Kelly McCay

2-21-05

English 134

Marx

Styrofoam isn’t Innocent

Ever used a Styrofoam cup for coffee, or a Styrofoam take out box? Chances are if you attend Cal Poly, or purchase consumer goods to any extent, you have used polystyrene foam. Handy for containing several kinds of foods and liquids, polystyrene foam poses health risks. Polystyrene foam also causes harm to the environment we live in, polluting our beautiful land. Feasible solutions to this problem exist, which can easily turn around the outcome of polystyrene foam’s usage.[SM1]

Polystyrene foam comes from a blown vinyl chloride polymer. It is made with petroleum, which is non-sustainable, heavily polluting, and scarce. A new material will have to replace this disappearing petroleum substance. When Styrofoam is disposed of, it doesn’t biodegrade in the landfills. It breaks into small fragments, which can choke animals. Styrofoam covers more area in landfills than paper products do and will eventually enter back into the surrounding environment by water flow and mechanical force [SM2] .

In Clare Johnson’s speech [SM3] “Cal Polystyrene,” she presents the negative issues of polystyrene foam and states why she feels its consumption should be reduced. A combined average of 12,000 polystyrene cups are disposed of each week by our campus’s Lighthouse, Julian’s, Campus Market, The Avenue, and Lucy’s Juice. All this Styrofoam builds up in landfills. Johnson’s argument is logical in that she pushes for more efficient methods of disposable food packaging. She feels that the use of polystyrene foam should be decreased and replaced with unbleached paper products. This is as close to environmentally friendly as we can get with a non-reusable product. Unbleached paper biodegrades, is more easily recyclable, and its production requires little energy while using no chemical pollutants. One of her plan’s setbacks is that going from polystyrene foam to unbleached paper will involve a slight increase in cost.

Absent in her argument are actions that one can take and how to put themselves to work at the individual level to solve the Styrofoam problem. I could not eat at places that use Styrofoam, but then that would leave me with few choices of on-campus food since the majority of on-campus dining facilities use Styrofoam. The only prospect Johnson sets for us is to group together to try and change the university policy. Examples from CSU Long Beach are included here to show this. Students here [SM4] petitioned to remove all Styrofoam from campus and they made art exhibits with used Styrofoam depicting how Styrofoam harms the environment. These students also used their local media to spread their cause. Styrofoam was not banned but these efforts were a good start [SM5] .

Johnson’s emotional appeal targets people by discussing how polystyrene foam can affect people’s health and reproductive systems. Polystyrene foam has chemicals that leach out into the food or liquid they contain. This is one of the ways in which polystyrene foam can harm people since a build up of these chemicals can cause cancer and detriment the reproductive system. This is emotional in that it concerns a person and their ability to reproduce and to emotionally connect with their partner or their own child. The people who make polystyrene foam can also contract these harmful effects. However, this seems to not be a strong element of the argument as probably not a large amount of San Luis Obispo county residents are involved in polystyrene foam production. Even though Johnson’s essay is directed toward San Luis Obispo residents, most people still have concern for the people of other counties. This could also make us not use polystyrene foam as much [SM6] in an effort to decrease polystyrene foam manufacturing and reduce the workers’ exposure. This can cause people to sympathize with such people, creating emotional concern for this issue.[SM7] Thus Johnson’s emotional elements are legitimate in persuading readers against polystyrene foam’s use [SM8] .

Johnson’s speech also targets the sympathies of its audience by making us feel bad for harming the environment by using this product. “Our foam waste often breaks up into little pieces, causing animals who think it is food to choke or to die of clogged digestive pathways.” The issue of animals choking on polystyrene foam is an emotional appeal because it makes the reader feel guilty for this. People feel a connection to animals, and harming them in such a way causes emotional concern.

The personal credibility succeeds in this argument as evidence and concise reasoning back Johnson’s words. Her speech is easy to understand and is presented in a complete manner. This information persuades the reader and calmly convinces one to take her side, without harsh terms or discordant antagonism. Not bluntly drawing attention to it, Johnson states the facts with a slight bias, which helps her make her point, and gets the reader on her side [SM9] .

Styrofoam is something we use and see every day but don’t realize its negative presence. “Cal Polystyrene” states the dangers of polystyrene foam and gets the point across. I had always wondered about Styrofoam and if it was a recyclable item, and where it came from. This speech convinced me that my inquisitions [SM10] were legitimate and I now feel the use of Styrofoam should be reduced. I was strongly persuaded by this speech [SM11] and I now know the story behind this cup [SM12] that I drink from.