The most obvious sign they knew they would lose was filing for the stay to prevent gay marriages, pending appeal to a higher court, even before the judge handed down his decision.  Second, the proponents did not mount much of a case. In the decision, the Judge writes “The minimal evidentiary presentation made by proponents does not meet the heavy burden of production necessary to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.” (Page 117) Finally, and less obviously, according to a report on NPR today, the judge is openly gay, and yet those defending Proposition 8 did not oppose his hearing the case.  The NPR reporter went on to explain that the judge is known for his thoughtful opinions.

But his reputation doesn’t matter.  Prop 8 supporters have already trotted out that most tired of all chestnuts, the “Activist Court.”  Instead of trying to argue, from a legal perspective, why the judge was wrong and they were right, proponents of Prop. 8 have and will state that Judge Walker’s decision was the result of an “activist court,” overturning the will of the people.  Take, for example, Senator Orrin Hatch’s (R-Utah) statement:

“Today, one federal judge trumped seven million voters by making up a right that is not in the Constitution,” Hatch said. “This is what happens when judges make up the Constitution as they go along, when judges rather than the Constitution are the supreme law of the land.” (sacbee.com)

The fact that Judge Walker is openly gay is just going to add salt to the soup.

The anti-gay media juggernaut now springs to life and will work at a fever pitch, riling up its supporters and creating an atmosphere less about thoughtful deliberation and more about knee-jerk reaction (pretty much in line with all political speech these days). Of course, such public outcry ought not influence the Supreme Court, but it will leave politicians scrambling to find ways to protect themselves. Remember all the hemming and hawing that gave us “domestic partnerships” for same-sex couples and marriage for opposite-sex couples? (Which smacks of “separate but equal,” but I digress.)

As for overturning the will of the people, Judge Walker quotes another decision and concludes: “[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,” has never been a rational basis for legislation. Lawrence, 539 US at 582 (O’Connor, J, concurring). (Page 133)

Although the report is state-wide, it includes a supplement of county-by-county data. Did you know, for example, that renters comprise almost 40 percent of households in Sacramento County? Or that 16.7 percent of homeowner households and 27.1 percent (corrected, 2/18/2008) of renter households are paying more than 50 percent of their income in housing costs? Or that the median Elementary School Teacher can’t afford the median home?

Good stuff.

According to the article, by the end of the century:

• There could be up to 100 days of 95 plus degree weather in Sacramento, if industrial and vehicle emissions continue unabated
• 90 percent of the Sierra snow pack could melt
• There could be six times as many heat related deaths in major urban centers
• Power demand could go up 20 percent, but hydo power sources would drop
• There would be significant impact for dairy production and wine production
• And much more

The figures were taken from a new report by the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Action Team. The study is chock full of facts and figures on the environment. It also has an extensive description of measures the state is currently taking, as well as measures the state can take, to reduce climate change emissions.

Global warming is here. The question is not whether but when, how, and how much. The CalEPA study even goes so far as to say, flat out:

It is now evident that even if actions could be taken to immediately curtail climate change emissions, the potency of emissions that have already built up, their long atmospheric lifetimes, and the inertia of the Earth’s climate system could produce as much as 1.1 degree F (0.6 degree C) of additional warming. As a result, some impacts from climate change are now unavoidable.

It isn’t just our leaders who have to change, we do. We have to understand that this so-called “way of life” that lets us consume energy like it’s going out of style, drive Hummers (I’m looking at you, Governor), and enjoy a life filled with plastics, is probably coming to an end. We can either stick our collective heads in the sand (Mr. President), assume it’s someone else’s problem (Mr. Hummer driver), or take responsibility.

The California Policy Inbox aggregates research from several dozen academic, nonprofit, and governmental research institutions. If you’re a wonk, it should be up there on your frequently-read list next to Rough and Tumble or the Roundup.

In today’s Bee, Dan Weintraub projectile vomits a line of thought that is so last decade:

The issue is a tricky one, for a number of reasons. First, scientists are not unanimous in their belief that humans are causing global warming. Second, even if humans are at fault, it’s not clear how much can be done to stop the trend without grinding economic growth to a halt. Some think that better technology, not limits on industry, will be the answer. Finally, even if the kind of measures widely advocated by environmentalists could have an effect, one state, even one as large as California, can’t do much by itself to change global climate patterns.

Let’s take this apart:

Scientists are not unanimous in their belief that humans are causing global warming. Since when is unanimity a criterion for belief? If that were the case, our political leaders should be urging us to “go slow” on adopting intelligent design or “set up an advisory committee” to discuss faith-based initiatives because scientists are not unanimous on the existence of God.

No, there are still a few scientists who relish their roles as contrarians and bask in the attention of a branch of conservatives who have their environmental heads in the sand. These scientists are the golden children of rags like the Wall Street Journal, who are growing increasingly desperate to find someone, anyone, to preserve the way of life of homo economicus.

It’s not clear how much can be done to stop the trend without grinding economic growth to a halt. And this is a good reason to do nothing? Once upon a time, we may have been able to say that global warming would affect our great, great grandchildren. This made the topic diffuse enough to dismiss because almost none of us (my own grandmother excepted) will meet our great, great grandchildren in this life.

But, as the rate of change increases, whether by human cause, nature, or most likely both, we have to do what we can to prepare for the consequences and mitigate the damage. It is not our great, great, grandchildren who will suffer, but our own children. Maybe “suffer” is too strong a word for children fortunate enough to have been born in the United States, but they will grow up in a world of increasing turbulence, uncertainty, and scarcity.

Some think that better technology, not limits on industry, will be the answer. There is no question that technology has thwarted the Malthusian Nightmare, temporarily. But we live in a world of limited resources, with limited space. We’re already talking about a “peak oil” crisis. No amount of technology will be able to replace the plentiful supply of cheap oil some Americans feel is their birthright. It will take a combination of better technology and human intervention if we are to have any chance of mitigating the effects of global climate change.

Weintraub is saying that since we’re already in this handbag to hell, we might as well enjoy the ride. I’d rather we get out of the handbag.

Even if the kind of measures widely advocated by environmentalists could have an effect, one state, even one as large as California, can’t do much by itself to change global climate patterns. So, what you’re saying is, because we can’t do much, we shouldn’t do anything. So, if I see Dan bleeding on the street, since I’m not a doctor and can’t do much, I’ll just let him be. After all, the only thing I can do is apply direct pressure and maybe call 911 if I happen to have my cell phone.

California is big enough to cause ripples both nationally and internationally. Cars are already manufactured to meet California’s emission standards. If we start to do something, especially with a well-known Republican governor riding point, other states will follow suit. The next president may feel compelled to act. And the international community, once they see that the US has taken its head out of the sand and actually started to act, may themselves find reason to change.

Despite the efforts in Europe and elsewhere to curb emissions, Schwarzenegger’s advisors may be right when they say, as Weintraub reports “…global warming policies will actually create the conditions for job growth by making the state a center of science and innovation in limiting the use of carbon-based energy.” California is a very large state with a tremendous research infrastructure that, given the right policy signals, could grow quickly into a serious environmental industry.

The issue of global warming is only tricky for those who are trying to avoid it.

Proposition 73: Parental notification for abortion
Proposition 74: Teacher tenure
Proposition 75: Union dues checkoff
Proposition 76: Live Within Our Means budget reform
Proposition 77: Reapportionment
Proposition 78: Prescription drugs (industry-sponsored)
Proposition 79: Prescription drugs (consumer/labor-sponsored)
Proposition 80: Electricity regulation

It’s going to be a long, hot campaign season, and this was supposed to be an off year. Which leads me to a final, parting shot, which I may expand later. All of the attention around campaign finance reform has focused on candidates. But what about ballot measures?

Based on the first few lines of the article, you might think that Arnold has slashed $150 million from California’s budget in order to help (in an oh so small way) allieviate the budget deficit.

You’d be wrong.

Yes, the Governator can and will cut $150 million from various budgets (most of it will likely come from higher education), but it isn’t to relieve the budget deficit. The so-called cuts are actually revenue redirections. The $150 million will go to help pay local governments for the revenue lost thanks to the unfortunate Vehicle Licence Fee (aka “car tax”) reduction.

The article does mention this, buried somewhere in the middle. I’m happy the Times managed to get it right, but I’m concerned about characterizing the equivalent of moving a quarter from your left to your right pocket as “cuts.” Sure, the state has a little less and the locals have a little more, but local governments in California don’t just suckle at the state teat — they have an umbillical cord.

The Governor is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The police and firemen may be happy (as someone said, you always want to keep the guys with guns happy), but the developmentally disabled kid who helped Schwarzenegger light the Capitol Christmas Tree may not be so lucky.

Maybe if we move revenue around fast enough it will look like there’s more!