Posted on 08/10/2006 9:32:35 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
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.
"He hopes to have a bill on his desk this year that he can sign," spokesman Darrel Ng said, "but he wants to make sure it can be in a way that protects the economy and the environment."
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.
"This noble goal of reducing greenhouse emissions and making energy use more efficient could backfire," said Dorothy Rothrock, a spokeswoman for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. "It could hurt the economy and drive emissions outside California, thereby not improving the situation."
Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial opponent, Democratic state Treasurer Phil Angelides, said Wednesday that the changes Schwarzenegger has requested would create only a voluntary plan.
"He's trying to gut this bill so he can claim an election-year victory, and the people of California and the environment will be left holding the bag for yet another broken promise," Angelides said.
A veto on a bill that is likely to be popular with the centrist voters Schwarzenegger needs in November could leave him vulnerable, despite the pro-environment record he has built since becoming governor in 2003.
In June 2005, Schwarzenegger issued an executive order calling for the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Last week, when British Prime Minister Tony Blair visited the state, Schwarzenegger signed a pact to have California and Britain work together to research cleaner-burning fuels and technologies.
Democrats say they are taking Schwarzenegger's cue and trying to put his ceremonial orders into law.
Picky, picky, picky.
OT: what is that ridiculous frilly garment worn by the young lady? Am I the only one who remembers a time when safety concerns meant that all that loose ragged fabric would not be allowed around equipment in a shop? Just waiting to read that her garment has been caught up in the lathe.....
You're supporting the UN global warming mantra and calling me a fifth columnist! ROFL!
I'll never forget. My hair came out of a pony tail and got caught in a lathe. I had a battered skull, a 1 1/2 inch bald spot on the top of my head, and a headache for a week. And I was lucky!
Yeah, your deceit pretty much proves it. I don't support the UN global warming mantra. You lied again, so what? Nobody is surprised. I did say I must trust my chief executive to make the best choice for the state, or sumtin like that.
No lies, grunt.
You said you trust the chief executives who chant the global warming nonsense to do the right thing. Those executives are seeking to impose new regulatory hurdles on the state. Ipso facto, you support the mantra.
You go to any length to betray the truth. I said, " I must depend upon the chief executives". And if you wanna ipso facto I'd also have to depend on your philth if he were elected. I'll take Arnie, thanks.
Backwards. You're the cheerleader for the left.
Oh, Sheesh! I am so sorry! Yes, I said that you "trust the chief executives ..." instead of you "depend upon the chief executives".
My apologies! I can see the HUGH difference between the two phrases! /s
(The only thing being betrayed here is logic--and conservatism--and it ain't me doing the betraying!)
And if you wanna ipso facto I'd also have to depend on your philth if he were elected. I'll take Arnie, thanks.
The question was not about Arnie or Philth--it was about proposed Global Warming regulations that would be in force for longer than either will reside on earth.
Nice T-shirt. lol
I'd accept them if I thought they were sincere. They aren't and you were just looking for more division.
Your continued deceit neglected to quote the word 'must'. When I say "I must depend" that means I have no choice. That means I would have to depend on whomever the chief executive was, even your boy Philth. Like I said before; I'll prefer Arnie. You're a disruptor, using false quotes and feigning innocence, betraying republicans is your thing.
More lies and insults from grunt--and NO reply to THE QUESTION.
What a cop out!
Hey disruptor, what lie?
I count at least 5 lies in your post.
Here's the thing, grunt. I don't believe that we are required to follow any politician. I believe all politicians work for the people. As such, I don't accept any position as a done deal and don't believe that I "must trust" anyone. In fact, I don't trust any politician.
What we have is a group of liberals and leftists trying to push a global warming carbon trading scheme. That group includes Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Doerr and the Kleiner Perkins vulture gang, the NRDC, RFK jr, and a host of others.
The scheme is opposed by the Chamber of Commerce, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, all Republican legislators, and a host of other Republican and Conservative groups.
I side with that opposition. And you?
Any laws passed are in place a whole lot longer than any politician. When the discussion gets limited to a single politician, instead of the issues of the day, the only ones that lose are the people.
Must be the effects of global warming or that piece of wood did not come off of a lathe.
Do it then, divider, count 'em. Give me a chance to reinforce each point.
I answered the question in #56. I don't trust any politician, either. I also don't trust anonymous posters suggesting a vote against the republican candidate. In your continue to say 'must trust' in your misquotes. You feign innocence as you pretend to not understand between 'must trust', and 'must depend'. That even includes that communist agent, xlinton, and the Philth you'd love to see win. You betcha there is a huge difference in the words. You know, you twist them often. You're clear that you side with the opposition to Arnie. 'Nuff said.
IT'S NOT ABOUT ARNOLD
Sure, whatever you say ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.