Letter Writer Says Prop 3 Decision is 'Ridiculously Simple'
Jonathan Ross urges a 'yes' vote on the renewable energy ballot proposal.
To the editor:
I have spent time researching the ballot proposals coming up on Nov. 6. One that I've been keeping track of from the beginning is Prop 3, which would bring more renewable energy to Michigan. And I don't get why people would be against this.
Right now we get about 60 percent of our energy in Michigan from burning coal. We spend $1.7 billion dollars a year importing coal from other states. It is a dirty, harmful energy source that is the energy of last century. It gives our kids asthma and increases our health care costs. So why am I seeing opposition to Prop 3? The answer, after only a small amount of digging, is that coal companies are spending millions of dollars to distort the facts. This is a shame because some sensible, hard-working Michiganders are planning on voting No just because they don't know the truth.
Here's Prop 3 put simply: It would bring jobs and money to the state. On top of that, it would make our state and people healthier, because we could rely more on natural sources like the sun and wind rather than pumping dirty coal into the air. And this rumor that it will raise utility costs is just not correct: there is a 1% cap on utility hikes (no more than about $1.25/month) written into the proposal, and states like Illinois that have already tried this had their utility rates go down. In fact, 31 states have already beaten us to better energy plans similar to this one.
To me Prop 3 is ridiculously simple. A "No" vote is a vote for dirty imported coal and higher health care costs. A vote "Yes" means better economy, better industry, better environment and better health for all of our families.