• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to secondary sidebar

The Lincoln Squirrel – News, features and photos from Lincoln, Mass.

  • Home
  • About/Contact
  • Advertise
  • Legal Notices
    • Submitting legal notices
  • Lincoln Resources
    • Coming Up in Lincoln
    • Municipal Calendar
    • Lincoln Links
  • Merchandise
  • Subscriptions
    • My Account
    • Log In
    • Log Out
  • Lincoln Review
    • About the Lincoln Review
    • Issues
    • Submit your work

Letter to the editor: expand the bottle bill

October 28, 2014

letter

Editor’s note: For details on the Massachusetts ballot questions, see Ballotpedia.org.

To the editor:

Voting “yes” on the Question 2 (the beverage container deposit law or “bottle bill”) will expand coverage of the current deposit law to include water, juice, sports drinks and other non-carbonated drink containers.

We recycle 80 percent of containers with deposits, but only 23 percent without deposits. The majority of these are plastic, which is over 90 percent petroleum-based. Boston Globe columnist Yvonne Abraham (“Bottle bill foes hope you buy in,” September 14) says, “Don’t fall for it, people,” referring to the ads opposing Question 2.

This law would keep billions upon billions of plastic bottles out of landfills (and oceans) is all about protecting you and Mother Earth. Massachusetts consumers buy 3.5 billion drinks in on-the-go containers each year. Only one-third of those are recycled—enough to fill Fenway Park. The types of drinks covered by this ballot question were not even around when the original bill was passed 32 years ago. Furthermore, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection found no difference in cost of beverages between states with expanded bottle deposit laws and those without.

The Boston Globe (“Advertisements with inaccurate data aid foes of wider bottle law,” October 3) says the $8 million in advertisements being paid for by the American Beverage Association and large supermarket chains about Question 2 include false statistics and claims. Specifically:

  • Only 47 percent of cities and towns provide curbside recycling, not 90 percent as the ad claims.
  • Non-deposit containers outnumber deposit containers 3 to1 in litter found in public parks even though they only make up 40 percent of the market.
  • The majority of beverages covered by this expanded container deposit law are sold and consumed away from the home and thus have no recycling.
  • 62 percent of voters supported Question 2 until the false advertisements started to run. Since the false ads started, support has dwindled to 33 percent.

Sincerely,

Gary Davis
20R Indian Camp Lane


Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters must be about a Lincoln-specific topic, will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Category: government, letters to the editor

Primary Sidebar

Upcoming Events

May 10
10:00 am - 12:00 pm

Lincoln Democrats caucus

May 10
11:00 am - 2:00 pm

Garden Cub plant sale

May 12
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm

“Fort-Night”

May 12
7:00 pm - 10:00 pm

LOMA: Sweetbriar

May 13
10:00 am - 5:00 pm

Blood drive to benefit Boston Children’s Hospital

View Calendar

Recent Posts

  • My Turn: Planning for climate-friendly aviation May 8, 2025
  • News acorns May 7, 2025
  • Legal notice: Select Board public hearing May 7, 2025
  • Property sales in March and April 2025 May 6, 2025
  • Public forums, walks scheduled around Panetta/Farrington proposal May 5, 2025

Squirrel Archives

Categories

Secondary Sidebar

Search the Squirrel:

Privacy policy

© Copyright 2025 The Lincoln Squirrel · All Rights Reserved.