Schwarzenegger's 'Green' Credentials Questioned
SACRAMENTO - He is gaining a reputation as the green governor who is marshaling California in the fight against global warming. But Arnold Schwarzenegger was one of the last people in the Capitol to join the battle, and has earned so-so grades from environmental activists.Schwarzenegger seems to be everywhere as the crowd-friendly face of environmental activism. Catch him on the cover of Newsweek, balancing a fragile globe on the tip of a finger, or giving a big environmental speech in Washington.
On Thursday he addressed the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations in New York. Diane Sawyer interviewed him about the environment for ABC, Charlie Rose did so for PBS, Hannity & Colmes for Fox. And Britain's Conservative Party has booked him for a fall trip to spread the message abroad.
MTV viewers will even find Schwarzenegger in a cameo on "Pimp My Ride'' on Earth Day, April 22. He will inspect a 1965 Chevy Impala that has been given an 800-horsepower engine powered by clean-burning fuel.
His aim, Schwarzenegger said in Washington this week, is to make environmentalism "hip."
"You don't have to get rid of SUVs, you don't have to get rid of Hummers,'' he said. "We need to take the technology and make clean engines. That is the message.''
Back home, environmentalists see the governor's green credentials as thin.
The governor has taken more than $1 million in campaign money from the oil industry, whose products contribute to the greenhouse gas buildup that Schwarzenegger says he wants to roll back. And he is not reliable in using his bill-signing powers to protect the environment, activists say.
Each year, the California League of Conservation Voters puts out an annual scorecard that rates the governor on a scale of 0 to 100, based on the environmental bills he has signed or vetoed. Last year, Schwarzenegger's grade was 50, down from the previous two years when he logged a 58.
Gray Davis, the governor Schwarzenegger ousted in the 2003 recall, scored 75 in 2002 and 85 the year before that.
"Despite the governor's public embrace of the environment, his record on signing good environmental bills into law remains mediocre,'' the league said in its annual report card.
Schwarzenegger administration officials insist that the governor is a progressive force for environmental protection.
He has formed partnerships with Britain and Western states to curb greenhouse gas emissions; endorsed a program to install as many as 1 million rooftop systems for solar electricity; and set aside money to remove older, high-polluting cars from the road.
But it was two Democratic lawmakers - not Schwarzenegger - who devised the law for which the governor is being celebrated.
The measure is aimed at cutting California's greenhouse gases 25% by 2020. Schwarzenegger was not the architect of the bill and at times seemed a reluctant partner in its adoption.
At a global warming conference in San Francisco last April, he voiced skepticism about new regulations.
"We don't want to go after business and make business leave the state,'' he said.
With only one day left in the legislative session, it was by no means certain that Schwarzenegger would sign the bill. Powerful interests stood in opposition. Business groups - the core of Schwarzenegger's fund-raising base - feared that it would jack up costs.
Schwarzenegger wanted business-friendly provisions that would allow companies to trade emissions credits, meaning some could pay for the right to pollute.
The governor's office offered "a number of amendments that would have watered down provisions of the mandatory reductions,'' Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles), a coauthor of the bill, said in an interview.
A game of chicken followed. Nuñez told the governor's staff that he would push forward with or without Schwarzenegger's support. The governor threatened to veto the bill if his changes weren't adopted, Nuñez said.
With Nuñez poised to tell a news conference that he was proceeding alone and Schwarzenegger needing legislative achievements to fuel his reelection campaign, the governor signed on. The trading system Schwarzenegger wanted is allowed under the law but is not mandatory.
"It was touch-and-go until the very end as to whether or not the governor would sign the bill,'' said Ann Notthoff, California advocacy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, who was involved in the discussions.
Schwarzenegger used his veto power to quash other environmental bills.
One would have imposed a $30 fee on each container that moves through the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports, with the money devoted partly to cutting air pollution.
"It was not just an environmental bill, it was a bill that addressed a public health crisis,'' said the author, Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), citing the dangers of diesel particulates and other health hazards linked to the movement of goods.
The legislation was opposed by some of the governor's most stalwart business allies, including farmers, manufacturers and retailers such as Home Depot. In his veto message, Schwarzenegger said he was worried that raising fees might hinder the movement of products made in California.
Schwarzenegger killed another bill last year that would have made it state policy to take every step necessary to reduce dependence on oil. And he vetoed a measure that would have required that half of all cars sold in California by 2020 be capable of using alternative fuels.
Watchdog groups said the governor faces a conflict of interest by rejecting such legislation, given the campaign money he takes from the oil industry.
Chevron alone gave campaign committees supporting the governor about $345,000 in 2005-06.
"To see him climbing on board the same train with Al Gore could be beneficial,'' said Judy Dugan, research director for oilwatchdog.org, part of the Santa Monica-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. "But money at the amounts that he takes pollutes what he's saying."
Terry Tamminen, who was environmental secretary during the governor's first term, suggested that the campaign donations helped to keep Schwarzenegger in office, permitting him to take pro-environment steps.
"It's very important for him to be elected to do the things he's been doing,'' said Tamminen, author of "Lives Per Gallon: The True Cost of Our Oil Addiction." Schwarzenegger "would be the first to tell you he didn't want to take contributions from anyone."
"But unfortunately, that's the way the system works," Tamminen said. "I would refer people to the actions he's taken. Our greenhouse gas policy hasn't been anything that Chevron has been saying thank you for.''
Still, audio recordings of the governor's private meetings show that his aides have seen political value in making the environment a pet issue.
"Every four or five weeks, we're going to spend an entire week on the environment,'' the governor's communications director, Adam Mendelsohn, told him in a private meeting in early 2006. " ... I do not believe it's smart politics here in California to not talk about your environmental stuff."
The recordings were made by the governor's speechwriting staff and mistakenly posted on Schwarzenegger's website.
They were copied by aides who were working for the governor's former Democratic opponent, Phil Angelides, and made public.
In the recordings, Schwarzenegger seems to wonder if people would accept a high-living, Hummer-driving ex-muscleman as an environmentalist.
"Here I was driving Hummers," he says at one point. "I don't know if I leave myself open here by calling myself an environmentalist. So we should just be aware of that.''
peter.nicholas@latimes.com
Times staff writer Marc Lifsher contributed to this report.
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
10 Comments so far
Show Allor example, isn't there some kind of law in CA against riding your ATV anywhere and tearing up the desert making new trails?
These infernal "quads" are a scourge over most of the whole country. Considering the damage they are doing to even the well-watered woods here in Pennsylvania. I'm afraid of what they do to southern AZ. They utterly trash private and public land. Our club-owned local Hang Gliding launch site has been reduced from a nice place for a picnic to a beer-can littered mudhole. And they are riding all over WV's Dolly Sods wilderness area - the underfunded and understaffed National Forest staff being unable to control them.
Maybe I'm dating myself, but growing up on the East Coast in the 1960 -70's, we suffered under a continuous torrent of "hipness" in the form of popular music, hod-rods from the LA area and hippies from San Fransisco, "California rock" bands the superiority of it's climate and terrain...etc. etc. But you're right, except for those women's fashions with "Hollister" written across the ass, (isn't that just an unremarkable farm town in the c. valley?), not much "cool" comes from California anymore...
Schwarzeneggers has put on an environmental friendly face environmental by taking credit for measures that he had even tried to impede. His promotion of hydrogen fuel (which is not free energy and will never be viableis) is only only a tactic to forestall real energy conservation mesures which are contrary to the intrests of the energy cartel and the Bush team.
His tactics to generate this faux enviroinmental facade, while diverting efforts from meaningful environmental measures, render him an ally of the energy cartel and an enemy of the envirionment, Americans should understand this.
This part really bugs me ""You don't have to get rid of SUVs, you don't have to get rid of Hummers," he said. "We need to take the technology and make clean engines. That is the message."" What utter tripe! The idea that the we can continue in our practices of gross excess 'cause it's "hip" is ridiculous. See this article http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/27/109/ on the realities of bio-fuels. What is needed is a serious change in our overconsumption of resources. Having corporate shills like this furthering the myth of unlimited consumerism, as long it has been dyed green, is infuriating.
I think the problem a lot of folks see in the CA model is that they often are caught trying to impose the do as I say not as I do model on everyone, while at the same time complaining that people aren't listening to them. Then they wonder why people don't think of them really highly.
I have seen this in the Californication of the whole western seaboard cities. They come in, screw things up, then want others to pay the price to clean up their messes, or plain just don't care. I now live in AZ, and they're doing it over here too.
For example, isn't there some kind of law in CA against riding your ATV anywhere and tearing up the desert making new trails? So what happens, folks like my neighbor, a SD realtor specializing in environmental land swap deals, comes out here to southern AZ, brings out 4 quads & ATV's, then commences to cutting new paths right across the neighbors' land (plural possessive there bildad, including mine after he'd been warned twice before to stop, ...both times after the fact!) and across the beautiful state land that borders both our properties. For some reason, the Californians will shit in YOUR mess kit first, and then in their OWN mess kit, and not give a damn who or if anyone cleans it up until it inconveniences them, at which point they'll come and ask you for your help!
The person to whom I am referring is also a sorry-assed republican, no different than the hollywood guv. The problem is these folks have more money than sense, as evidenced by the fact that they listen to folks like Bill O'I'll lie nightly and believe his crap, and then give money by the thousands to other liars like Bush. They would not flinch at giving money to the ethically challenged former speaker Gingrich to run either. It's sad, but it seems as though the only thing they respect is force and money.
Well, I ain't gonna try to buy their good behaviour or my next leader! I'd rather fight them all now!
Chaney, Palosie, Clinton, and Obama agree nuclear energy is the solution to global warming. Why do environmentalists hate America?
Wow--California invented the "Brazillian"? The things one can learn on this forum. Seriously though, damning the millions of us for the things you mention that exist everywhere in America--and the rest of the world--seems a bit much. Detroit gave us car culture, and New York, Atlanta or any other major metropolitan area has just as much phoney commercialized hipness. You're right about Hollywood, but just as many crappy movies come from New York, Paris, London and Madrid. We can't escape blame for Reagan and Arnie, I'm afraid, but the list of nasty right-wing politicians includes people from every state. We don't have a very good school system, either, but neither do other places. For example, in some places, the possessive of "it" is "it's" which some folks think is a contraction of "it is." (Just a little ribbing, PJD--all in fun.)
California invented the the planet-trashing car-culture, suburbia in it's modern form, Hollywood, phony commercialized hipness, pesticide and chemical-laden produce, women shaving perfectly natural hair off of certain places, Ronald Reagan, and Schwarzenegger.
I don't expect anything good to come from California.
Ok--so Arnold is the bought-out-by-corporation- Republican that he alleged he would not be.
It totally made me SICK to see how the DEMOCRATIC PARTY allowed him to win last time around. This goes to the heart of party politics and being willing to wholeheartedly support the nominee who wins the primary.
California Democrats need to take a very serious EARLY LOOK at the various contenders for the next race and come up with a real environmentalist with REAL ACHIEVEMENTS. We can no longer afford to have the press-release politicians scamming us into oblivion.
###
Ya, ve haf to make environmentalism hip, to make it hip ve haf to make it acceptable, to make it acceptable ve haf to make it meaningless. I'm a bad-ass environmentalist.