THE FIRST Massachusetts bottle bill, back in 1982, was attacked in the same way that Question 2 is now being attacked (“Ads with inaccurate data aid foes of wider bottle law,”Page A1, Oct. 3). It was said of the first bill that it would increase the cost of soda (it did not), that it wouldn’t really reduce litter (it did), and that it would cost the state money (it increased revenues).
We should not be fooled by the ads the bottling companies are airing.
We know that more than two-thirds of redeemable cans are recycled and only about a quarter of non-redeemable ones are.
We know that our parks and nature sanctuaries are filled with litter from these nonredeemable cans and bottles, such as tea, water, and sports drinks.
We know that many towns and cities don’t have curbside recycling.
Let’s pass Question 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment