Bill to Curb Greenhouse Gases Poses Dilemma for Schwarzenegger

[Judi Lynn]

Bill to Curb Greenhouse Gases Poses Dilemma for Schwarzenegger

August 10, 2006 — By Samantha Young, Reuters

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's efforts to position himself as a leader on climate change while maintaining support from business leaders has created an election-year dilemma that threatens to undermine his environmental credentials.

The Democratic majority in the Legislature plans to send him a bill this month that would create the country's first law capping greenhouse gas emissions from refineries, power plants and other industrial sources. He has asked for several pro-business changes to the bill that Democrats and environmentalists complain would severely weaken it.

Schwarzenegger has made global warming his signature environmental issue and is eager to sign a climate measure before he faces the state's Democratic-leaning electorate in November. It also would be another way for him to set himself apart from President Bush, who has opposed regulating global warming gases and is deeply unpopular in California.
(snip)

At the same time, the Republican governor must tread carefully in the face of criticism from his own party for even considering signing legislation that businesses oppose.
(snip/...)

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11036

[ERF]

1. Sure hope he does what's right and doesn't chicken

out like a little girle man.

[krkaufman]

2. One state unilaterally applying caps will likely fail

Companies will choose to move, rather than cap their emissions, and California's economy will be hurt. Hope I'm wrong, 'cause we've gotta do something.

[ERF]

3. Keep in mind that the economy of California is the size

of France i.e. the 5th largest in the world.

Moreover, it depends on how far-reaching the measure is. Companies are not going to stop selling cars to people in CA. Also, it is easier to move a headquarters than it is to move a factory. Moving infrastructure is the big challenge. CA economics is a large part agriculture and a large part high tech. Both of those things might just have to stay in CA the former because you can't move the land and the latter because it depends on its people.

Also keep in mind that the US is very competitive globally in terms of emissions per unit of GDP. The massive difference is in how people live and get to work. The greatest potential for immediate efficiency is in homes and vehicles.

[krkaufman]

4. Yes, agreed. That is my hope. If any state(s) can pull this off...

... it'd be California and New York.

Thanks for the reassurance/background.

[cally]

5. We've been adopting stricter environmental laws for more than

20 years. Each time, industry lobbyists complain that it will hurt the California economy. California's economy has not been hurt. I've seen academic studies of how decisions on industry locations are made. Wages, energy costs, and the executives desire to live somewhere are much better predictors of location choice. California adoption of strict environmental regs is critical to the nation. Other states will often follow California's lead after we try it out and work out the kinks.

[Bandit]

7. It hasn't worked that way in the past

California has been on the front line of environmentalism for severak decades and the saying has always been Where California goes the nation soon follows. I think that will still be the case but doubt they will go far enough to do much good.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.