Disposable chopsticks, disposable lunch boxes, disposable cups, disposable toothbrushes, disposable combs ... Disposable items flood our lives.

People today have become accustomed to using disposable chopsticks in restaurants and toiletries provided for free in hotel rooms. However, as awareness of environmental protection grows, more and more people are advocating a "low-carbon life" and "reduction in white pollution" to protect the environment.

In Shanghai, since July 2019, the use of disposable cups has been prohibited in government departments. Priority has been given to purchasing products made from recycled materials. Hotels are not allowed to provide customers with disposable daily necessities, and restaurants and delivery services are discouraged to provide free disposable chopsticks, spoons and other disposable tableware. Similarly, Beijing has prohibited restaurants and hotels from offering free disposable goods since May 1.

There has been a debate among the public on whether the use of these disposable items should be prohibited. Proponents of prohibition hold that the use of disposable items causes excessive waste of resources and damage to the environment, and, therefore, is detrimental to the sustainable development of the society. On the other hand, opponents believe that the widespread use of disposable products has been regarded as a revolution in the field of consumption, which bring many advantages, such as convenience and hygiene.

Zhang Xiliu

Commentator

Hubei Province

As we all know, the purpose of prohibiting the use of disposable items is to restrict the production, sale and use of these non-degradable articles, so as to save resources and reduce pollution. The main objective is to tackle the problem of environmental protection at its source.

But a single measure is not enough to remove disposable items from our lives. We should accelerate the supply of alternative products, that is, the introduction of biodegradable products to meet market demand. Also, there is no doubt that the implementation of the ban may cause economic losses to some companies due to large inventories of disposable items. In this regard, the relevant departments should formulate appropriate measures to handle and minimize their losses, so as to raise the enthusiasm of relevant businesses to implement the rule.

Niu Yili

Company employee

Shanghai

I agree with this approach. People's awareness of environmental protection is still very low. Those in favor of continuing with disposable tableware undoubtedly care about the convenience, but in fact, have they ever thought about how much negative impact it has on the environment?

It is estimated that our country needs to cut down about 25 million trees to produce 45 billion pairs of disposable chopsticks every year, which is such a waste of precious natural resources. Also, after the disposable items are discarded, they don't easily degrade. That can seriously harm plant growth, thus affecting the environment.

In addition, the quality of some disposable tableware is not up to the standard. For example, many disposable chopsticks probably contain sulfur dioxide, which is definitely harmful to our health.

Zhang Xinqi

PhD student

Hunan Province

Restaurants, delivery services and hotels are the main providers of disposable products. We all know, in the hotel, most of the disposable items like soap and toothpaste cannot be used up by the guests, so the items become garbage.

Similarly, unused shampoo is also dumped and its liquid seeps into the soil and flows into rivers, causing huge water pollution. What's more, the packaging of such products itself cannot be directly decomposed in the natural state. Except for recycling, the only other way of disposal is incineration or deep burying, which puts great pressure on the environment.

The quality of many disposable toiletries in some hotels cannot meet the standard, which can be harmful to our health. So, wouldn't it be better to bring our own toiletries when staying in a hotel? It will be both eco-friendly and reassuring to ourselves.

Liu Yue

Employee of a fund firm

Beijing

It's cheaper and easier for restaurants to provide disposable chopsticks to diners. Why should we prohibit it? Besides, restaurants need to wash and disinfect their bowls, cups and other reusable tableware. If they can use disposable tableware, it will greatly reduce time, labor cost and use of water resources.

During the novel coronavirus epidemic, dining in restaurants is discouraged to avoid crowding. So ordering food in to-go boxes has been an efficient way. If the use of disposable food containers is prohibited, how can we eat if we cannot cook at home? To put it in another way, if we bring our own reusable food containers to pick the food, it will increase the waiting time, which can also raise the risk of infection.

Wang Xiaozhong

Bank employee

Henan Province

I think this policy is inappropriate because the use of disposable items is not accidental. If we ban the use of disposable items, it may cause a chain reaction, resulting in a lot of bankruptcies of disposable tableware manufacturers. Also, the burgeoning delivery industry might be seriously affected, resulting greatly in the decline of people's dining convenience. It may lead to overcrowding in restaurants, and there will be more dishes and chopsticks to be washed, which will cause a waste of water resources.

Cheap disposable tableware is the best choice at this stage. We should improve and upgrade it, rather than prohibit it. In the past few years, there were a lot of negative comments about plastic bags. But we still use them. So, when we see some negative effects of disposable products, we should not blindly encourage people to resist using them. More importantly, we should develop more economical, practical and eco-friendly substitutes. I have seen that many companies have made degradable disposable tableware. So, technology can also help us find alternatives and change the prevailing notions.

Wang Yuxin

General manager of an Internet company

Heilongjiang Province

The ban on "free" plastic bags at supermarkets has not led to a substantial decline in the use of such bags. Every time I go to the supermarket, I only have to spend another few cents on a plastic bag. Therefore, I think this policy may not make much contribution to environmental protection; instead, consumers will pay for it.

If we cannot use these disposable products, it will inevitably cause inconvenience. The final goal of the prohibition is to protect the environment, but we cannot allow this goal to be a cover for a "hidden cost" for customers.