I think you and many other have completely misunderstood this sentence, which is on me for not being clear. Now that I slept on it I think I see where my fault lies. It sounds like everything after the "but" is me contradicting the first part when I meant to just convey more information, not to contradict it entirely.

When I said "I'm not in favor of this kind of law", I literally meant that. I'm not in favor of a complete ban: full stop. You're arguing as if I have the opposite position.

I'm saying the environmental costs are real. That doesn't mean that I therefore think that there should be a complete ban, simply that there are real costs that we need to be mindful of. Socioeconomic costs outweigh the environment here, IMO.

I think if you read my comments again with this in mind you'll find you're not actually disagreeing with my real position.