Arnold may be a believer, but politically, the only reason to say this is because you think constituents want you to.
The upshot may provide symbolism in another way - in that it may provide an illustration that these CO2 emissions reductions plans are simply painful and ludicrous.
When real economic pain sets in and the reductions never materialize (as will likely occur), it will defuse this issue somewhat nationally, and marginalize its supporters.
California may as well be the proving ground, and the rad libs there may as well be the ones to bear the burden of futility.
The only honest response from a true believer, who would probably insist that we need to eliminate non-natural CO2 entirely (in order to neutralize climate effects), would be a proposal to ban sutomotive transport and industry worldwide. Because that's the only target which would sastify the arguments of the alarmists (not that they would personally ever be satisfied).
The only honest answer is renovating the global infrastructure to acommodate some nonfossil power and/or total global economic meltdown. I am sure there would be major repercussions on ecosystems, etc. if were to witness the latter. The only current answer to the former is nuke power, and lots of it.
The Euros have already gone through this, with many unable to meet even modest emissions goals. Once that happens domestically, there may some more sanity and reality brought into the discussion.
Nope. It's about money for globalist investors who also pay heavily for poilitical campaigns. They want to tax carbon in industrialized countries and invest the money in the developing world.