Brookline's recent bans on some (but not all) polystyrene foam containers and on some (but not all) polyethylene film bags mainly set an example of foolishness. Brookline town meeting members did not try to find out whether, under local conditions, those actions would really help or harm the environment. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unlike polystyrene, polyethylene belongs to one of two classes of plastics for which Brookline provides substantial recycling: some polyesters and some polyolefins. However, in practice the town recycles only molded items embossed with recycling codes--not films, foams, sheets, slugs or unembossed moldings. The town does not recycle any of the dozens of other classes of plastics. Instead, it burns them all. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Littering the environment is not a significant local issue. As anyone would know who even visited, Brookline accumulates very little litter. The town's services and its residents regularly collect and dispose of litter, including plastic containers and bags. Nearly all of that is disposed of as municipal solid waste or by private contractors using the same disposal services. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Brookline nearly all polystyrene foam containers and polyethylene film bags are fated to be burned in a large incinerator. That is also the fate of any likely replacements--more expensive items made of paper, starches and compostable fibers. It will not matter whether replacements might biodegrade, since they will have no opportunity to do so. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The alternatives consume more energy to produce and distribute, so that overall they are likely to use more nonrenewable resources and to release more carbon dioxide and cause more air pollution. However, when those issues were raised in discussions with several liberal town meeting members, they simply did not want to hear about them. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brookline's haste and thoughtlessness in banning materials is historically odd. Typically the town studies any proposal to change its regulations carefully, taking into account local conditions. If the town had acted in the same reckless way on a social issue--for example, trying to ban people of Indonesian origins because they are likely to carry cholera--it would be pilloried.

Hasty, expensive and dumb decision. Brookline folks do you honestly think the proponents have made science and a fact based argument that makes a case for banning these products? Do you really believe that it's fair to add the significant increased costs to your small businesses? Do you know that the proponents in their zeal-- are directing that a new wastes steam (so called bio and composatble packaging) will be created-- raising to artificially high level usage of the new packaging that when comingled with existing stream  is known to be hazardous to the recyling sysyems?  This is  not an environmental solution nor does it advance recyling. And yet even worst is the fact that banning will not allow for many workable alternatives recylcing solution policies.