News-Record.com

This story is so confusing. I have only a sketchy idea what those five lines in the law might have been, or what they did or did not require -- or how the process was flawed.

But the writer's message and intentions nevertheless come through loud and clear: Anyone proposing an environmental law is a flake, and government that does not serve corporate profits is bad.

To make matters worse, the leading question is designed to provoke suspicion and mistrust -- without any clear information. The writer might want to consider working for the Rhino Times. This is their kind of pseudo journalism.

Andy Ellen's comments would be a joke if they weren't so cynical. We don't have recycling programs in conservative North Carolina. Recycling is too quirky I suppose.

Ms. James:

Unfortunately, you took my comments out of context and they were not in any way intended to be cynical. The issue we raised on this matter and which was backed up by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources was that at this time plastic is a valuable commodity in the recycling markets and is used to make a number of products and that a mandate towards biodegradable bottles could hurt recycling efforts in North Carolina.

Most companies that make bottled water continue to research using more environmentally friendly materials including biodegradable bottles. The only biodegradable bottle on the market at this time is made from corn which is in short supply as well. If you place a biodegradable bottle in a recycling bin it contaminates the rest of the load when it is melted down. The biodegradable bottles that are currenly on the market do not biodegrade unless they are sent to a commercial facility which I think there is only one of in North Carolina.

We certainly respect the intentions of Senator Basnight which make us all think how we can act in a more environementally friendly way.

Andy Ellen