MbShea@PWP@English@UMCP

in the coffee cup memo. Let's begin, however, with this charming image by A.C. (11AM section).

Establish ethos of your cited material for both Hocking and Moore at the beginning of your two evaluation paragraphs.

Martin Hocking, research chemist at the University of Victoria, used a life cycle approach to compare paper and styrofoam cups.  Hocking's findings appeared in [YEAR] and [Journal name]

Charles Moore, oceanographer, runs the Algalita Foundation.  Moore is widely credited with first describing the accumulation of plastic in the Pacific Ocean.  Moore's work documenting the fate of ocean plastic appears in [YEAR] and [Journal name]

Transition elements:

While Hocking's work compares both types of cups, his energy-focused analysis supports the styrofoam choice as being better for the environment.  Another analytical frame focused on the end of the life cycle means we must consider the persistence of plastic in the environment.

Moore's work is concerned primarily with the emerging problem of plastic in aquatic environments. Another compelling analytical approach weighs the climate change/energy efficiency problem more heavily. Here, the energy used to create the cup moves the social concern to the earlier phases of LCA.

Small definitions phrases/sentences you might use:

LCA -- a cradle-to-grave -- approach....

Hocking's work captures the carbon footprints of each cup.....

Research on the fate of ocean plastic is emerging, with bioaccumulation problems noted for complex food chains. Bioaccumulation concerns transfer of pollution up a food chain from smaller organisms like phytoplankton in successive levels up to top predators like tuna fish.

Establishing YOUR ethos, with counter-arguments

Hocking's work, though dated, is the only available peer-reviewed analysis about energy embodied in coffee cups.

Moore is a scientist-advocate.  Yet, his research -- and that of others -- is entering the peer-reviewed literature as the research inquiry widens.

Paper cups are often thrown away and not recycled. Low oxygen conditions in landfills mean that paper does not completely degrade.  Furthermore, the plastic coating makes recycling more complicated.

Styrofoam does not always end up in landfills.  Much of the material -- like other plastics -- ends up in the ocean.  Styrofoam as a type of plastic does not really degrade.  Newer research, however, suggests that plastic does break into smaller particles, with some serious consequences for aquatic animals.  

My recommendation is driven by my choice of environmental problem.  A reasonable argument can be made in support of the other cup choice.

Please note that I have not included human health effects in this analysis. This is a weakness in my overall approach.  Let me know if I can examine this aspect further.

Other bits of content that you could address at the closing of your memo include:

• Styrofoam recycling is emerging
• Bioplastics, including biofoam
• Microplastics
• Implications for local watershed