Gov. Gavin Newsom has announced an immediate suspension of permits allowing new hydraulic fracturing and steam-injected oil drilling – the latest in a series of moves in the past week underscoring California’s determination to be seen as a leader in climate change efforts.

“These are necessary steps to strengthen oversight of oil and gas extraction as we phase out our dependence on fossil fuels and focus on clean energy sources,” Newsom said in a statement released by his office.

While Newsom’s predecessor, Jerry Brown, also used his job to promote the Golden State as a leader in the effort to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions believed to be a primary cause of global warming, he opposed a fracking moratorium. Brown’s aides noted the economic benefits of being the third-largest oil-producing state – home to 72,000 wells and 350,000-plus good-paying oil-related jobs. Brown may also have been intrigued by disputed reports in 2013 that the Golden State was sitting on massive oil reserves larger than those of Saudi Arabia.

Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, pushed back hard at Newsom’s assertion that California had no choice but to crack down on unsafe drilling practices.

“Multiple state agencies already validate our protection of health, safety and the environment during production,” she said in a statement. Reheis-Boyd joined several Republican officials in warning of severe economic consequences of what they depicted as an end to new oil drilling.

State may require buffer zones around many oil wells

But the obstacles Newsom plans to add to gas and oil exploration don’t stop with a ban on the two extraction techniques. The Los Angeles Times reported that he “plans to study the possible adoption of buffer zones around oil wells in or near residential neighborhoods, schools, hospitals and other facilities that could be exposed to hazardous fumes” – a move with the potential to sharply add to regulatory burdens of owners of the wells.

Other moves that Newsom has announced in the last week include:

• The state will no longer purchase gas-powered sedans. Law-enforcement agencies are exempted.

• The state will only buy vehicles from automakers that agreed to follow California’s vehicle-emission rules rather than the weaker rules backed by the Trump administration. So far, Ford, Honda, Volkswagen and BMW have sided with California. General Motors, Toyota, Nissan, Mazda, Subaru, Hyundai, Kia and Fiat Chrysler last month said they would follow the weaker federal standards.

• The Newsom administration has formally asked the California Public Utilities Commission to permanently close the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility in Porter Ranch as soon as feasible. The facility has been the target of intense protests by its neighbors and environmentalists since a 2015 disaster resulted in among the largest releases of methane gas in world history – an immense leak that took nearly four months to stop and forced the evacuation of nearly 3,000 households.

Environmental groups hailed Newsom’s series of moves – especially what they depicted as the beginning of the end of fracking in the state.

Livermore lab experts must OK new fracking permits

But the governor’s announcement left open the possibility that new fracking permits could be – if independent experts from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory attested to their safety.

That’s not necessarily a long shot. Even as greens spent years depicting hydraulic fracturing as dangerous and destructive, several Cabinet members in the Obama administration said it was akin to other heavy industries – mostly safe if properly regulated.

In 2015, U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell told KQED, the Northern California PBS channel, that local moratoriums on fracking approved by several cities in the state were the “wrong way to go.”

“There is a lot of misinformation about fracking,” she said. “I think that localized efforts or statewide efforts in many cases don’t understand the science behind it and I think there needs to be more science.”

But Newsom said he didn’t agree with this benign view of fracking while campaigning for governor in 2018 and promised a crackdown if elected.

Over the past dozen years, the California environmental lobby has never seemed more powerful in the Legislature and in state government. Under Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, the Golden State has passed

But a bracing report from the California Air Resources Board shows that environmentalists’ clout can’t shake the complete control that NIMBYs have over local planning in most of the state – to the detriment of the environment. It found that a 2008 state law – Senate Bill 375 – had been an abject failure. The law requires the state’s 18 regional intergovernmental agencies to push to put new housing near transit stations and to add new transportation options so as to decrease pollution from vehicle commuting.

Not only are three out of four workers still commuting alone to work, carpooling and transit ridership are down. As a result, vehicle greenhouse gas emissions have actually risen in recent years – and the decline from 2007-2011 seems likely to have been a function of the Great Recession, not the state push to reduce emissions associated with climate change.

The air board sees no chance that the SB375 goal of reducing statewide vehicle emissions 10 percent by 2020 will be met.

The report was met with dismay by environmental groups and journalists concerned with progress against climate change. The most common response to the air board’s finding was the call for the Legislature to take more steps to limit the ability of local governments to block projects that met certain criteria – starting with being near transit stations.

69% of Californians want local control of housing

But the appetite of state lawmakers to take on NIMBYs may be limited in the wake of new evidence that NIMBYism isn’t just espoused by activists who see every new housing project as detrimental to quality of life. Instead, it’s a core belief of state residents. A USC Dornsrife/Los Angeles Times survey released in October showed 69 percent of Californians preferred local control of housing decision-making.

And the fate of a bill to reduce local control over housing showed that even poor people – those who in theory would be most helped by adding housing stock, which likely would push down sky-high rents – are skeptical.

Senate Bill 827, by Sen. Scott Weiner, D-San Francisco, would have made it much easier to build four- or five-story apartment buildings within a half-mile of transit centers. The prospect of apartment buildings springing up in poor neighborhoods with single-family homes – such as in the Los Angeles County cities of Inglewood and Carson – led to an outraged reaction from 36 housing and transit “justice groups” led by the Alliance for Community Transit – Los Angeles (ACT-LA). Instead of seeing the bill as leading to cheaper housing, these groups saw it as likely to lead to home renters being ousted in favor of more lucrative apartment buildings, and to new waves of gentrification.

The opposition to Weiner’s bill from activists and from local governments – including every member of the Los Angeles City Council – was so intense that SB827 died at its first committee hearing in April.

Weiner has since met with ACT-LA leaders and other activists and plans to reintroduce SB827 next year with provisions that address concerns that poor neighborhoods would be upended by much laxer housing rules. But such provisions could end up leading to trading old rules giving local governments power to limit construction for new rules with similar effects.

President Trump on Wednesday launched the

At a ceremony at a Detroit-area auto facility after meeting with auto executives, Trump declared his intention to pursue “fair” regulations that “protect and defend” jobs.

Before his remarks, Trump staffers gave background briefings to reporters on his plans to scrap mileage rules approved by President Obama’s EPA in his final weeks on the job. The new rules would require cars and small trucks to average 54.5 miles per gallon in 2025, up from the present 36 miles per gallon.

Automakers were unhappy with the Obama administration’s speedy decision-making – new rules weren’t required until 2018. They believe the rules will require them to sell vehicles Americans don’t want to buy in an era in which gasoline prices are low and relatively stable because of a heavy increase in domestic oil production. Warning that the new rules would put more than 1 million jobs at risk, automakers have been lobbying Trump since they were enacted.

Brown administration officials have already filed a challenge to Trump’s directive, according to the Los Angeles Times. “Any weakening or delay of the national standards will result in increased harms to our natural resources, our economy, and our people,” the brief asserted.

13 states use California’s tougher standards

But while the president rattled state officials with his actions, he didn’t go as far as some environmentalists feared.

Under the federal Clean Air Act of 1970, California was given the right to waive federal vehicle mileage rules in favor of stricter standards because of the state’s severe problems with smog and ozone pollution in Southern California. The waiver allows other states to follow California’s tougher standards. Thirteen do, and as a result about 40 percent of the nation’s residents who buy about 40 percent of vehicles do so under California’s stricter rules, irking automakers who don’t like to have to deal with what are essentially two national standards.

The Trump administration could have tried to end California’s waiver entirely or prevent other states from using the Golden State’s rules. Instead, Reuters reported the administration hopes to work with the state on a compromise.

But that is close to certain to be a nonstarter, given Brown’s and the California Legislature’s approval of a law requiring the state to have greenhouse-gas emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Achieving that goal appears close to impossible without sharply cutting emissions from the state’s transportation sector, which generates 36 percent of California’s carbon emissions, according to the most recent statistics.

Vehicle emissions rule a potent weapon for state regulators

Stanford environmental law professor Michael Wara said tough vehicle mileage standards have been the state’s strongest tool in combating greenhouse gas emissions.

“California is going to fight, to deploy every resource it has, to keep this stuff, because this is big,” Wara told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Wednesday’s developments were foreshadowed by the January confirmation hearing of Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt, like Trump a climate change skeptic and longtime EPA critic. Under questioning by Sen. Kamala Harris, D-San Francisco, Pruitt refused to say whether the Trump administration supported allowing California to continue to waive federal air pollution rules in favor of tougher standards.

Given that California’s waiver is written into federal law, it is unclear whether the Trump administration could force the state to follow federal rules. In 2008, George W. Bush’s administration challenged new state rules, prompting a lawsuit from then-Attorney General Jerry Brown that was joined by 15 other states. But no court decision was forthcoming before Barack Obama succeeded Bush the following year. The Obama administration quickly dropped the challenge.

Trump splits Silicon Valley

Good morning. Let’s talk about Trump. Now that voters have chosen Donald Trump as president, the country is wondering what it will mean for things like climate change, immigration, politics, the Republican Party — the list goes on.

So far, Trump has divided the Republican Party, taken large numbers of voters away from Democrats, and infused some Americans with optimism but others with despair.

Now, he has also laid bare latent political fractures within Silicon Valley, often seen as a more monolithic culture than it is. 

While some leading tech figures have been supportive or tolerant of Trump and his movement, others have responded to his election by expressing the strongest possible opposition — including a call for secession.

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news:

• How will a Trump presidency affect CA’s climate-change efforts? “Experts say it’s about to become a country within a country, moving sharply in the opposite direction of the White House and Congress on climate change and environmental policy, as California sets its own agenda with sympathetic states and countries,” writes The San Jose Mercury News. 

• “Making California housing affordable again will require new laws, more avenues to build,” writes The San Jose Mercury News/The Orange County Register. 

• What will a Trump presidency mean for Mexican immigrants? The Orange County Register has more. 

Legislature:

• Gone till December. 

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced. 

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @CelticsLife

Top Democratic donor  Tom Steyer considered for Cabinet position

Good morning. Have a good Tuesday! We start this morning with someone else’s story — but it’s a good story.

“Tom Steyer, the billionaire climate activist and possible candidate for California governor, was under consideration to become President Barack Obama’s first energy secretary, according to a hacked email exchange released Monday by WikiLeaks.”

“John Podesta, an Obama transition adviser and now chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, included Steyer’s name for the Cabinet post in September 2008 correspondence,” but Steyer was passed over.

“Emails from 2012, also disclosed by WikiLeaks, showed Podesta discussing a planned meeting between Steyer and former President Bill Clinton. Podesta wrote in the exchange that he would try to push Steyer to support the Clinton Foundation.”

“The praise heaped on Steyer, a major Democratic donor, by one of Clinton’s top advisers is being scrutinized for its political ramifications in California. Should Clinton win next month, she may look to Steyer for a Cabinet position, giving him direct White House policy experience and a formal title as he mulls a run for governor.”

The Sacramento Bee has more. 

In other news:

• “Climate change from human activity nearly doubled the area that burned in forest fires in the American West over the past 30 years, a major new scientific study has found, and larger, more intense fires are all but guaranteed in the years ahead,” writes The San Jose Mercury News. 

• “If Prop. 55 passes, the state budget will rely even more on California’s highest earners,” reports the Los Angeles Times. (Many budget experts think this is a troubling trend.)

• The always-zigging-when-others-are-zagging Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, R-Costa Mesa, called “GOP leaders ‘gutless’ for bailing on Trump.” The Orange County Register has more.

• “Over the past four decades, (actor Mike Farrell), who has wielded his celebrity to bring attention to social and political issues in Central America, the Middle East and Africa, has become a leading voice against the death penalty. This year, he is the author of a ballot measure that seeks to end capital punishment in California. For Farrell, the cause has taken precedence over others because at its root, he says, is the idea that some people are dispensable.” The Los Angeles Times has more.

Legislature:

• Gone ’til December. 

Gov. Brown: 

• No public events announced.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @RunGomez

It was just nine months ago that Gov. Jerry Brown basked in the

A Sacramento Bee account laid out how the four-tern governor had come to see the issue as vital to his legacy and considered the conference “the crucial event for the future of the world” because of its potential to inspire much broader efforts to curb the emission of greenhouse gases believed to contribute to global warming.

But back home, Brown’s vision is getting a much tougher reception than it did in France. It’s increasingly unclear whether the governor can even garner enough support in the California Legislature for legislation that would build on AB32. While the measure, SB32, won approval from the Assembly on Tuesday and is likely to be approved by the Senate next week, its implementation is tied to the passage of AB197 by Assemblyman Eduardo Garcia, D-Coachella. SB32 can only take effect if AB197 is approved this session.

Garcia’s measure would both increase legislative oversight of the state Air Resources Board and require the air board to put more pressure on local factories and oil refineries to cut their emissions. This, in theory, would respond both to greens’ concerns that the cap-and-trade framework is too passive and to state lawmakers’ anxiety over the air board throwing its weight around in ways that cost local jobs.

Siding with ‘people’ over ‘polar bears’

Such a concern about the effects of environmental laws on local jobs wasn’t raised by many Democrats during 2006 when AB32 was approved. But since California switched to the “jungle primary” in 2012 — in which the top two candidates in the June primary advance, regardless of party — the Legislature has seen a surge in business-friendly Democrats suspicious of the green agenda.

“It’s great to hear about saving polar bears and hugging trees, and making sure we address global warming from a world perspective,” Garcia told the Los Angeles Times. “But how about people?”

Last year, these pro-business Democrats teamed with Republicans to kill Gov. Brown’s and Senate President Kevin de Leon’s push for a 50 percent reduction in gasoline use by vehicles in California by 2030.

Increasingly, it looks like Brown’s best option to build in on his legacy is a 2018 ballot measure extending AB32. Polling shows Californians support even more ambitious climate change policies than AB32.

In 2010, Proposition 23 — a measure to repeal AB32 — was rejected by state voters, 62 percent to 38 percent.

The governor may also try to use executive orders to extend AB32. But few authorities on California’s government believe a current governor can bind the actions of future governors or legislatures.

This “solvency” issue gives state commissioners broad authority. In the dozen or so states where insurance commissioners are elected, these officials often have their eyes on higher office. For instance, insurance officials and some Sacramento observers argue California’s ambitious commissioner – Dave Jones, a former Democratic assemblyman who is mulling a race for attorney general – is imposing a politically motivated diktat on companies and dressing it up as a campaign for solvency.

The issue: Jones is calling for insurance companies to divest “voluntarily” from their investments in thermal-coal companies and in utility companies that make heavy use of coal. He has vowed to publicize – some say “shame” – insurance companies that don’t comply with the request. Given that 1988’s Proposition 103 grants the California commissioner vast powers to prescribe which factors companies use to adjust rates and to approve or deny proposed rate increases, insurance officials wonder about the voluntary nature of the policy.

The “Climate Risk Carbon Initiative” divestment request applies to direct investments in companies that gain more than 30 percent of their revenues from thermal coal. In practice, these are some of the most conservative investments around, including monopoly utilities whose returns are set by regulation. It also requires insurance companies that do business in the state to answer a variety of questions about such investments, even if they are headquartered outside California. The goal is to pressure companies to divest from these holdings.

“The commissioner decided to request voluntary divestment from thermal coal enterprises this year following consideration of recent studies that show coal investments represent significantly higher financial risk than other investments over time,” the California Department of Insurance explains. “Moreover, since 2011, coal prices, cash flows, and company valuations have fallen sharply, thus adversely affecting and bankrupting numerous coal companies.”

“Politics,” the department says, “has nothing to do with the decision to ask insurers to divest from thermal coal.”

That sounds reasonable, but insurers typically make conservative investment decisions. Jones and other advocates for divestment make it seem as if these companies are heavily invested in high-risk stocks. They suggest these companies will be stuck with enormous “stranded assets” as the nation moves away from coal-based energy and toward alternative-energy sources. But insurance companies hold few coal-related stocks and bonds as a percentage of their overall investments. Even if the “stranded asset” argument were correct, it would barely cause a blip in their portfolios.

In a letter to the insurance commissioner last year, leaders of major insurance-company trade associations reminded him: “For regulated utilities, the risk of loss due to stranded assets is remote. Utility companies operate on a cost-plus system. Precedent is in place that supports the recovery of all costs deemed to have been prudently incurred.”

By contrast, some of the investments the insurance commissioner prefers – in “green” energy, for instance – are risky. As my R Street Institute colleague R.J. Lehmann noted in an article last year, “Greentech Media publishes an annual list of solar company failures and has noted that ‘(k)eeping track of failing solar companies in 2011 and 2012 bordered on full-time work.’”

Why hasn’t the insurance commissioner called for divestment from these companies?

The answer seems obvious. California’s government has embraced climate change in a big way. Gov. Jerry Brown has addressed the United Nations and a conference at the Vatican, where he has depicted the issue in stark terms. In his view, the future of human existence is at stake. California has passed a first-in-the-nation cap-and-trade system to roll back industrial emissions to 1990 levels, along with other legislation designed to decrease public use of petroleum products dramatically. It’s a popular cause here, and isn’t lost on any up-and-coming politician.

Whatever one’s view of man-made climate change, it remains an iffy proposition to suggest it is threatening the long-term solvency of major insurance companies. These investments already reflect the risks involved in the energy sector. Every knowledgeable investor knows about the changing regulatory climate. Private investors are better able than government planners to evaluate such matters and make decisions accordingly.

Indeed, as I pointed out in my recent R Street study, one of the nation’s most widely respected investors, Warren Buffett, recently rejected calls by an activist group and investor in his Berkshire Hathaway Corp. to report on climate-change risks. For instance, many activists argue that insurance companies aren’t properly pricing these risks and aren’t being aggressive enough in tackling the potential long-term problems. Buffett believes in climate change but doesn’t see a risk in his company’s insurance holdings.

“As a citizen, you may understandably find climate change keeping you up nights,” Buffett said in his company report. “As a homeowner in a low-lying area, you may wish to consider moving. But when you are thinking only as a shareholder of a major insurer, climate change should not be on your list of worries.” Buffett suggested even an uptick in the frequency or severity of climate-related catastrophes wasn’t much of a problem for the insurance industry, given that rates are set annually. Moreover, as a major provider of reinsurance – that is, insurance for insurance companies – Berkshire might actually benefit from more demand driven by climate change, given that reinsurance prices have been falling for years.

These companies’ futures depend on their ability to evaluate risks and benefits. They all have teams of actuaries and risk-management professionals who have a vested interest in making the most sophisticated guesses about future events. Elected officials, by contrast, are more apt to be swayed by political winds. A previous Republican insurance commissioner and gubernatorial candidate, Steve Poizner, in 2010 tried to force insurers to divest from investments in multinational companies that did business in Iran. This type of thing is nothing new.

“Divestment comes at the expense of meaningful action,” wrote Frank A. Wolak, director of the Stanford University Program on Energy and Sustainable Development. “It will do nothing to reduce global greenhouse emissions. It will not prevent these companies from raising capital.” And indeed, the state government’s push for divestment in non-insurance areas – i.e., forcing the California Public Employees’ Retirement System to take a similar approach – has been met with a similar backlash.

One can never know the motives of insurance commissioners, past or present. But it’s a safe bet that private investors making their own decisions with their own money are almost certainly more trustworthy than politicians making investment decisions based on the latest political winds. By all means, commissioners should work to assure that insurers can fulfill whatever claims are made in the future – but they shouldn’t bootstrap that legitimate authority into a politically motivated crusade.

Steven Greenhut is the founding editor of CalWatchdog. He is Western region director of the R Street Institute and a Sacramento-based columnist. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

Lawmakers look to increase gun restrictions, but will that work?

Good morning and happy Tuesday!

In the wake of the tragic shooting in Orlando, California lawmakers are renewing a push for expanded gun control, with a wide range of measures to be considered today.

According to the Los Angeles Times, some of the bills “would close loopholes that allow the sale of semiautomatic rifles with detachable ammunition magazines,” while others would “outlaw the possession of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 bullets and require background checks for people who buy ammunition.”

But California already has tough gun laws, at least compared to Florida, including a ban on most guns like the one used on Orlando. Could expanded restrictions deter similar tragedies in California, asks The San Jose Mercury News. 

“Firearms policy experts say the limits on guns and ammunition may have reduced the number of casualties in Orlando,” writes The Mercury News. “But California’s background checks would not have stopped (the Orlando shooter) from purchasing firearms capable of doing plenty of damage.”

In other news: 

• A $10-per-year increase to the vehicle registration fee was part of a budget deal negotiated by lawmakers in the last few days, reports Capital Public Radio. 
• Increasing legal, financial and political troubles threaten to derail the state’s cap and trade program, possibly taking Democrats’ climate agenda down in the process writes the Los Angeles Times.
• California lawmakers look to broaden the definition of rape, reports The Sacramento Bee. 
• Are gut and amend tactics OK for ballot measures, asks CalWatchdog. 

Assembly:

• Full slate of hearings. 

Senate:

• Full slate of hearings.  

Gov. Brown:

• No public events scheduled.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New followers: @SenBillEmmerson @dotDomain

But there was also some eye-rolling. How could a governor who will be out of office in January 2019 possibly impose binding conditions on future chief executives and Legislatures beyond those established in AB32 and other emission-focused legislation formally adopted by the Assembly and Senate?

Now it turns out that the Legislature’s top attorney — Legislative Counsel Diane Boyer-Vine — shares this skepticism. Last week, state Senate Minority Leader Jean Fuller, R-Bakersfield, released a letter by Boyer-Vine responding to her questions about whether Brown could change state law by fiat.

“We think the determination of a standard for the statewide (greenhouse gas) emissions limit is a fundamental policy decision that only the Legislature can make,” Boyer-Vine wrote. She noted that under state law, the Legislature couldn’t assign sole policy-making authority on the issue to the governor even if it wanted to.

The California Air Resources Board defended the legality of the governor’s order with a statement that didn’t address the specific legal points made by Boyer-Vine.

“While the 2020 limit is an important first step in measuring progress, climate change will not end in 2020 and AB32 explicitly states the intent to ‘maintain and continue reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases beyond 2020,’” a spokesman told the Sacramento Bee.

Echoes of D.C. fights — with one big difference

The emerging battle has crucial similarities to the fights over executive authority in Washington, where Republican lawmakers have backed lawsuits challenging President Obama’s orders on immigration, pollution and other issues. But one big difference is that the Sacramento scrum is over a policy area in which California’s legislative and executive branches are generally in sync: greenhouse gas reduction.

But an Associated Press story about Boyer-Vine’s opinion hinted at why Brown prefers a unilateral approach to either deferring to or working with the Legislature on a measure expanding upon AB32 a decade after its passage:

Overturning the executive order would be a blow to Brown’s effort to establish a legacy and a global identity as a crusader against climate change. …

While Democrats maintain overwhelming control of the Legislature, Brown would face difficulty winning legislative approval for his emissions targets. A group of moderate Democrats in the Assembly has sided with business interests against efforts by Brown and conservation groups to create stronger environmental protections.

“The Legislature should not advance the cap-and-trade program under this dark legal cloud,” said Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber.

“Gov. Jerry Brown plans to lead a delegation of eight lawmakers, including Eduardo Garcia, one of the Coachella Valley’s representatives in the State Assembly,” the Desert Sun observed. “They’ll be joined by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer, and many other environmental advocates who want to see world leaders draw inspiration from California.”

Among official delegates set to join him on the trip, the Los Angeles Times reported, Brown brought together Senate President pro Tem Kevin de León, Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, and Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood, her replacement in the next legislative term.

For the governor, the talks represent an opportunity to shift away from haggling with legislators — many in his own party — and toward more expansive conversations with closer allies. “Brown has been working to widen an international pact among cities, states and provinces pledging strict limits on greenhouse gas emissions,” the Times noted. “The agreement, initiated by California and the German state of Baden-Württemberg earlier this year, now has more than 50 participants representing more than 500 million people.”

Commitment and criticism

To cement the deal, however, Brown has been obliged to do some retail politics of his own. For the past year, as KQED has noted, an international tour took Brown from the U.N. to the Vatican, landing him in meetings with Chinese, Indian, Canadian and European officials.

Touting his achievement, Brown recently drew attention to the significance of his multiregional deal. The total economic size of the included areas, according to KQED, has surpassed the Gross Domestic Product of the United States as a whole. “Parties commit to either reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 to 95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 or achieve a per capita annual emission target of less than 2 metric tons by 2050,” according to the pact’s terms; “regional governments have agreed to cut their emissions 80 percent or more by 2050.”

But Brown has faced his share of criticism from environmentalists further to his left. Activists, the Huffington Post reported, are demanding he “take a stand against hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, in the Golden State. Brown, who is one of the nation’s leading environmental advocates, has faced criticism for years for not opposing fracking,” saying a ban “doesn’t make a lot of sense.” Critics have launched a statewide ad campaign designed to pressure the governor. In it, according to the Huffington Post, community activists, artists and comedians are featured making a plea for Brown to crack down on the practice.

Talking terrorism

Although the climate conference had attracted major attention from the outset, its profile has increased dramatically in the wake of the recent terrorist attacks inflicted on the city of Paris. French president Francois Hollande has overseen a curtailment of the massive program planned for the event, designed to reduce public risk while ensuring attendees could still convey an attitude of unbowed defiance.

In the face of the attacks, the Obama administration expressed its resolve in attending. The president has depicted climate change as a paramount threat to national security. “Impacts of climate change on public welfare also include threats to social and ecosystem services,” asserted the Clean Power Plan, a new set of emissions regulations promulgated under EPA administrator Gina McCarthy. “[T]hese impacts are global and may exacerbate problems outside the U.S. that raise humanitarian, trade and national security issues for the U.S.”

Meanwhile, although Brown’s attendance was not jeopardized by the terror attacks, details of the California delegation’s visit may be tweaked. “It’s unclear whether that would affect any plans for California’s presence,” the Times reported separately. Gary Gero, president of the nonprofit Climate Action Reserve helping organize Brown’s delegation, told the Times officials were “still assessing and haven’t made any decisions yet what changes may be necessary.”