Question 2 hinges on more than just residential recycling

The letter to the editor by W. D. Stefanowicz in The Boston Globe more eloquently states a position that I have tried to explain.

Media coverage of the bottle deposit law, such as Tom Keane’s Oct. 12 op-ed column (“Does a ballot question kill the cause?”), frequently mentions the availability of residential curbside recycling, but this is misleading. The proposed extension of the law to water and sports drinks would greatly affect consumption that happens away from home.

Currently, instead of carrying bottles home, people will often add them to landfills by placing them in trash cans or leaving them elsewhere as litter. A small deposit would be a rewarding incentive for the bottles to be returned by their buyers or by the enterprising people who remove them from trash cans and from our parks, sidewalks, and roadways.

W.D. Stefanowicz


See my puny effort to explain this buried in my previous post.

Just in case you were suspicious about the author of the letter to the editor, W. D. Stefanowicz is not one of my aliases nor one of my nom de plumes.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.