James Taylor letters to editor on California Prop 23

Prop 23 Opponents Are the Big Spenders
Submitted to the Los Angeles Times 10/21/2010

Opponents of Proposition 23 are increasingly claiming corporate Big Money is being funneled to Prop 23 supporters. Nothing could be further from the truth, given the avalanche of anti-Prop 23 money pouring in from environmental activist groups, liberal political action funds, and the renewable power industry.

The non-partisan group MAPLight.org, which is tracking campaign funding on both sides of the issue, reports that Prop 23 opponents have spent $30 million to defeat the initiative, while supporters have spent only $9 million. The National Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club alone have spent nearly half as much as all Prop 23 supporters combined.

It is the environmental activist lobby, and not Prop 23 supporters, that are spending the Big Money to tilt the balance in the Prop 23 debate.

James M. Taylor
Parrish, Florida

Prop 23 Good for Economy, Environment
Submitted to the San Francisco Chronicle 10/22/2010

California?s greenhouse gas restrictions are not only crippling the state?s already suffering economy, but they are also taking a tremendously negative toll on the environment. The American Bird Conservancy reports that windmills, while producing less than 2 percent our nation?s electricity, kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds in the U.S. each year. Thousands more bats suffer the same fate. Forcing California consumers to purchase more wind power will cause those numbers to rise dramatically. By comparison, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that a combined total of less than 5,000 birds, turtles, and marine mammals were killed during the once-in-a-generation Gulf Oil Spill.

Even if voters choose to ignore the economic costs of California?s current energy restrictions, the environmental toll is devastating. Proposition 23 offers voters an opportunity to improve the economy as well as the environment.

James M. Taylor
Parrish, Florida

California?s Economy Needs Prop 23
Submitted to the Sacramento Bee 10/22/2010

It is no coincidence that Californians, who are burdened by ever-tightening energy restrictions imposed under the banner of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, are suffering from energy prices and unemployment rates that are among the highest in the nation. Replacing cost-effective conventional energy sources with prohibitively expensive alternative sources like wind and solar power has been a substantial factor in California?s current economic woes.

California?s greenhouse gas restrictions are having no impact on global climate, yet they are having a tremendously negative impact on California?s economy. Proposition 23, which would suspend costly energy restrictions until economic conditions improve, would restore much of the economic hope that has been sacrificed under current energy restrictions.

James M. Taylor
Parrish, Florida