泰瑞‧塔米能（Terry Tamminen，現為阿諾州長的幕僚長）擔任加州環保局長之時，恐怕是全美除了聯邦環保署長以外最有權力的環保官員了。加州不僅是全世界第五大的經濟體，且一直領導環保趨勢的發展，以突破性的汽車管制標準和替代能源發展傲視美國及全世界。但是塔米能所服務的直屬長官──阿諾‧史瓦辛格，仍鍾愛高耗油的悍馬吉普車，這讓許多環保人士感到懷疑，質疑他是否真能好好守護加州的環境。
為此，Grist Magazine派出環境作家兼記者馬克‧赫茲加德，問問52歲的塔米能，他和阿諾州長是如何實現他們的環境計劃──包括如何運用「氫燃料上路」（hydrogen highway）等計畫，在2010年之前把加州的空氣污染減半；另外他還將詢問阿諾最近和同是共和黨的布希總統，在環境政策上的爭論。
記者來到加州環保局位於沙加緬度的總部，在塔米能25樓邊間的辦公室進行採訪，從辦公室可以看到加州壯麗的中央谷（Central Valley）。辦公室內有張阿諾身穿緊身背心、叼著一支雪茄的海報，海報上還有幾行字：「我光用小指就能比你們用雙手回收更多的資源。現在開始資源回收，以後你會感謝我。用力回收吧！」
問：我想要先問的是，你如何被延攬為環保局長的？因為最初有些媒體報導搞錯了。有人說是巴比‧甘迺迪（即Robert Kennedy, Jr.）打電話給州長說：「你們一定要用這傢伙。」但事實上你和州長與州長夫人早就認識很久了。你可否告訴我們的讀者真實的經過──以你這樣一個人，曾是很有抱負的莎士比亞劇演員、當過游泳池清潔員、經營過洛杉磯環保團體「海灣守護」（BayKeeper）……
答：還有在佛羅里達州經營綿羊牧場和搞不動產，一個不學無術卻一無所長的平凡人……
問：……那麼，你怎麼得到這份工作的？
答：在（加州州長）競選期間，我正在經營一個叫做「今日環境」（Environment Now）的基金會。我覺得所有的候選人都有必要知道有關於加州環境的真實狀態，於是我們的基金會提供了這些資訊給所有的候選人。
但由於我認識州長和瑪莉亞（州長夫人Maria Shriver），我便親自對他作提案報告，「如果你需要這個資訊，我很樂意提供給你。」然後他說：「來吧，我們邊吃午餐邊談吧。」這是他宣布參選的兩天後。當時他的小孩還未開學，所以我們在他位於聖塔摩尼加的辦公室與他的小孩一起吃披薩，他的小孩還從我們盤子裡拿披薩。我們談論了很多東西，從空氣污染到全球暖化、外來物種入侵、林業問題，你能想到的都談了。接下來幾天，我們繼續討論他的胸中方略、他希望加州未來走的方向等等，然後開始把那發展成一個環境行動計畫。
問：你是透過「河流保護協會」的巴比‧甘迺迪認識阿諾的嗎？（Grist註：河流保護協會，Riverkeeper，位於紐約的保育團體，與甘迺迪合作過，並與位在聖塔摩尼加、塔米能任職過「海灣守護」團體合作過。）
答：其實不是。阿諾一直都有在參與南加州許許多多的慈善活動，過去幾年我們都曾在不同環境議題、以及一些猶太議題的相關場合照過面，反而我們認識瑪莉亞是透過甘迺迪的。我們有共同的好朋友邦妮‧萊斯（Bonnie Reiss），她是「地球溝通」（Earth Communications）的創始人，現在是阿諾的資深顧問。然後我的太太，凱倫‧包瑞爾（Karen Borell）簽下了他上一部電影。她是美國屏幕演員工會的戲劇代表，簽約之後他就可以自己去拍電影了。
問：你在加州環保局有多少員工和資源？
答：今（2004）年有4,275名員工和大約十億美元的預算。
問：而你基本的業務範圍是水、空氣、有毒物質…
答：還有固體廢棄物、環境健康危害評估以及農藥。
問：你可以說是華府以外最有權力的環境官員，你的感覺如何？
答：講什麼權力？看權力不如看結果。就空氣品質而言，許多年來原本一直都有在穩定的進步，但現在，在最近的四、五年中，我們卻倒退了：回到第一級煙霧警報，又無法達到聯邦臭氧和微粒物質標準。所以有許多非常令人不安的徵兆已經浮現出來，尤其是當我們試圖配合州的發展來調整。成功了才稱得上有權力。如果我們訂立目標並且達成它們，那才叫有權力。
州長曾提及「AB 1493法案」可讓加州扮演領導趨勢的角色。AB1394是我們有關汽車排放溫室氣體的法案，因為一直有一些來自汽車業的反對意見，如果有需要，州長甚至願意為該法案上法庭據理力爭。不過我們正盡一切努力與權益關係人合作來避免對簿公堂，我們希望能把精力花在推動政策以真正降低二氧化碳排放量，而不是耗在對抗之中。阿諾的朋友帕塔基（紐約州長George Pataki，共和黨籍），已表明他正等著看這項法案實施的成果，預備未來實施的參考。其他的州也準備這麼做。我剛剛從澳洲和英國回來，他們也準備要學習我們的作法。
問：這項溫室效應氣體法令可能會減少30%的二氧化碳排放量。州長同意這個數值嗎？
答：絕對會。我們當然還在等最後的報告出爐，最後也會開放接受公眾意見。不論加州空氣資源委員會（CARB）以技術考量而決定採用何種版本，州長皆表明他會支持。（Grist註：這次訪談後，CARB的職員已提出最後定稿的報告，建議給汽車業的時間從6年延長為8年，自2009年以後，出廠的車款必須達到 30%的減量目標。CARB會在2004年9月份決定是否採納這份報告。）
問：空氣品質惡化來源有哪些，而你打算如何處理？
答：加州有3,600萬人口，而且以每年近60萬人的速度增加。加州內有3,000萬輛汽車，幾乎每人都有一輛。而目前新上市的車款甚至比1987年車型還要耗油。所以如果我們有更多耗油的車，會導致更高的耗油量和更多的空氣污染。
問：今天我要進來這棟大樓的時候，我在樓下難到大海報，上面寫著「不要耗油」。
答：那是我們下個月要推行的活動。人們會在加油站看到那些標語，可以教導他們如何節省最多可達20%的油，不論他們開的是什麼車。州政府本身有7萬台公務車，中期目標是希望其中能使用更多的省油車。因此等這些公務車的自然汰換期到了，我們會去買更多油電混和車及省油車來取代，接著再設法鼓勵一般民眾和企業界購買這種車。
像現在你後面有個箱子，裡面裝的是乾淨的空氣，是聯邦快遞（FedEx）送來的。那箱子的空氣是從一次柴電混合車促銷活動中裝來的，州長和我都有參加，這種車可以節省50%的汽油，也可減少約一半的廢氣排放。他們答應要把整個車隊都改用柴電混合車，而我們正在想辦法把這模式推廣到其他業者。這所有的措施都是為了推廣真正乾淨燃料，也就是氫燃料。
問：州長自己還在開悍馬車，要說服人民節省燃料會不會有點困難？
答：當然，當然。他非常了解。雖然他在銀幕上總是展現男性雄風、開著悍馬車、搞爆破等等，但人們不知道的是，他也有一台電動車。自從競選州長以來，他始終是與別人共乘汽車。我的意思是，他大概是全加州最省油的人了。
問：他會不會把悍馬處理掉？
答：嗯，等著看吧。姑且這麼說好了，他遲早會把悍馬處理好，因為這是他的競選承諾。
問：謠傳他嘗試把悍馬改裝成以氫燃料動力車？
答：你是指氫燃料混合動力車吧。我只能說，那是他的選舉承諾，而州長一向信守諾言。
問：關於氫燃料，想必你一定知道有些硬底子的環保人士認為這想法很瘋狂──他們說這或許在競選時聽起來不錯，但使用氫氣作為汽車動力是資源錯置，因為氫不算是再生能源，它必須從天然氣中提煉出來，而如果用天然氣發電來取代燃煤發電，會更有效果。
答：首先，如果我們不去發展氫能源，接下來該怎麼辦呢？就算是最樂觀的未來主義者也不認為我們有超過40年使用量的汽油，頂多50年吧。隨著汽車公司在中國和印度大量地投資，這兩地都有新興的中產階級，他們買的起汽車，他們將消耗掉大量的燃料。所以我們將很快發生能源短缺，我們必須計畫下一步，並且把它商業化。
專家認為，在氫的價格可以與每加侖2美元的汽油競爭之前，氫燃料時代還不會來臨。但是當我們納入考量所有的外部成本：對石油業的減稅優惠、醫療花費等，石油不再是每加侖2美元了。光是在加州，每年的外部成本從200億到500億美元，看你有沒有把生產力的損失算進去。而當你考慮到我們也已經耗盡煉油容量後，我們在不久的未來將會看到每加侖5美元的汽油。
問：每加侖5美元的汽油？什麼時候會出現？
答：假如你去看看AB 2076報告，你可以從加州能源委員會那邊下載，我們在未來三到五年間將會看到石油短缺，那將會導致油價上漲。前提是在這期間沒有恐怖行動或機械故障。
問：你和阿諾州長為什麼認為氫燃料計畫會成功？
答：這方面的科學已經存在了，每天從事這工作的人們唯一的挑戰在於先有雞還是先有蛋的問題：沒有足夠的車子，誰要投資蓋燃料站？或是沒有足夠的燃料站，誰要去製造車子？我們的「氫燃料上路」概念，一開始就引入所有相關的各個領域。有數十億美元躺在桌上──資金來源包括所有的能源、汽車公司，還有全世界像 Ballard、Praxair這樣的大企業。我們想要把他們帶進同一個房間，然後讓每個人把他們的籌碼放到地圖上，講白一點就是說：你們想要把你們的燃料站蓋在何處？何時蓋好？然後問汽車公司，如果我們2010年之前在加州能蓋好200個站，他們可以開始製造什麼樣的交通工具？然後到了2012和 2015年又可以達到哪些目標？我們開始詳細的策劃，這樣才能讓所有人都能事先對整個過程有所了解。詳細的藍圖在2005年1月前送至州長手上。（編按：加州第一座氫燃料站已於2005年5月間開幕營運）
問：看來你大多把焦點放在私人汽車上而不是大眾運輸。這樣說對嗎？
答：我不這麼認為。是因為加州有太多的私人汽車所以才會特別強調。但是州長承諾了一個大眾運輸的三步驟計畫。
第一步驟是用簡單的方法加強大眾運輸，使其使用更簡便。例如，洛杉磯和聖塔芭芭拉之間有鐵路但是沒有通勤服務，所以從聖塔芭芭拉到洛城的唯一方法是 101號高速公路，可是這條公路每到星期日下午和每天通勤時段都非常的擁擠。如果我們可以把一些捷運轉乘服務連接到那條鐵路上，我們可以讓數以千計的人不開車而坐火車。我們正在清點有哪些幾近現成的解決方案，幾年內，我們將會讓計畫開始進行。
中期計畫是要完成一些建設，像有的鐵路差一英哩就可以到奧克蘭機場的鐵路，或是差0.25英哩就可以到洛杉磯國際機場，這一類的蠢事不少。換句話說，我們有很好的大眾運輸，可是沒有連接起來。
問：我們討論一下水資源吧，這一直是加州歷史的中心。我假設你已經知道了能源部的研究：加州到2025年的水需求會加倍，但水供應量反而會減少；原因是溫室效應使雨量增加、雪量減少，導致冬天淹水、夏天缺水，而夏天又是水需求量最高的時候。你計畫如何面對這個難題？
答：我們在水資源保存、儲水及水資源再利用方面有必須要做的事，不過我們還沒開始做。目前，我們每天從北加州輸送數十億加侖的水至南加州，利用水做各種事情，然後就把它流放到太平洋了。如果一個火星人來看到我們的系統，他會以為我們瘋了。我們知道在海博龍（Hyperion）污水處理廠每天流入太平洋的水有 3.5億加侖，而這是我們應該運用的資源。在洛杉磯郡，過去15年來人口成長了15%，可是水的使用量成長量是0%，這是因為有一項積極的水資源保存運動在進行的關係。我們必須邊走邊學。
問：怎麼做呢？
答：首先，要讓其他城市採用類似的方法。在洛杉磯最有效率的一件事是通過一條法令，規定當一棟建築物轉手時，必須改裝省水馬桶和蓮蓬頭，這樣不會馬上造成負擔，又符合民情，因為人們在房屋易主時一般都會做些整修。我們目前正與農業局、農工產業領導層合作，研究「雷射整地技術」（laser-leveling，編按：利用雷射儀器精準控制農地坡度，使灌溉水均勻流佈，以節省水資源）和「滴水灌溉法」（drip irrigation）。加州環保局的永續計畫則發展出一套適用於葡萄酒產業的標準，現已被廣泛的採用。另外，矽谷產業也承諾節水、節電，並減少溫室氣體排放。
問：最後一個問題是，以上這些和共和黨籍總統主政下的政策方略差了很遠。而阿諾已多次在環境議題上站出來對白宮嗆聲：「這方面我們跟你們不同。」你覺得未來會不會繼續出現與白宮的分歧？州長有沒有任何辦法可以幫助布希總統多一些環境意識？
答：我只能跟你說州長非常重視保護加州及其資源，讓我們能高高興興地把這個州交給我們的孩子們。我們與聯邦政策出現分歧的地方，在之前都曾嘗試化解過，但我們還是會繼續嘗試和聯邦合作。如果你回頭看看柯林頓主政時期，加州也並不是一直都同意聯邦政府的決策。所以我不會去公開指責什麼，我們該去做對於州以及後代有益的事，我們一定會去做。
問：躲得好。（笑聲）感謝您撥冗為我們做專訪。
答：謝謝你。 (全文完)
Terry Tamminen, secretary of California's Environmental Protection Agency, may hold the most powerful environmental job in the U.S. outside of Washington, D.C. Not only is California the world's fifth-largest economy, it has long been an environmental trendsetter, pioneering standards in automobile regulation and alternative-energy development that have spread across the nation and around the world. But Tamminen works for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), whose fondness for gas-guzzling Hummers leaves some environmentalists skeptical of his assurances about protecting California's environment.
Grist sent environmental author and reporter Mark Hertsgaard to question the 52-year-old Tamminen about how he and Schwarzenegger plan to deliver on their environmental agenda -- including a promise to cut California's air pollution in half by 2010, in part by building a "hydrogen highway" -- and the governor's recent disagreements with the environmental policies of fellow Republican George W. Bush.
The interview took place in Tamminen's corner office on the 25th floor of the Cal/EPA headquarters in Sacramento, which commands a spectacular view of the Central Valley and features a poster of Schwarzenegger, wearing a tank top and smoking a cigar, with the caption: "I recycle more with my pinkie than you do with both hands. Recycle now, thank me later. RECYCLE HARD."
Q: I want to start by asking how you got this job, because some of the initial press reports got it wrong. The story was that Bobby Kennedy Jr. called the governor and said, "This is the guy you've got to have." But in fact you've had a long relationship with the governor and first lady. Can you tell our readers what really happened -- how somebody who used to be an aspiring Shakespearean actor, a pool cleaner, and who ran BayKeeper, an environmental group in Los Angeles ...
A: And ran sheep ranches and real estate in Florida -- a jack of all trades, master of none ...
Q: ... how you got this job?
A: When the [California gubernatorial] campaign came about, I was running a foundation called Environment Now. I saw there was a need for all of the candidates to have solid facts about California's environment, and our foundation offered it to all the candidates.
But because I knew the governor and Maria [Shriver, his wife], I made a special effort to reach out to him and say, "If you want this information, I'm happy to provide it." And he said, "Come on in, let's have lunch and talk about it." This was two days after he'd announced. His kids were still out of school at that time, so we met at his office in Santa Monica with his kids there taking pizza off of our plates. We talked about everything from air pollution to global warming, invasive species, forestry issues -- you name it. Over the next couple of days, we kept discussing his philosophy, what direction he wanted to see the state go, and started to evolve that into an environmental action plan.
Q: You knew him originally through the Bobby Kennedy Riverkeeper connection? [Riverkeeper, a New York-based conservation group that Kennedy works with, had collaborated with Santa Monica BayKeeper, where Tamminen once worked.]
A: Actually not. [Schwarzenegger] has been involved in a lot of charitable activities in Southern California, and over the years we've been at different things related to the environment, but also Jewish causes. Obviously the connection with BayKeeper through Bobby Kennedy was to Maria Shriver. And then we have another close mutual friend, Bonnie Reiss, who was the founder of Earth Communications, and she's now a senior adviser to him. And my wife, Karen Borell, signed his last movie. She's a theatrical rep at Screen Actors Guild and signed the contracts that literally allowed him to go to work on his own movie.
Q: How much staff and resources do you have here at Cal/EPA?
A: This budget year, we have 4,275 employees and a budget of roughly a billion dollars.
Q: And your basic portfolio is water, air, toxics ...
A: And solid waste and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and pesticides.
Q: How do you feel about holding what is arguably the most powerful environmental job in the United States outside the Beltway?
A: What's powerful? Powerful is results. With air quality, for years we had been making good, steady progress. Now, in the last four or five years, we're going backwards: to stage-one smog alerts, to non-attainment of federal ozone standards and particulate matter. So there are very troubling signs on the horizon, especially as we try to accommodate the state's growth. Power is success. If we set some goals and achieve them, that's power.
In terms of California's role as a trendsetter, the governor has mentioned AB 1493. That is our greenhouse-gas bill with respect to cars, which he intends to defend in court if need be, because there've been some rumblings about challenges [from auto companies]. We're doing our best to work with the stakeholders to avoid that, so we get implementation and actual CO2 reductions rather than just go to battle. His friend [New York Gov. George] Pataki [R] has literally told him they are waiting to see how it plays out so they can adopt it in New York. Other states are looking to do the same. I just got back from Australia and England, where they're also looking to copy what we're doing.
Q: The greenhouse-gas law would establish a 30 percent reduction in CO2 emissions. Will the governor stand behind that number?
A: Absolutely. Of course we're waiting for the final report to come out and there will be opportunity for public comment. But whatever gets adopted by the [California Air Resources] Board as technologically feasible, the governor has stated he will defend. [Editor's note: The CARB staff's final report, released after this interview was conducted, proposed giving the auto industry eight rather than six years, starting in the 2009 model year, to meet the 30 percent target. The CARB will decide in September whether to endorse the staff's recommendation.]
Q: Where is the erosion of air quality coming from and what are your plans for attacking it?
A: [We have] 36 million people and our population is growing by almost 600,000 every year. We have 30 million motorized vehicles in the state, almost one per person. And the vehicles in showrooms today have worse fuel economy than in 1987. So if you have more vehicles that are less fuel-efficient, that results in more consumption and more air pollution.
Q: On my way into the building today, I picked up downstairs the bumper stickers that say, "Don't Be Fuelish."
A: That's a whole campaign we'll be rolling out over the next month. People will be seeing these messages at gas stations, teaching them how to conserve as much as 20 percent of their fuel regardless of what they drive. In the mid-term, we're working to get more fuel-efficient vehicles into the fleet. The state [government] itself has 70,000 vehicles. As the natural turnover occurs, we're going to get more hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles into that fleet and then promote them for personal and business choices as well.
As an example, right behind your head is a box of clean air that was presented to me by FedEx at an event the governor and I did to promote their diesel-electric hybrids, which save 50 percent of the fuel and reduce air emissions by a similar amount. They have pledged to convert their entire fleet and we're trying to get them to be a model for others. And all of this is as a bridge to truly clean fuels, and that's hydrogen.
Q: Isn't it hard for the governor to ask people to be more sensitive about this when he drives a Hummer?
A: Sure, sure. He's very aware of that. What people don't know, because his screen persona is macho and Hummers and blowing things up, [is that] he also has an electric car. And since he began campaigning for governor, he's never been in a car that hasn't been a car pool. I mean, he's probably the most fuel-efficient person in California.
Q: Is he going to get rid of the Hummer?
A: Well, stay tuned. He's going to do something with the Hummer that ties into a campaign promise, let's just put it that way.
Q: One rumor is that he's going to try to adapt the Hummer to run on hydrogen.
A: Hybrid hydrogen, that's what his campaign pledge was, and I'll just say, the governor always keeps his promises.
Q: On hydrogen, you must know that some knowledgeable environmentalists have said that this is a crazy idea -- that it may sound good out on the campaign trail, but using hydrogen to fuel cars is a misallocation of resources, because the hydrogen won't be produced renewably. It will be produced from natural gas, which could be used more efficiently to phase out coal-fired power plants.
A: First of all, if we're not going to evolve to hydrogen, what then? Even the most optimistic futurists don't think we have more than 40 years, 50 tops, of our oil future. And with car companies investing heavily in China and India, where a middle class is now coming into existence that can afford cars, they're going to be using fuel at a prodigious rate. So we're going to be running out very shortly in real terms, and we've got to plan what's next and get it commercialized.
Experts assume we won't move to hydrogen until it's cost competitive with $2-a-gallon gasoline. But gasoline doesn't cost $2 a gallon when you factor in all of the externalities: the tax breaks to the oil industry, the health-care costs. In California alone, the [externalities] cost is anywhere from $20 billion to $50 billion a year, depending on whether you include productivity losses as well. And when you consider that we've also run out of refinery capacity, we're going to be seeing $5-a-gallon gasoline in the very near future.
Q: $5-a-gallon gasoline? When?
A: If you look at the AB 2076 report, which you can download from the California Energy Commission, we may see shortages in the next three to five years, and that in turn will drive prices up. And that's assuming no terrorism or mechanical upsets in the meantime.
Q: What makes you and Gov. Schwarzenegger think you can make this hydrogen plan work?
A: The science is there. The only challenge that people who are engaged in this every day see is [the question of] the chicken or the egg: Who's going to invest in fueling stations if there's not enough vehicles, or who's going to produce vehicles if there's inadequate fueling stations? [Our] hydrogen highway concept [starts with] bringing together all the different players who are working on this. There's billions of dollars on the table -- all the energy companies and car companies and the Ballards and Praxairs of the world. We want to bring them together in the same room and have everyone put their chips on the map, in a literal sense: Where are you going to put your stations and by when? And then ask the car companies, If we can have 200 stations in California by 2010, what kind of vehicles could you start delivering? And what by 2012 and 2015? Let's start blueprinting this so we all have some predictability to the process. A blueprint [will be delivered] to the governor by January 2005 with all the specifics.
Q: It seems like a lot of your focus is on private vehicles and not so much on mass transit. Is that accurate?
A: I wouldn't say so. The emphasis is on private vehicles because California has so many. But the governor pledged a three-part program on mass transit.
The first thing is just putting more butts into mass transit through simple fixes that make mass transit easier. For example, there's heavy rail between L.A. and Santa Barbara but no commuter service, so the only way you can go from Santa Barbara to L.A. is on the 101 [freeway], which is terribly clogged on Sunday afternoons and every day during the commute. If we can get some Metrolink service on that existing rail line, we can get thousands of people out of their cars and put them on rail. We're doing an inventory right now to find all that low-hanging fruit, and within a couple of years, [we'll] get those kinds of projects up and running.
The mid-term goal is to finish projects like the rail line that right now ends a mile short of Oakland Airport or a quarter mile short of [Los Angeles International Airport] -- some of these silly things where you have good mass transit but it isn't connected.
Q: Let's talk about water, which has always been so central to the history of California. I assume you know the study by the Department of Energy that says California will double its water demand by 2025 but have less supply, because global warming will bring more rain and less snow, which in turn will lead to flooding in the winter but less water available in the summer, when demand is highest. What do you plan to do about this challenge?
A: We haven't begun to do what we need to do with conservation and ground storage and reuse. Right now, we send billions of gallons of water every day from Northern California to the south, do various things with it, and then throw it out into the Pacific Ocean. If a visitor from Mars came down and looked at this system, he'd think we were crazy. We know that the 350 million gallons a day that the Hyperion Sewage Treatment Plant by itself dumps into the Pacific Ocean is a resource we should be using. In Los Angeles County, the population has grown 15 percent in the last 15 years but water use has grown 0 percent because of an aggressive conservation campaign. We've got to take those lessons on the road.
Q: How?
A: First, by getting other cities to adopt similar approaches. One of the most effective things in Los Angeles was passing an ordinance that says when a building changes hands, you have to put in low-flow toilets and showerheads. So it doesn't create a burden immediately, it's when you change hands and you're upgrading anyway. We're working with the Farm Bureau and other industry-specific agricultural leaders on laser-leveling and drip irrigation. Our sustainability program at Cal/EPA has developed a set of standards for the wine industry that is now being widely adopted. Silicon Valley is another sector that has committed to water reduction, electricity reduction, and global greenhouse-gas reduction.
Q: One last question: This is such a different agenda than the Republican president of the United States has followed. And Schwarzenegger has stood up on a number of environmental issues and said to the White House, "We're not with you on this." Do you expect further divergences with the White House, and is there any way the governor can help the president get some religion on this?
A: All I can tell you is that the governor is single-mindedly focused on protecting California and its resources and making this a state we're happy to pass on to our kids. Where we diverge on federal policy, we've tried to work with the federal government, and we'll continue to do that. If you go back through the history of the Clinton administration, California didn't always agree with everything that came out of that administration. So I'm not going to start pointing fingers. We have to do what's right for the state and future generations, and we will.
Q: Nice dodge. [Laughter] Thank you for your time.
A: Thank you.
