RE THE Feb. 9 letter “Bottle bill is an expensive, ineffectual law’’ by Christopher P. Flynn, president of the Massachusetts Food Association: How can he argue against a law which, by his own estimate, would tackle about 2 percent of the “litter stream’’? Assuming that is true, if all of America adopted this kind of legislation, we could save many millions of dollars per year in litter cleanup. That money could be used to fund programs for those more problematic forms of litter Flynn mentioned, such as cigarette butts and fast-food containers.
The argument against recycling legislation always seems to include the notion that we’d be in favor of helping the environment as long as it doesn’t cost us anything. Even if you contest the cost savings cited above, you must realize that the irreparable damage to the environment by the litter we generate is going to have serious consequences, and that there is no way to tackle it on a macro level without putting some money into it.
Those against the law, however, seem to be more content to continue letting the litter pile up than to spend a little money trying to initiate real change and planet-saving measures. I ask Flynn: Which approach is more short-sighted?
Benjamin S. Axelson
Amherst 
