Open Mind

Governator!

July 13, 2008 · 22 Comments

As some of you may be aware, I’m a democrat and a very strong supporter of Barack Obama for president (that’s not what this post is about, and I’ll not entertain any criticism of him in comments to this post).

But there’s a republican I’d like to give props to. Watch the video in this report, it’s California’s governor Schwarzeneger talking about global warming. My favorite part:


[I]t just really means basically this administration did not believe in global warming, or they did not believe that they should do anything about it since China is not doing anything about it and since India is not willing to do the same thing, so why should we do the same thing.

But that’s not how we put a man on the moon. We did not say let everyone else do the same thing, then we will do it. We said we want to be the pioneers, we want to be out there in front. … I think we have a good opportunity to do the same thing, also, with fighting global warming.

Yes! YES YES YES!!! I hear all the time about how China won’t do this and India won’t do that, so why should we bother? What happened to the America I knew as a kid? The one where we did not wait for others to take responsibility or to seize opportunity, we didn’t lay the blame elsewhere as an excuse to avoid responsibility — instead we took the lead.

Fools say we can’t. Fools don’t land on the moon and return safely to earth.

God bless you, governor Schwarzeneger. If I were a California resident, I’d be voting republican in the next gubernatorial election.

UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE

In addition to this blog post, I also sent an email to governor Schwarzenegger’s office thanking him for his statements. I received a response from the governor’ office; it may be a form letter, but still expresses a commitment to solving the problem of global warming, and making California a leader in the effort:

Thank you for your letter on an issue I take to heart - fighting global climate change. I appreciate you taking the time to share your concern about the impact of global climate change on California.

We know the science, we see the threat and the time for action is now. That’s why I worked with members of our Legislature to pass the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). AB 32 established California as a national leader in the fight against climate change. We established a program for capping and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and California is set to reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

While California leads the way, we must work with our neighbors in the fight. I’ve partnered with the governors of Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Utah and Arizona to create the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, a joint strategy to combat global climate change. Like AB 32, the agreement establishes a regional cap and reduction program for GHG emissions, as well as a framework for developing a similar national program.

To reduce GHG emissions and also decrease California’s reliance on foreign oil, I have established the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation. By 2020, the LCFS will reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent - the equivalent of removing 3 million cars from the road.

Through our efforts to fight climate change, we can secure both a stronger economy and a cleaner environment for future generations. Our programs promote economic growth by developing green technology. Just as the computer industry and the Internet built the economy of Silicon Valley, green-clean technology can be the next great economic wave for California.

Thanks again for your interest in climate change and for writing to share your thoughts. I truly appreciate your personal commitment to the future of our great state.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Good luck to California, to governor Schwarzenegger, and to all of us.

Categories: Global Warming

22 responses so far ↓

  • LeisureGuy // July 13, 2008 at 10:35 pm

    Very good post. Go, guy!

  • John Banta // July 13, 2008 at 10:41 pm

    Not all California republicans are as insightful about climate change as the current governor, but term-limits mean he can’t run again.

    John Banta
    Author: Extreme Weather Hits Home: Protecting our Buildings from Climate Change
    http://www.extremeweatherhitshome.com

  • Bob // July 14, 2008 at 1:21 am

    Also he terraformed Mars

  • EliRabett // July 14, 2008 at 2:22 am

    FWIW, look up who got the Hummer going as a civilian transport.

  • dhogaza // July 14, 2008 at 6:50 am

    The Governator ain’t perfect, Eli, but it’s good to have a strong voice in the other party. Also, it appears that he’s matured politically while in office, and has learned some common sense. Among other things, that California is poised to cash in on alternative energy technology, given her strong base in semiconductor and other high technology industry.

    I can’t say I’d necessarily vote for him if he could run again, I won’t give him as much love as our host.

    But I will say that I’d compare him with a democratic candidate without much regard to party, and these days, for me, that’s saying a hell of a lot. The last Republican I voted for was Bud Clark for mayor of Portland back in the 1980s, and he got so disgusted with his party that he flipped to the Ds while in office.

    BTW I’m surprised that HB didn’t post the bit where the Governator said he’d serve in Obama’s administration as “energy czar” if asked.

    Of course, he’s also endorsed McCain for the Presidency, he’s not leaving the Rs just yet.

    One interesting thing about Arnold - he can’t be President so whatever he does next, won’t be about trying to build a springboard to the White House.

  • Chris, Baildon, UK // July 14, 2008 at 3:06 pm

    Sorry to mess with your “fluffy” rose tinted view of American history.

    America got into the space race - not to lead, but because it was scared stupid of the launch of Sputnik in 1957 and the alleged “missile-gap” that existed between USA and the USSR.

  • michel // July 14, 2008 at 3:14 pm

    He has a can-do line of rhetoric about America.

    He has a can-do line on global warming.

    All this is great.

    Now, what shape is he leaving the California finances in?

    Sorry, didn’t mean to embarrass anyone.

  • dhogaza // July 14, 2008 at 4:58 pm

    America got into the space race - not to lead, but because it was scared stupid of the launch of Sputnik in 1957 and the alleged “missile-gap” that existed between USA and the USSR.

    Our host said “to TAKE the lead”, not “to lead”. The difference is not subtle, at least to American ears.

    Yes, fear was a large motivating factor, but not the only one.

  • pough // July 14, 2008 at 5:03 pm

    Sorry, didn’t mean to embarrass anyone.

    I don’t believe you. What, exactly, is the point of patently false humility? BTW, don’t you think it’s a little bit pretentious to write blog comments as though they’re poetry? (Stick to prose. Find that space bar.)

  • dhogaza // July 14, 2008 at 5:04 pm

    Oh, and the US was in the Space Race long before Sputnik. We got into it when we brought Werner Von Braun and his V2 team to the US and put them to work to quickly replicate … the V2. And to then move forward.

    He was brought here a month after the surrender.

    The fear reaction came a bit later. US complacency was shook in the late 40s when the USSR exploded its first atomic weapon. Sputnik just added to it. But to say we entered the space race as a result of any action by the USSR is simply wrong. To say that Sputnik raised the stakes and led to a great acceleration of interest in manned spaceflight, is certainly true.

    Remember that the ICBMs were generated outside the NASA program, not within … and that the Saturn V didn’t really have any practical military use.

  • John Mashey // July 14, 2008 at 8:40 pm

    re: michel
    CA has a financial situation heavily-constrained by a weird collection of laws. It’s actually pretty hard for any Governor to do very much.

    Also, CA is the biggest net contributor to the Federal government, which means it subsidizes a lot of other states. The amount we send to the US gov that doesn’t come back dwarfs the deficit here, whereas some states get more from the US than they send. In some cases, that makes sense, in others, well let’s say I have my doubts.

    Polls claim a majority of CA Republicans think AGW is real and a problem. While some places have upsides to AGW, CA has zero, only (expensive) downsides.

    Re: Future Republican candidates for Governor: Steve Poizner is pretty sharp.

  • Chris, Baildon, UK // July 15, 2008 at 11:25 am

    dhogaza - I do know that USA had some ambitions of space exploration before Sputnik.

    However it is not true to say “Oh, and the US was in the Space Race long before Sputnik” - Sputnik started the space race - until that point there was no race - and in the USA just ambitions and very small budgets.

    NASA was not created until 1958 - as a direct result of Sputnik.

  • dhogaza // July 15, 2008 at 3:37 pm

    NASA was not created until 1958 - as a direct result of Sputnik.

    I guess it depends on how you want to define the “space race”. The military of both countries were working on putting military satellites in orbit long before Sputnik. Practical ones with cameras and the like, not little devices that go “beep beep beep” in the night. These practical efforts were beaten by Sputnik, which after all was launched mostly for its PR effect.

    I agree that the “space race” generally is applied to the very public efforts of NASA and the Soviets towards manned space exploration etc that followed Sputnik.

    However, you included “missile gap” in your statement, which led me to believe you were talking about the space race in more generic terms, and in that sense it started at the end of WWII when the US and the USSR each nabbed as many German rocketry experts, design info, tools, etc as we could.

  • Raven // July 15, 2008 at 10:53 pm

    Sending a man to the moon was a one shot engineering effort where cost was no object. Replacing our energy infrastructure requires replacements that are as reliable and as inexpensible as existing sources. The problem which is many orders of magnitude larger.

    Furthermore, the moon program did not affect the lives of most Americans since the cost was realivity small compared to government expendentures. Artificially increasing the cost of energy will hit all Americans in the pocket book and that burden will fall mostly one the poor and disadvantaged.

  • Arch Stanton // July 15, 2008 at 11:36 pm

    He’s got a tough job Cal’s economy was messed up before he came along.

    Unfortunately Arnold’s actions have not always been in step with his rhetoric. There is some evidence that he is just verbally massaging his democratic state. Still, he might be the pick of the current republican liter as far as.the environment goes. I’m a dem but I could see voting for him (again - depending upon who he ran against) to give him a little more time to prove himself, but I don’t believe he means everything he says.

    BTW, he renounced his Hummers.

  • dhogaza // July 16, 2008 at 7:52 am

    Artificially increasing the cost of energy will hit all Americans in the pocket book and that burden will fall mostly one the poor and disadvantaged.

    While of course climate change resulting from the status quo won’t hurt the poor and disadvantaged. Clearly. Obviously. The Right has told us so, it must be true.

  • Dano // July 16, 2008 at 1:52 pm

    Artificially increasing the cost of energy will hit all Americans in the pocket book and that burden will fall mostly one the poor and disadvantaged.

    This templated ideological argument needs a pithy response that the mediuh can get its tiny hands around.

    The increasing effects of carbon will hit all Americans’ kids in the pocketbook and will make it likely that they will be less wealthy than we are.

    Best,

    D

  • Raven // July 16, 2008 at 4:02 pm

    dhogaza says
    “While of course climate change resulting from the status quo won’t hurt the poor and disadvantaged.”

    The trouble is there is no conclusive evidence that the status quo will lead to catastrophic climate change. This means the cost of acting when it is not necessary must be weighed against the probability that the alarmists are wrong.

    This is a classic risk vs. benefit equation that politicians must wrestle with all of the time. It is difficult to do and will ultimately require some arbitrary decisions. However, the most recent data is telling us that we can afford to wait and see whether the planet actually starts to warm at a rate predicted by the climate models.

  • dhogaza // July 16, 2008 at 5:12 pm

    The trouble is there is no conclusive evidence that the status quo will lead to catastrophic climate change.

    Nor is there any evidence that prudent efforts to limit CO2 emissions will be catastrophic, indeed there’s evidence that investing in alternative energy technology might be an economic win.

    Nice double standard ya got workin’ for ya there.

    Replacing our energy infrastructure requires replacements that are as reliable and as inexpensible as existing sources.

    Reading the news would make me believe that perhaps existing sources aren’t as inexpensive as they were a year ago … you know something I don’t?

  • Bart Verheggen // July 18, 2008 at 5:26 pm

    Re: Alarmism (Raven)

    Who is really being alarmist here? The ones predicting environmental catastrophes (down the road in a BAU scenario) or the ones predicting global economic collapse (if we seriously reduce our emissions)? there’s a lot more evidence for the former claim than for the latter.
    You say that “the cost of acting when it is not necessary must be weighed against the probability that the alarmists are wrong.” You seem to have a very different idea of that probability than the people studying it. But the cost of acting when it is not necessary must also be weighed against the cost of not acting when it is necessary. A rational risk assessment, based on the best available science, gives a clear answer to that.

  • henry // July 19, 2008 at 5:43 am

    “[I]t just really means basically this administration did not believe in global warming, or they did not believe that they should do anything about it since China is not doing anything about it and since India is not willing to do the same thing, so why should we do the same thing.

    But that’s not how we put a man on the moon. We did not say let everyone else do the same thing, then we will do it. We said we want to be the pioneers, we want to be out there in front. … I think we have a good opportunity to do the same thing, also, with fighting global warming.”

    “Yes! YES YES YES!!! I hear all the time about how China won’t do this and India won’t do that, so why should we bother? What happened to the America I knew as a kid? The one where we did not wait for others to take responsibility or to seize opportunity, we didn’t lay the blame elsewhere as an excuse to avoid responsibility — instead we took the lead.”

    Absolutely! If we want to reverse AGW caused by CO2, then we, as a country, need to find a way to stop the two biggest emitters (China and India) from emitting any more CO2.

  • Lab Lemming // July 21, 2008 at 1:29 am

    California is nice and all, but don’t forget Texas:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/business/19wind.html

    What sort of comparable efforts are being made in the liberal Northeast?

Leave a Comment