Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Governor Gavin Newsom participated in a discussion on California's climate laws during the 2026 California Economic Summit in Long Beach on October 13-15. The event marked the 20th anniversary of the California Global Warming Solutions Act, which Schwarzenegger signed into law in 2006. This legislation mandated a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a goal that California claims to have met ahead of schedule through various regulatory measures, including emissions caps and a cap-and-trade program.
Schwarzenegger highlighted the challenges he faced in implementing the legislation, stating, "I was going through the struggle. I mean, we knew that they were full of s–t, right?" He noted that the federal government, particularly the Bush administration, opposed the new regulations, leading to legal battles. He emphasized the importance of representing the people rather than political parties.
Newsom acknowledged the contributions of former President Richard Nixon to environmental policy, including the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency and the enactment of the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act. He stated, "California recognizes its role and responsibility in the absence of federal responsibility," referring to the challenges posed by the Trump administration regarding environmental regulations.
Newsom asserted that California is leading in environmental protections, claiming, "We have no peers. We are dramatically changing the way we’re producing and consuming energy, and we’re creating jobs and innovation, and we are dominating in this space."
The Trump administration has opposed California's environmental regulations, including attempts to repeal the EPA's 2009 "Endangerment Finding" and efforts to revoke California's Clean Air Act preemption waivers. A federal judge recently halted Trump's efforts to undermine these regulations, but challenges continue. The Global Warming Solutions Act itself has faced legal and legislative scrutiny, with critics arguing that it grants excessive power to state regulators and disproportionately affects lower-income communities through the cap-and-trade system.