Everyone is in favor of clean air and water, without question. The problems about Proposition 1 are that
it is fiscally irresponsible to burden the people of New York state with an additional $4.2 billion dollars in debt, especially with today’s interest rates and the present economy, and because $1.5 billion dollars is earmarked for the hoax known as “climate change”.
Yes, it is a hoax. Forbes magazine, Friends of Science, and John Coleman (founder of The Weather Channel) are among the many who have decried it as such. See the following:
In 2012, 134 scientists sent a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations asking him to stop policy actions, as the data did not support the projected future global warming. This letter furthermore stated that any efforts to reduce CO2 emissions were unlikely to have a significant impact on future climate.
In 2019, Friends of Science also sent a letter to the Secretary general signed by 500 scientists that said, among other things, that natural as well as man-made factors were responsible for warming, that CO2 is not a pollutant, rather it is necessary for life on earth, that their policies relied on inadequate models, that global warming has not increased natural disasters, and finally, there is no climate emergency.
The Marshall Institute states that ¾ of the earth’s temperature variability is due to solar activity. Other factors include tectonic and volcanic activities, and changes in the earth’s orbit and axis. All of these outweigh CO2 emissions.
NASA and NOAA declared that we are now in a solar minimum. This drop in solar activity means that the earth is in for a period of likely global COOLING. This is expected to last until around 2030.
Also of concern is that the proposition does not spell out how the money will be spent, other than general categories. I personally do not trust the politicians to spend it wisely. Will it be used for a continuance of the war on fossil fuels, with the attendant rise in gas and oil prices? Will there be a larger subsidy of the expensive and dangerous electric vehicles? What does Albany really intend for these funds?
Because of the climate hoax, the expense, and the lack of transparency, I urge the voters to respond with an emphatic “No!”.
Paul Ertel
Warwick