We should, therefore, be somewhat skeptical of California's latest foray into high-concept politics, Schwarzenegger's crusade to sharply reduce the state's dependence on fossil fuels that will both curb global warming and spark an economic renaissance, the governor promises us with his customary, if often misplaced, sanguinity.

Two years ago, the Republican governor and Democratic legislators, led by former Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, passed AB 32, which authorized the state to promulgate an extensive set of new regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

On Thursday, the administration unveiled a "scoping plan" that outlines how the state would cut greenhouse gases 10 percent from current levels by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. It will be followed by more detailed and more contentious rules.

Not coincidentally, as the draft plan was released in Sacramento, the governor was in Florida (having flown there on his private, oil-consuming jet) to complain that the United States is "so addicted to oil it will take years to wean ourselves from it" and urge adoption of more aggressive national energy policies.

He touted the bill as "something the world will be watching very closely" as the state allocates responsibility for reducing carbon emissions to various segments of society and the economy - with the greatest effect being on cars and other forms of personal transportation. The United States, he said, should emulate nations such as Germany that have made massive commitments to renewable energy sources, for example, windmills and solar panels.

Are Californians ready to become the point of the global-warming spear, shouldering the financial costs and potential inconveniences that will be involved and, in effect, exchanging the expansive California lifestyle for something different?

Schwarzenegger cites a poll by an outfit called Next 10, purporting to prove Californians are eager for that change, but the poll didn't fully lay out the trade-offs that going green may require for the ambitious goals for carbon reduction to be met. As with energy deregulation, there is a tendency among advocates to hype the upside without exploring the downside. And we can be certain there will be a downside.

Finally, there is the risk that even if we do everything the governor wants us to do to reduce our "carbon footprint" (one wonders whether he'll do it himself), it will have very little real world impact. If China, India and other "emerging economies" remain exempt from global emission standards and continue to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, California's effort may turn out to be an exercise in political symbolism signifying nothing.

By the time we know one way or the other, Schwarzenegger will be long gone from Sacramento.  Source