Styrofoam

Recommended Posts

No, this actually is a good ban. Styrofoam is not biodegradable meaning that it does not just rot away. Also a lot of it winds up in our oceans and landfills, which are near capacity, harming the animals in the local ecosystem because it is slightly toxic. For humans on the other hand Styrofoam is believed to be a carcinogen.*  Something should be done about a lot of the crap that is going into the trash don't you think? 

 

*http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol82/82-07.html

 

Some reading on Styrofoam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Styrofoam

I agree... The problem with most folks is they don't really understand the effects that things like styrofoam is having on our environment.  You guys should go out and see the amount of plastic and other things that isn't biodegradable that is washing up on shores around the world.  It is a HUGE problem and most people DON'T recycle so most of this stuff ends up in landfills somewhere or even worse in our oceans or water supply and we don't have infinite space for the amount of garbage that we create, trust me.  The people complaining about these things don't have a clue as to what happens with the trash that we throw away.  All they know is that they put the trash in the garbage, the garbage truck comes and picks and it up and it's gone.  We have to start moving to get rid of things like this because we are literally killing ourselves because we are shielded from seeing how our oceans and wildlife is being decimated from man polluting the environment, not to mention the cost involved in processing all of this crap, which we the taxpayer pay for, so the idea for the ban is to reduce the amount of monies spent by taxpayers #1 and #2 to create a more friendly environment, both of which I support.  If you guys have a problem with lower taxes and a cleaner environment than I don't know what to tell you.

 

It is said that in the near future (within the next 20 years even) if we don't start moving to change and become more environmentally friendly, we may very well have garbage problems because the landfills that we have are running out. 

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loled hard at the comments. I concur. Someone needs to put a ban on Bloomberg.

 

 

And that's my thinking. Of course from a ecological point of view, yes styrofoam is harmful to the environment  but it's all about principle also the real intentions behind imposing such bans. Mayor Bloomberg is catering to the special interest groups who wishes to flaunt their weight on the lives of the average New Yorker by banning everything in sight. I also suspect he is doing so with the intentions in mind of stealing away revenue from the average New Yorker to the city by means of broadening the ability to impose more fines by establishing such bans left and right like a greedy maniac.

 

Oh on the nailpolish remover comment, you reminded me of when in Earth Science class in junior high school, I used to put styrofoam in flasks and watch it magically go away when I douse it with acetone then set it all on fire!!! I got suspended for a week for that stunt btw.

I would disagree with that.  People have been up in arms about everything that he has done, like smoking.  People went crazy when he proposed banning it in restaurants and such, claiming that it would kill business... That was the BEST thing he ever did!  People just don't like change and look to criticize instead of actually thinking about what he is actually proposing and why.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Someone needs to put a ban on Bloomberg.

 

^^ that pretty much sums up all that is needed to be said.. no further discussion on the topic is necessary.

Edited by error46146
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would disagree with that.  People have been up in arms about everything that he has done, like smoking.  People went crazy when he proposed banning it in restaurants and such, claiming that it would kill business... That was the BEST thing he ever did!  People just don't like change and look to criticize instead of actually thinking about what he is actually proposing and why.  

 

What I am about to say is not directed at anyone here who are for our mayor's imposing certain bans, per say so please don't take this personally, but people can become intense where it comes to political correctness. Let the individual New Yorker or business owner or agency decide what they want to do, not the mere mayor, particularly when many of these leaders are corrupt themselves. Isn't that what we have the EPA or OSHA for? Bloomberg perhaps should let these agencies do their jobs. Not take it upon himself to do so.

 

To me it's obvious that Bloomberg is doing this, going out of his job description really, imposing bans some of them utterly ridiculous, just for the sake of earning popularity and really, for the sake of creating bans and civil offenses with the intentions of creating revenue for the city by means of imposing unnecessary fines. 

 

BTW for the record as I stated before, yes styrofoam is harmful to the environment.  Yes tobacco is harmful obviously! But again that's the responsibility of the EPA and OSHA, WHO, CDC, or the US Senate lawmakers to handle, not Mr. Bloomberg!

 

And there are stories about people gettin the hell out of California and moving to neighboring Arizona and Nevada to get away from the higher taxes and nanny state nonsense in California.

 

To add: Many are doing the same thing migrating out of NYC into other states for similar reasons such as ridiculously high costs of living such as rent and the skyrocketing costs of homes in the real estate market in NYC in general.

Edited by realizm
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am about to say is not directed at anyone here who are for our mayor's imposing certain bans, per say so please don't take this personally, but people can become intense where it comes to political correctness. Let the individual New Yorker or business owner or agency decide what they want to do, not the mere mayor, particularly when many of these leaders are corrupt themselves. Isn't that what we have the EPA or OSHA for? Bloomberg perhaps should let these agencies do their jobs. Not take it upon himself to do so.

 

To me it's obvious that Bloomberg is doing this, going out of his job description really, imposing bans some of them utterly ridiculous, just for the sake of earning popularity and really, for the sake of creating bans and civil offenses with the intentions of creating revenue for the city by means of imposing unnecessary fines. 

 

BTW for the record as I stated before, yes styrofoam is harmful to the environment.  Yes tobacco is harmful obviously! But again that's the responsibility of the EPA and OSHA, WHO, CDC, or the US Senate lawmakers to handle, not Mr. Bloomberg!

Oh yes and we know how great these agencies are at getting things done.  How long does it take the government these days to get anything done?? <_< Bloomberg doesn't need to be "popular".  The man is a billionaire.  Now I do agree that with some policies, the city is just out to make money. However, if you sit back and think about certain things that he has tried to tackle, I think it makes perfect sense.  People attacked him for banning smoking in restaurants saying that it would kill business (which it certainly has not done) when it's a known fact that smoking kills hundreds of thousands of people each year unnecessary and creates millions in healthcare costs that us taxpayers have to pay for and yet people still complained because of their own selfish needs.  

 

We need pioneers like him to take initiatives, otherwise nothing will get done while we wait on EPA or OSHA to do something.  This ban makes perfect sense, as does that soda ban.  Both cost the taxpayers millions in unnecessary costs each year that could be used for something more productive.  I would rather not have my taxpayer dollars going to some obese slob who can't control himself or going to process styrofoam when another more environmentally friendly product could be used at a cheaper cost.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I do agree that with some policies, the city is just out to make money

 

 EXACTLY! That's one of my points I was trying to voice out. At at least for once we can agree on something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would disagree with that.  People have been up in arms about everything that he has done, like smoking.  People went crazy when he proposed banning it in restaurants and such, claiming that it would kill business... That was the BEST thing he ever did!  People just don't like change and look to criticize instead of actually thinking about what he is actually proposing and why.  

The smoking ban is probably the only ban I fully supported because I don't like inhaling someone's 2nd hand smoke and harming me directly. Yes, to some point the soda restrictions and transfat bans would be better for people as a whole, but I don't support the iron fisted tactic about it. Are people that ignorant that they need the government to tell them what is good and bad for them? If they still eat unhealthy foods on a regular basis, they should be paying more for health insurance as it is their fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The smoking ban is probably the only ban I fully supported because I don't like inhaling someone's 2nd hand smoke and harming me directly. Yes, to some point the soda restrictions and transfat bans would be better for people as a whole, but I don't support the iron fisted tactic about it. Are people that ignorant that they need the government to tell them what is good and bad for them? If they still eat unhealthy foods on a regular basis, they should be paying more for health insurance as it is their fault.

lol... Walking around in the streets, I think the answer is obvious.  You see my issue with the whole soda thing is that I agree that people should be able to eat and drink whatever they want, but I don't think everyone else should have to pay higher taxes as a result.  I think each individual should borne the brunt of their own actions.  Unfortunately that would require an overhaul of the healthcare system, but that is indirectly what Bloomberg is trying to say, which is that those who don't care about their health should be forced to pay more in some shape or form.   That is why the whole soda tax keeps coming up.  Either way you slice it though, people are going to scream.  If you put in a soda tax people would scream, even though it would be just, much like the cigarette tax this way those who are doing the most harm to their bodies pay for it via higher taxes.

 

This styrofoam ban should be supported because it means that we can pay lower taxes to process recyclables and replace this crap with something that is more environmentally safe and more importantly biodegradable.  Why in the world should we continue to support producing something that is clearly hazardous??

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support the ban, and I would support further extending this ban nationwide for the reasons outlined below:

  1. There are alternatives to Styrofoam so a ban would not harm Styrofoam users much—just change the material.
  2. Recycling costs would be lower, and thus lower taxes. Either that, or NYC could use the money saved to expand the recycling program to things it currently doesn't recycle but can be recycled.
  3. Health would be better as Styrofoam has been reported to leak small amounts of its contents into the food it contains—especially when heated. Certain oils will dissolve Styrofoam (try cracking open one of those fish oil pills into a Styrofoam cup), and when consumed, your body will have the dissolved Styrofoam.
  4. The environment would be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Bloomberg, I couldn't really care less at this point, this is ban that won't exactly ruin anybody's day or hurt any industry besides the people making styrofoam...

 

...just hope that everybody remembers that Christine Quinn paved the way for this man's third term when it comes time to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg will propose a ban on Styrofoam, the substance commonly used for take-out food containers that is almost impossible to recycle.

 

The mayor who has already targeted fat, sugar and salt in the city will turn to extruded polystyrene foam, saying it clogs up landfills, does not biodegrade and might harm human health.

 

Bloomberg will raise the proposal in his final State of the City speech on Thursday. The city provided reporters an advance text of the speech on Wednesday.

 

Bloomberg, in his 12th year as mayor, has made public health and sustainability hallmarks of his three terms in office, and he has taken aim repeatedly at the fast-food industry - most recently in his controversial plan to bar the sale of large portions of sugary soda, which goes into effect next month.

 

Styrofoam, he says, should go the way of lead-based paint, which the city banned from residential use in 1960. An estimated 20,000 tons of Styrofoam enter the city's waste stream each year, and it can add an estimated $20 per ton to the cost of recycling because it needs to be removed from the recycling stream, the city said.

 

"After all, we can live without it. We may live longer without it. And the doggie bag will survive just fine," the text of Bloomberg's speech says.

 

More: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/13/16954882-new-york-city-mayor-wants-to-ban-styrofoam?lite

wat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great... so now are out food that used to come in styrofoam is now going to come in those little paper Fold-Pak things? Im really starting to hate Bloomberg.

 

There IS a way to recycle styrofoam, my middle school a few years ago had a program where they would recycle the lunch trays made out of styrofoam, it was one of two schools who did that. It is a bit costly, but its possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great... so now are out food that used to come in styrofoam is now going to come in those little paper Fold-Pak things? Im really starting to hate Bloomberg.

 

There IS a way to recycle styrofoam, my middle school a few years ago had a program where they would recycle the lunch trays made out of styrofoam, it was one of two schools who did that. It is a bit costly, but its possible.

 

Doing things that makes sense or is rational in general have become too hard for even some grown men and women to do these days (look at the government for a perfect example).

Edited by DJ MC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There IS a way to recycle styrofoam, my middle school a few years ago had a program where they would recycle the lunch trays made out of styrofoam, it was one of two schools who did that. It is a bit costly, but its possible.

The expense is why recycling programs for it aren't viable. It's probably easier to change to a material that lends itself to recycling/biodegradation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't make sense.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg want to destroy Flushing Meadow-Corona Park, and want to ban stryfoam cup?

 

My retired museum and best friend who work Ossinning Presybystean Hospital suggested they get off stryfoam cup, but hospital refused to let go off stryfoam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe they closed the landfill before the attacks (not totally sure), but I still can't see how they are going to build a park over it.

There are a few landfill parks in Urban Jersey , one is in Bayonne , and then there are the Meadowlands which are being cleaned up.    They seal the trash in and cap it with clay and then soil so it leak and contaminate the ground water or nearby ecosystem.   There are several large swaths of Urban Jersey that will be reclaimed this way including a New waterfront park in Jersey City and the Passaic Riverfront from Paterson to Newark.

 

1204px-Bayonne_Golf_Club_jeh.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the drink ban is illegal I dont think this one will go anywhere either. I dont think most businesses will follow it, I know I wouldn't. This effects so many places, the unpaid tickets and lawsuits would tie up the courts till eternity. Remember just because Bloomberg and his cronies passed it doesn't make it law. No law can be law if it violates the Constitution. B-)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg has some excellent points. Bloomberg is not a "nanny" mayor. He has noticed that people are not taking responsibility for things that they should be, and he is helping them up a little. Bloomberg says, "After all, we can live without it. We may live longer without it." He is completely correct. We have lived before styrofoam just fine, why can't we live without it now. Wouldn't you like to see less of those little styrofoam pellets floating around? Less of the deteriorating styrofoam packaging on the street? It would make our city a better place overall.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do I have a feeling Quill is purposely spewing propoganda. Either that, or just copying text off a hipsters eco-flyer.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do I have a feeling Quill is purposely spewing propoganda. Either that, or just copying text off a hipsters eco-flyer.

LOL! Well he is sophisticated for his age, but I do wonder about his post, if he's trying to be a wise @ss and just mock ecofolks like myself.  <_<

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm sure he is sincere about that particular post since I do see some emotion in it. On-topic, I wouldn't have minded if California would have passed the ban. A lot of more compact packaging would be used in the food service industry.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The styrofoam ban I don't really care if it gets passed on or not, because I never use styrofoam, so whatever.

 

Jimmy, If people want to die happy, let them eat all the sugary drinks and French Fries they want. It's up to the people, not the government to regulate our intake. 7-11 won't be affected at all, since its not controlled by the state. I saw this New York Times Video about the drink ban, that was interesting. But this is for another topic.

 

P.S: The drink ban video I was talking about can be seen here

http://www.nytimes.com/video/2012/09/09/opinion/100000001768095/soda-ban-explained.html

Edited by Q23 Central Terminal
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jimmy, If people want to die happy, let them eat all the sugary drinks and French Fries they want. It's up to the people, not the government to regulate our intake. 7-11 won't be affected at all, since its not controlled by the state. I saw this New York Times Video about the drink ban, that was interesting. But this is for another topic.

 

The people have shown they cannot regulate their intake. In 2009 63.1% of Americans were obese. This continues to rise. More education and bans are a solution.

 

Why do I have a feeling Quill is purposely spewing propoganda. Either that, or just copying text off a hipsters eco-flyer.

 

Oops, I mistakenly disliked this. By the way, I am just speaking my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people have shown they cannot regulate their intake. In 2009 63.1% of Americans were obese. This continues to rise. More education and bans are a solution.

 

If you want to educate people, you have to teach how to make the right choices. Bans will only make one want more of something, making them pick the wrong choices more often, therefore increasing the rate, not helping the onesity rate go down. End of story.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people have shown they cannot regulate their intake. In 2009 63.1% of Americans were obese. This continues to rise. More education and bans are a solution.

You know, the soda ban doesn't solve much becuse who's to stop people from buying two cups or refilling. I do agree about the education.

 

 

Oops, I mistakenly disliked this. By the way, I am just speaking my mind.

No problem, just my satirical joking as usual.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.