Your explanation is exactly why environmentalism is losing ground in the public zeitgeist outside of sensational headlines. People thought they would be profita

Your explanation is exactly why environmentalism is losing ground in the public zeitgeist outside of sensational headlines. People thought they would be profitable because large swathes of people liked them. The cities where they've lost ground have passed laws restricting them but the public votes along party lines so no politician of significance cares about the public reaction. The rest of your comment is essentially an appeal to the idea that cities can't have nice things unless they match your standard for environmrntal friendliness. The products were widely used before they were restricted, the public votes with their wallets, entrenched interests found a way around that vote. The cost to the consumer now is that they're basically useless because entitled people like yourself felt that the focus of a city shouldn't be facilitating the things that its people enjoy.