Controversy Over Proposition 128

In response to the two negative columns on Prop. 128 (“Can’t See Forest for the Monument,” by Daniel B. Botkin and “Noble Goals, but Far Too Many,” by Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, Opinion, Sept. 9):

We’ve got it all backwards: Here we are debating restoration of the environment when we never got the chance to debate its destruction!

Botkin incorrectly asserts that the proposition states that California, through its actions alone, can substantially affect global warming. Then, building on this incorrect assertion, we are told that the entire proposition is defective because it “gets a little science wrong.”

The author admits that “California can contribute to the effect, but we can’t take local actions that result in total control of the greenhouse effect over our own state.” So, do we take no action? Do we wait for the entire world to take concerted action? No, clearly we should think globally and act where we can be effective--locally!

Jeffe quotes a state official as warning us that “without the ability of industries to plan and ‘do business’ . . . California cannot generate jobs ‘and the economy weakens.’ ” The author sums up the key argument of Big Green’s opposition: “Only a wealthy economy can address these issues.”

Why should we (the voters) even have to address these issues--now or ever? When did we vote for polluted air and water? I forget. When did I vote for pesticides and aerial spraying?

We have it backwards, but of course, it’s too late now. Does Prop. 128 have too many goals? No way.

THOMAS A. BLISS

Van Nuys