David Brooks’s article about a “techno-fix” for the plastics dilemma (Monitor, 6/28) was very interesting and brought up the adage of the cure being worse than the disease. At this time, we aren’t even sure which fix will cure the problem: very high heat or toxic chemicals. Both cures have inherent problems. High heat is energy-intensive and toxic chemicals, well, they speak for themselves. And we’re still going to have a disposal problem, albeit a different consistency. Instead of air-filled bottles that float in our oceans, we’ll have mats of melted down plastic that may or may not float, but they still must go somewhere. And the toxic meltdown sludge, who knows what Pandora’s Box that will open.
Additionally, the state, in its usual wisdom, wants to pass bills that end up being underfunded, or worse, unfunded. It is noble that the state seeks a solution to the problem, but without any money to search for that solution, it’s difficult to see any changes being made. What happened to using glass jars and bottles? Compostable paper bags? People could re-use them in their homes or they could be returned, washed and used again. Put a deposit on glass beverage bottles (and aluminum cans) so there is an incentive to return and reuse them. Look at the recycling programs in Canada where it’s not about making money from your recyclables, it’s about the environment.
Debbie Kardaseski
Hillsborough