An Odd Start to the Gubernatorial Primary

The gubernatorial primary is nine months away. Attorney General Jerry Brown has opened up an exploratory committee and is the lone Democratic (undeclared) contender. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom dropped out on October 30, citing personal and mayoral obligations. On the Republican side, former Congressman Tom Campbell, State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, and former eBay executive Meg Whitman are all officially in. Do I have that right? I thought so. But there have already been moments in this campaign where you’d think that one of more of the candidates are running for another office altogether.

First, Steve Poizner seems to be campaigning against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Like in this terribly one-sided and inaccurate editorial in the Wall Street Journal, where Poizner blames the complex water problems of the San Joaquin Valley on the Endangered Species Act and has asked Speaker Pelosi to “ease restrictions” on it. Now for its part, while it has not been as well publicized, The Natural Resources Defense Council followed up the Wall Street Journal’s attack on the ESA by explaining the full situation:
“First, Endangered Species Act protections for delta smelt aren’t just about a tiny fish.  Nor are those protections only about protecting the Bay Delta estuary, the largest estuary on the west coast of the Americas, home to migratory birds on the Pacific Flyway, to magnificent salmon that migrate past the Golden Gate Bridge through the Delta, and to numerous native fish and wildlife.

No, it’s not just about fish – it’s about people, too.  It’s about commercial fishermen like Mike Hudson who depend on the ESA protections the WSJ wants to eliminate…  Mike and other commercial fishermen in California have been unable to earn their living fishing for salmon for the past two years because our Central Valley salmon populations collapsed, resulting in the closure of the salmon fishery for the first time in the State’s history.  Delta farmers, commercial fishermen, recreational fishermen, boat salesmen, tackle manufacturers, charter fishing boat operators, fishing guides, hotels and restaurants, and many other hard working, decent people and communities depend on these Endangered Species Act protections in the Delta for their livelihoods.  And we can’t forget, when tallying the costs of our water woes, that the closure of the salmon fishery resulted in several thousand lost jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in lost income in 2009, and similar numbers in 2008.

Second, eliminating the Endangered Species Act wouldn’t eliminate the drought or fallowed fields across the state…Three years of drought, not the ESA, is driving low water allocations across the State, not just for contractors of the State and federal water projects.  It’s also why farmers north of the Delta who get water from the federal Central Valley Project, and who are upstream of any pumping restrictions to protect delta smelt, are only getting 40% of their contractual allocations.  In addition, some farmers are fallowing their fields because they are selling their water rights for tens of millions of dollars.  And although the WSJ and others want to blame all of the unemployment on the ESA, drought, foreclosures, recession, and many other factors are driving unemployment in the Valley.”

Interestingly enough, Poizner believes that the Speaker of the House “is a person who can by herself, pretty much, fix this problem but instead she’s blocking the bills to resolve this issue from even getting out of committee.”

Now, I was under the impression that for a bill to pass, it must be voted on by the House of Representatives and reconciled with the Senate version, and then signed into law by the President. Clearly, Poizner understands how Washington works much better than I do. If he says the Speaker can make a bill into law by herself, I guess I believe him.

Meanwhile, the ‘moderate’ Meg Whitman celebrated the three year anniversary of AB 32, California’s landmark global warming law, by promising to suspend it (perhaps indefinitely) in front of the California Republican Party (aka who she hopes will be her base). This, of course, is no surprise as she had previously submitted an opinion to the San Jose Mercury News making that pledge, as well as promising to weaken the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):
“Within months, Sacramento will be handing down new rules to implement AB32, the far-reaching law to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. Signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006, AB32 may have been well intentioned. But it is wrong for these challenging times.

With this ongoing economic crisis, the governor has the ability to issue an executive order putting a moratorium on most AB 32-related rules. I urge him to do so. And if he does not, I will issue that order on my first day as governor… The California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, is also ripe for reform. It is a jumble of ambiguous rules that require environmental analysis of projects ranging from a nuclear power plant to bike lanes. Over time, CEQA has been expanded way beyond what the Legislature originally intended. It often eats up time and money and discourages business expansion.”

In response, Newsom, who wants to curb greenhouse gas levels even further than required by AB 32, launched a petition on his erstwhile campaign website to protect AB 32 “Stop Meg Whitman”: “Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman wants to suspend AB32, California’s landmark legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, on her first day as governor. This is backwards thinking. Help us stop it.”

Meanwhile, Whitman’s made enough noise about her sudden, voracious discontent with AB 32 (which has been coincidentally timed with the run-up to the California Republican convention where AB 32 is widely despised) that the current Governor decided he needed to respond:
“Schwarzenegger, speaking to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, dismissed Whitman’s recent statements that, if elected governor, she would suspend the California Global Warming Solutions Act until its effects on the economy are better understood.

‘I would pay no attention to this kind of rhetoric and look toward the substance. … This is not a political issue,’ the governor said in response to Whitman’s statement.

Not a political issue? Tell that to Whitman… and Poizner for that matter, who also pledged to the California Republican Party this weekend to gut AB 32 but got much less media coverage for it. They are certainly hoping to score political points with their base with their anti-AB 32 rhetoric.

It’s all rather interesting. Poizner and Whitman in particular seem to be walking a fine line. They want the mantle of being an environmentalist since it’s popular in California. You can tell because every time they attack a popular environmental law (the Endangered Species Act, AB 32, CEQA) they feel compelled to condition it with some sort of other environmental claim. Poizner has solar roofs on his home. I know because he boasted about them right before he pledged to gut AB 32.

Meg Whitman also likes to identify as an environmentalist. I know because she always swears to be one before and after she openly complains about some signature environmental law. The problem for these two is that they also know that the environment is (amazingly) unpopular with the moderate (aka conservative) and conservative (aka reactionary) wings of the Republican Party -- and since the party may be closing off their primaries to everyone else, these are the people they would need to win over to win their primary.

Now, let’s not be too hasty and assume right away that they’re the next Richard Pombo or Tom McClintock. It’s still early in this election, there are plenty of other environmental issues they have not provided their position on, and the jury’s still out. But a word of caution to Whitman and Poizner: you’re making one heck of a terrible first impression.

Mike Young is the Political and Development Associate at the California League of Conservation Voters.