Governor Newsom?

As global warming becomes less a subject of theoretical debate, and more a physical reality people can see and feel, blurry environmental issues will sharpen. This change will have a profound effect on politics, which is currently swept up in a fad for environmental charlatanism; witness the Washington-led ethanol craze, or Schwarzenegger's hot-air-fueled hydrogen car program.

Climate change's tangible effects are now moving from plants to lower mammals to humans. This year scientists are linking millions of acres of North American forest die-offs to pollution-induced climate change; they are seeing Sierra Nevada rodents relocate to higher and colder ground. Planners, meanwhile, discuss fortifying against climate change-induced flooding of Treasure Island, and San Francisco proper.

The current environmental "confusion" — egged on by automobile, oil, and other energy-consumption-linked companies — over the types of lifestyle changes necessary to ensure the planet's health will go the way of the decades-long "debate" over tobacco's health effects. It will become moot.

---

Half of San Francisco's greenhouse gases come from automobile exhaust. An even bigger smog cloud emanates from the cars of hundreds of thousands of workers forced to live hours-long trips from here because of a shortage of housing in the city. The consensus of scientists, planners, environmental activists, and academics is that the key to reducing greenhouse gas has less to do with changing the types of fuels vehicles use than with reducing trips taken by car.

That means encouraging people to walk, take transit, and ride bikes by placing homes near work. This is the logic behind current plans to build a high-rise condominium neighborhood bordering the San Francisco financial district. It means providing transportation alternatives. This is the reasoning behind current plans to build a Grand Central Station-style transit hub near the financial district. And it means scaling back on decades-old policies that encouraged workers to travel by automobile everywhere they went. This is the rationale for current planning guidelines limiting the number of parking spaces while creating a neighborhood of high-rise condominium towers near transit-rich downtown.

The mayor's inner circle of policy advisers understands the rationale behind these policies. Indeed, Newsom's housing director, Matt Franklin, has been among their staunchest advocates.

Newsom's policy team also understands that these types of eco-city strategies are a great way to accommodate strong job growth. People such as Newsom economic adviser Jesse Blout comprehend that the San Francisco Peninsula has limited space for new parking garages, streets, and parking lots, but enough room for more pedestrians, cyclists, and straphangers. Blout's on the board of San Francisco Planning and Urban Research (SPUR), which led the effort to draft Peskin's Muni measure.

But last week Newsom turned away from his policy aides on these issues. He listened to his political advisers, who believe that voters ignore environmental debates because they confuse. These advisers also know how important it is to placate backers such as Fisher.

Two factors, however, undermine this political logic.

Fisher and Peskin's dueling transportation initiatives will be the hot topic of the fall campaign. Downtown business leaders have already indicated they may be prepared to spend significant money on the initiatives. Peskin claims he'll recruit downtown builders who don't want parking garages to kill the current pro-development political mood that's laying them golden eggs. Environmental activists, meanwhile, have been holding campaign strategy meetings with smart-growth groups such as SPUR. Hippies are colluding with suits to promote their vision of a cleaner, safer, more pleasant city. Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters are also expected to jump on board. Given the lopsided mayoral race, this may be the one San Francisco campaign people talk about this fall.

And for all the noise such a battle will generate, voters needn't struggle to discern which is the better choice. This is especially true for voters among Muni's 700,000 daily straphangers.

If San Francisco spends millions of tax dollars to make buses run more rapidly, only to have the same buses obstructed by tens of thousands of additional cars flowing out of new condo parking spaces, it will create a situation every voter hates: wasted government spending.

---

In 2003, Arnold Schwarzenegger fruitfully took voters for rubes when he campaigned on a promise to eliminate California's vehicle license fee, yet he's somehow re-emerged as an environmental progressive. Newsom has touted himself for the past four years as an environmental mayor while refusing to take a stand on issues important to environmentalists. In March 2006, for example, he vetoed legislation that would have limited parking downtown.

These sorts of politicians can only hope that, as they make their way up the political ladder, voters don't wise up about the environment.

If they do get wise, Newsom will never make it to governor. He'll be left remembering his time as San Francisco's anti-environmental mayor as halcyon days.