California has always been a leader in environmental protection, often setting the standard for the nation. It proudly pioneered its own vehicle emission regulations and was the first state to ban single-use plastic shopping bags.
In 2020, Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom demonstrated this commitment by proposing a ban on new gas-powered car sales by 2035. Flanked by electric vehicles, he strongly urged automakers to embrace this future, or risk being ‘on the wrong side of history.’
This year, however, environmental advocates were taken aback as Newsom and his fellow Democratic lawmakers appeared to reverse course on several key green policies. They criticized the state’s coastal preservation commission for being overly restrictive and even scaled back the monumental California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in an effort to tackle the state’s urgent housing crisis.
Then came a move many environmentalists considered unimaginable: the push for legislation designed to keep oil refineries operational and even simplify the process of oil drilling across California.
“It’s a complete reversal,” stated Hollin Kretzmann, a Climate Law Institute attorney specializing in endangered species protection. “The need to move away from fossil fuels is more critical than ever, making it truly baffling why our Sacramento lawmakers are heading in the opposite direction.”
Even within famously liberal California, Democrats admit they’ve felt the impact of their party’s recent national electoral defeats. They recognize the public’s growing frustration over the state’s high cost of living and are keen to demonstrate tangible action.
Should this pivot towards economic concerns, even if it compromises established environmental principles, prove successful, it could offer valuable insights for Democrats nationwide, despite potentially upsetting local environmental activists.
California residents consistently face higher gas prices than the rest of the country, currently hovering around 45 percent above the national average. Lawmakers fear these costs could surge even further without immediate support for the oil industry. Furthermore, the shift to electric vehicles isn’t yet widespread enough for either drivers or politicians to disregard fuel prices.
Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris, a Democrat from Orange County and chair of the State Assembly’s energy committee, emphasized, “True climate leadership isn’t about $10-a-gallon gas; California must inspire, not serve as a warning. For too long, policymakers imagined they could simply set ambitious goals and magically achieve them.”
“Those magic wands are gone,” she concluded.
The year 1969 marked the birth of the modern environmental movement in California, triggered by a devastating oil spill off the Santa Barbara coast. This event deeply resonated with Americans, who were growing increasingly aware of the detrimental impact of development on nature. The disaster directly inspired the inaugural Earth Day in 1970, a monumental event that saw 20 million Americans – a tenth of the nation’s population – participate in nationwide demonstrations, leading to significant environmental protection measures at both state and federal levels.
Following this, California swiftly enacted the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), mandating environmental impact assessments for new developments. Just a few years later, in 1972, voters backed the establishment of the California Coastal Commission, tasked with safeguarding the coastline and guaranteeing public access to beaches. Over the decades, California continued its pioneering efforts, implementing stringent water and air quality standards and launching the country’s first cap-and-trade programs.
For a long time, Democrats have championed the belief that consumer well-being and environmental progress can go hand-in-hand. They’ve advocated for a smooth transition for fossil fuel workers into the burgeoning clean energy sector, posited that electric vehicle charging would eventually be cheaper than gasoline, and promoted energy-efficient homes requiring less power for climate control.
Governor Newsom echoed this sentiment in his recent State of the State letter, asserting, “In California, economic growth and environmental protection go hand in hand.”
However, for many Democratic state legislators, last year’s presidential election, which saw Republicans make inroads even in California, served as a stark wake-up call. They began questioning whether their legislative priorities truly aligned with voters’ immediate concerns, such as affordable housing and grocery prices.
Concluding their legislative session on Saturday, state lawmakers approved a measure that could greenlight up to 2,000 new oil and gas wells annually in Kern County – a petroleum-rich area of the Central Valley – for the next decade.
While Governor Newsom had previously committed to phasing out oil drilling in California by 2045, recent refinery closures have prompted him to adopt a more pragmatic stance, prioritizing the state’s immediate fuel supply needs.
“We all benefit from oil and gas; nobody is naive about that,” Newsom stated at a recent news conference, acknowledging his own air travel. “It has always been about achieving a fair transition, a sense of pragmatism.”
However, for environmentalists, this newfound ‘pragmatism’ feels like a betrayal. Mary Creasman, CEO of California Environmental Voters, used strong language to express her dismay over the legislative session. She highlighted that over a dozen pro-environment bills, including initiatives to ban PFAS chemicals in drinking water and establish a 3,000-acre conservancy near Fresno, failed to pass this year.
Adding to their frustration, environmentalists argued that the devastating Los Angeles fires in January – the costliest climate disaster in U.S. history – should have spurred more aggressive climate legislation, not a rollback of existing regulations.
Kathryn Phillips, a former director of Sierra Club California and architect of many current state environmental initiatives, voiced her concern: “I fear Newsom and the legislators are setting us back. Instead of accelerating our transition away from fossil fuels for vehicles and other uses, they are paving the way for a return to past practices.”
While polls indicate that environmental issues remain important to voters, the strain on personal finances means Californians are increasingly demanding solutions to the high costs of housing, gas, and electricity.
Dan Schnur, a political science lecturer at UC Berkeley, noted that during economic hardship, voters often prioritize immediate financial concerns over abstract, collective action-driven goals. “Many voters care about environmental protection and climate change,” he explained, “but they care even more about their daily cost of living.”
This oil legislation is just one component of a broader package of bills Governor Newsom is set to sign this Friday. Other proposals include extending the state’s cap-and-trade program, which caps emissions and requires companies to purchase credits for exceeding limits. Another controversial bill would integrate California into a regional energy grid, potentially boosting reliability but also increasing the proportion of fossil fuels in the state’s electricity supply.
This shift in tone among Democrats appears to stem from a realization that the state’s clean energy transition is not progressing as rapidly as initially anticipated. Most drivers continue to rely on gasoline vehicles, especially in extensive metropolitan areas where public transit use is not commonplace.
Concurrently, Republicans in Washington have introduced obstacles to the widespread adoption of clean technologies. This year, President Trump and House Republicans thwarted Newsom’s 2035 ban on new gas-powered vehicle sales and rescinded California’s right to set its own tailpipe emissions standards. Moreover, Republican-backed legislation will eliminate electric vehicle purchase incentives this month.
Republican state lawmakers expressed a sense of vindication regarding the Democrats’ current approach in California. State Senator Shannon Grove, a Republican from Bakersfield, whose district encompasses many of the oil wells slated for expansion, stated, “I have consistently cautioned against the risks of dismantling reliable energy sources in pursuit of expensive green initiatives.”
Henry Stern, a long-respected Democratic state senator and environmental champion from Los Angeles, suggested that the green movement might need to embrace more pragmatism to ensure its long-term viability. He reflected with astonishment on his journey from authoring anti-fracking laws to now collaborating on legislation that would permit increased drilling in Kern County.
Stern believes California bears the responsibility of demonstrating to the nation that climate policies can be both intelligent and financially beneficial, particularly as the Trump administration continues to challenge clean energy efforts.
“In California, we often portray an image of perfectionism,” Stern acknowledged. “But we also drive more than anyone else, making us complicit. We’re simultaneously leaders in electric vehicles and in petroleum consumption.”
He understood that voters don’t appreciate being told that ‘driving a pickup and eating a hamburger is evil.’ However, he believed many would enthusiastically support environmental policies that also offered tangible cost savings.
“Has this entire environmental movement failed?” he pondered. “Or is it evolving into something more resilient, capable of enduring beyond political shifts? The optimist in me hopes we can achieve more, even now.”