How Climate Change Law Shapes the Gov Race
Although a 12.3% unemployment rate and $20 billion budget deficit ensure the economy will dominate California’s race for governor, Republican front-runner Meg Whitman has guaranteed that the environment will also be a high-profile issue in the campaign.
Whitman, the former CEO of eBay, declared in September that her first act as governor would be to suspend the state’s pioneering climate change law, AB32. It was a high-risk political move for Whitman, putting her campaign at odds with the views of a large majority of California voters while, more broadly, re-igniting a statewide debate about the impact of strong environmental regulation on economic growth.
AB32, which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law in 2006, sets increasingly stringent caps on greenhouse gas emissions, leading to a 25% reduction by 2020. The governor’s office described the bill as “a first-in-the-world comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases.”
That’s not how Whitman sees it. The law, she says, “will lead to higher energy costs at a time when we can least afford them. They will discourage job creation and could kill any recovery.” Schwarzenegger, who encouraged the measure, answered Whitman’s statements with sharp criticism for all those who assert a conflict between the economy and the environment:
“I think there are people that just don’t believe in fixing and working on the environment,” he said. “They don’t believe there is such a thing as global warming, they’re still living in the Stone Age.”
Whether the measure is the best approach to reducing greenhouse gases – about which there is considerable debate – Whitman’s stance against it flies in the face of California political trends in recent decades. Like abortion rights, environmental protection is strongly favored by independent, decline-to-state voters, as well as by large majorities of Democrats. As with the issue of choice, taking a stance in opposition to popular opinion can kill the general election chances of a statewide candidate.
Already, the liberal Courage Campaign has attacked Whitman in a radio ad, comparing her position on carbon reduction targets to that of Sarah Palin. Significantly, Whitman used the ad by the leftist grassroots organization as a fundraising tool, positioning herself as a free market champion under attack.
As a political matter, the candidate’s AB32 opposition may make some short-term tactical sense. Her first challenge is to win the Republican primary contest, where right-wing voters dominate, and where she faces Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and former Rep. Tom Campbell. The Public Policy Institute of California recently reported that, among Republicans, support for AB 32 has fallen in recent years, from 65-to-20% in favor in 2006 when it was passed to 43-to-46% against the measure in 2009.
As an aside in the GOP primary but a harbinger for the general election, Democrats in the state stand 78-to-12% in favor of the law and independents are 67-to-23% in favor of it.
And while 89% of California Democrats and 75% of independents say “it is necessary to counter the effects of global warming right away,” Republicans are split on that issue, with 44% favoring immediate action and 46% saying it isn’t necessary to take steps yet.
Whitman’s strategy could ultimately backfire. It is difficult to see the environment as a determinative issue in the GOP primary, where Poizner more quietly takes the same position as Whitman while Campbell favors AB32. Republicans historically have not picked candidates according to their positions on the environment
But Democrats and independents do, and they will be voting in the general election.
PPIC reported that about nine in 10 California Democrats and eight in 10 independents say the government should regulate greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories to reduce global warming. Whitman might call that a “job killer,” but she would do so at her political peril: even 54% of Republicans favor such measures, according to PPIC polling.
It’s not hard to envision an anti-Whitman ad quoting Schwarzenegger:
Some have challenged whether AB 32 is good for businesses. I say unquestionably it is good for businesses. Not only large, well-established businesses, but small businesses that will harness their entrepreneurial spirit to help us achieve our climate goals.
While Whitman has been raising the issue’s profile, the state Senate Select Committee on Climate Change and AB32 Implementation, headed by Sen. Fran Pavley, a Democrat who represents Malibu, Santa Monica, West Hollywood and other L.A. beach enclaves, has begun hearings on Schwarzenegger’s implementation of the measure.
“It’s time to figure out whether we mean what we say or not,” said committee member Sen. Joe Simitian, a Democrat from Silicon Valley and Santa Cruz.
Further driving the environment onto the front burner is Gov. Schwarzenegger’s renewed effort to gain approval of the controversial Tranquillon Ridge offshore oil project in Santa Barbara which — whether is has merit or not — will almost certainly serve as a rhetorical line of demarcation between environmental purists and appeasers.
At the same time, the governor’s Office of Planning and Research has been instructed to promulgate guidelines by which cities and counties can evaluate the effects on global warming of new development – a result of lawsuits brought by Attorney General Jerry Brown. The presumptive Democratic candidate for governor, Brown with his actions has forced consideration of global warming into local planning decisions.
Whitman may please Republican conservatives on the issue, but she is up against broader political forces that favor policies to slow down climate change, including a huge portion of general election voters who want California to lead the way.
A version of this post was published today in the Los Angeles Times.
Definitely a tactical decision to win the primary. But I think its a wildcard issue in the general, if the economy doesn’t recover and Whitman is able to paint the AG as the type of person who would choose abstract moral environmentalism over concrete jobs putting food on the table it could be a big positive.
Californians and people in general are happy to be morally smug so long as they don’t think it costs them anything real. Tie the cost of that morality to their pocket books and their beliefs will change. Not that the AG will ever be outgamed by Whitman no matter how many consultants she buys.
Republican primary election panderhetoric comes in two types: that which won’t hurt you in November and that which will. Of the later category, certainly choice and environment are the two most obvious (as you pointed out). Which makes Whitman’s anti-environmentalism play all the more curious.
In the end voters will either have to believe that she’s right — environmental laws have gone too far and are needlessly strangling economic growth, or that she’s she’s wrong –and she is willing to sacrifice our air quality for the satisfaction of her corporate donors.
Given her profile as a CEO-turned-politician and her lack of any environmental credentials, I’m willing to bet that she has handed Jerry Brown a highly effective weapon for the fall campaign.
I agree with Ave7. I don’t think Whitman has thought this through to the general election. The environment is a real litmus test for a lot of Californians. They might not vote FOR a candidate because of it, but would vote against a candidate for rolling back restrictions that make CA a leader in environmental protection. Arnold nailed it – these politicians that don’t believe in global warming and think their god appointed them to run for office are just inherently or intentionally stupid and living in the Stone Age. And, I might point out since I’m on a bit of a rant here: they are ALL republicans.
Global warming data collection and computer modeling has been proven unmistakably to be wholly fraudulent. Why should anyone continue to advance a theory based on fraud? CO2 is necessary for life to exist on the Earth, and constitutes a very small fraction of the Earth’s atmosphere. How could it possibly cause the warming and other “climate change”? The answer is that it cannot and does not, and the enviros know this. But regulating CO2 makes it possible to go after oil companies, automobile mfrs, and energy companies, all of which make up the favorite target list.
Thanks to the Calbuzzers for pointing out that the environment will (and should) be a major issue in the gubernatorial election. Although the November 2010 election may seem far away, all of the candidates for governor (declared and undeclared) are in the process now of forming their environmental platforms. They’re making decisions about where they stand on global warming, clean and renewable energy, offshore oil drilling, toxics in consumer products, and more. In short, they are making choices about how “green” they will be. The California League of Conservation Voters has launched a campaign and Web site to “Build a Greener Governor” at http://www.greengov2010.org. (There’s even a video in our “community” section of Phil talking about the gov race). CLCV invites all Californians to join this campaign to make sure our next governor is committed to 21st-century solutions for our state’s economy, environment and public health. Join the community, sign up as an environmental champ and add your voice to the debate!