It’s a well-known fact that Governor Schwarzenegger does not fly commercial. And it’s also well-known that he flies a lot.

But when word trickled out today that he intended to try and make amends for all the greenhouse gases his private jet creates, it got some of us wondering– just how big is the governor’s so-called ‘carbon footprint’?

Robert Salladay at the Los Angeles Times had the early story on the governor’s decision to write an annual check to help offset his carbon emissions. Schwarzenegger’s aides will attempt to add up all of those frequent flyer miles, assign a dollar value to them, and then the governor will donate that money to the Pacific Forest Trust. That organization, says the governor’s office, is the “gold standard” when it comes to efforts to ameliorate carbon dioxide emissions. The PFT will apparently use the money to help sustain a 2100 acre redwood forest in Humboldt County.

Those trees, says the governor’s office, will absorb 500,000 tons of CO2 over a 100 year period.

But is that enough?

Using some data provided to us by the Sierra Club… and with the help of a trusty intern and a calculator, the governor’s high-flying travels leave quite a footprint. The Sierra Club estimates that a mid-size Gulfstream jet (similar to what the governor uses) contributes 28 lbs. of carbon per gallon of jet fuel. Using some approximate distances, and published sources of fuel consumption for those jets, you get the following, one-way emissions:

Los Angeles to Sacramento: 5,929 lbs. of CO2
Los Angeles to Washington, DC: 37,849 lbs. of CO2
Los Angeles to Columbus, OH: 32,579 lbs. of CO2
Los Angeles to Honolulu, HI: 42,148 lbs. of CO2

The governor has been known to make two, sometimes three, round-trip flights from his LA home to Sacramento in a week. He was in Washington, DC the past few days. He’s been known to vacation in Hawaii. And he heads to Columbus in a few days for the annual ‘Arnold Classic.’

The math makes the half million tons of CO2 over 100 years absorbed by the trees start to not look so big. Granted, these are only estimates; and the governor’s aides say there are often staffers on the jet with him, so it’s not just his carbon footprint involved.

But environmentalists say planting trees isn’t enough. “I think those that have a jet-set lifestyle have a particular responsibility to try to reduce the pollution that they’re responsible for,” says the Sierra Club of California’s Bill Magavern.

I talked to Magavern this afternoon. He rides a bicycle, by the way… even on a rainy day like today.

[UPDATE, Wednesday 4:55pm: The folks from them PFT want to make it clear that the governor’s money won’t go toward planting trees… but rather, to protection of existing trees that might otherwise be logged. Spokesman Randall Beren said in an e-mail that many of the details of the governor’s payments for carbon offsets are still being worked out… including exactly how much money all of those carbon emissions are going to cost.]

Governor Schwarzenegger just wrapped up remarks to the National Press Club during his visit to Washington, DC. And in the Q&A following his speech, the governor touched on everything from the party system of politics to private companies building more toll roads:

* Would the rise of a prominent third party help ease partisan rancor? The governor said the political process in places with multiple parties isn’t much better. “They have as many difficulties in Europe,” said Schwarzenegger.

* In discussing his opposition to a single-payer health insurance plan, the governor said he wanted to focus on fixing the current system, adding that: “You must let everyone make their profits.”

* On immigration reform, the governor said the feds shouldn’t make changes to the system that make it hard to know who can stay, and who must leave. “It has to be simple and straightforward,” he said. Schwarzenegger also reaffirmed his support for a new guest worker program.

* And when asked for his opinion on privately built toll roads, Schwarzenegger sounded as though he sees no controversy on the subject. “We should let the private sector build the roads,” he said. Elaborating on that, the governor wondered out loud why someone in Orange County, as an example, should have to pay for some of the roads near San Francisco. He also said he supports allowing foreign-based companies to build toll roads.

“Everything is on the table.”

That’s a direct quote from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on the question of how to solve the state’s quickly expanding prison crisis. The governor made that comment this afternoon during a Capitol news conference.

But less than an hour later, a second statement– this one in writing– made it impossible to know what he meant by “everything.”

Earlier today, it became known that U.S District Judge Thelton Henderson issued an order one week ago instructing state officials to give him a plan to deal with overcrowding issues… and to do so within three months. Henderson’s communique hinted that if the state fails to act, the federal courts may ultimately have to order the release of prisoners.

Schwarzenegger summoned reporters just a few hours after meeting with the four legislative leaders about the prison problem, and he clearly wanted to get out in front of any news stories on the issue. “We can make sure this [court intervention] doesn’t happen if we act now,” he said in his prepared remarks.

Then he opened the event up for questions.

Would he, I asked, consider early release for prisoners convicted of non-violent crimes? “Well, one thing I can assure you,” he said. “We will not release any inmates that are a danger to society.” [You can hear more of that answer here.]

That didn’t really address the central point of the question, so I tried again. The answer: “We are going to discuss it.”

Near the end of the event, another reporter asked the same question: is Schwarzenegger now discussing the release of inmates with no violent crime convictions?

“We’re going to look at all of the different possibilities on how to free up some beds,” he said. [More of that answer can be heard here.]

But less than an hour later, the following statement attributed to the governor was e-mailed to the Capitol press corps:

“I will not allow the early release of any felons– violent or non-violent– as a means to address overcrowding.”

True, he’s been crystal clear on the issue of violent prisoners. But in light of the press conference remarks, it sounds like he had a change of heart once he left the podium.

The governor’s press secretary says there was no change after the press conference, only a clarification of what “everything” means to Schwarzenegger. For example, the governor said this afternoon that he is willing to consider early release for “old, feeble, and sick” prisoners.

Stay tuned for what legislators think “everything is on the table” means… it’s apparently not as clear of a phrase as one might think.

“The governor, in his budget, proposed spending out of the state General Fund next year $358 million dollars per day, or more than $3,400 for every man, woman, and child in California.”

The in-depth analysis of Governor Schwarzenegger’s new state budget is out, and the Legislature’s non-partisan analyst essentially says the numbers don’t add up.

Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill says that expenditures in 2007-08 would outpace revenues by $2.6 billion. And while there is reserve cash left from the current fiscal year to help soften the blow, Hill projects the governor’s plan would still leave the state short by $726 million. That’s a far cry from Schwarzenegger’s bold statement in January that his budget had wiped out the state’s red ink.

Beyond that, the LAO report forecasts an even larger deficit in 2008-09 of $3.4 billion, and slightly smaller deficits throughout the rest of this decade.

There are several differences between Hill’s lengthy report and the governor’s own fiscal projections. But one of the most easily digestible may be this: the LAO says Governor Schwarzenegger’s team has overestimated revenues in the coming year by a whopping $2 billion. The big difference, says Hill’s report, is that her analysts think personal income tax revenues will be “weaker” than projected by the governor.

You can read the main portions of the LAO report here. No doubt there will be a lot of reaction, pro and con, from both the governor’s folks and legislators throughout the day.

More than 5 million California voters said yes on November 8 to Proposition 1B, the multi-billion dollar transportation bond. Now, more than three months later, the inevitable battle has begun: who gets how much money, and for which badly needed transportation projects?

That battle has become particularly heated over the last few days, after initial staff recommendations from the California Transportation Commission. So heated, in fact, that Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez openly suggested today that the Legislature may not agree to spend the Prop 1B funds if the project list isn’t modified.

Prop 1B authorized about $20 billion in borrowing, but only $4.5 billion of that was earmarked to help ease congestion on state roadways. Trouble is, when local government officials from around the state submitted their requests for a slice of that $4.5 billion, the requests totaled about $11.3 billion.

No surprise, then, that a lot of folks were going to be left out… and unhappy about it.

This morning, Speaker Nunez said the state transportation commission staff “needs to be a lot smarter” about the projects selected. And Nunez suggested that if $4.5 billion isn’t enough, he’s prepared to ask the voters for an additional $5 billion on the November 2008 ballot. Those comments follow Monday’s photo op by LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa handling out flyers to drivers urging them to call lawmakers and complain about what he sees as the city’s paltry share of the cash– about 12% of the money, even though Villaraigosa and Nunez say that Los Angeles has about 42% of the state’s traffic congestion.

Nunez even suggested that maybe the CTC can’t handle the job, and that an outside panel may need to get involved. [Listen to those comments here.]

And the staff recommendations didn’t seem all that more popular when commissioners met this afternoon for an information hearing on the issue. Some commissioners criticized the fact that 20% of the $4.5 billion has been earmarked for “connectivity” projects, rather than congestion relief– in other words, roadway projects that better connect one region or locale to another. Other commissioners took aim at the suggestion that bond money be allocated to projects that still didn’t have full funding. Why allow a traffic relief project to break ground, they said, if that project may not be completed due to a lack of sufficient funds?

Suffice it to say, voters had no idea how much bottled up demand there is in California for transportation cash… and no idea, either, that a lot of worthy proposals in their own neck of the woods still may not get off the drawing board.

The CTC is scheduled to vote on which projects to fund at its meeting next week.

A few items to ponder as the holiday weekend rolls on…

* On this weekend’s newsmagazine edition of The California Report, I reported on some of the larger issues to consider when it comes to the notion of a February 2008 presidential primary in the Golden State. That includes a new, and strategically significant, change in the state’s GOP primary– where delegates will be handed out by congressional district. You can listen to the piece here.

* Also, host Kathryn Baron speaks with political scientist Larry Gerston about what issues the presidential candidates will need to address should they want votes here in California. That interview can be heard here.

* Speaking of the early primary… Capitol folks say the proposal could still be on the governor’s desk by the end of this week, after some initial delay once the bill made it out of the Senate.

* Following some initial speculation (reported by Frank Russo here) that the term limits reform initiative may still have excluded lawmakers like Senate President pro Tem Don Perata, the initiative’s backers decided to file a modified version of the language, just in case, that they say deals with legislators with tenures similar to Perata’s.

* A not-so-noticed report this past week from the Public Policy Institute of California casts some doubt on the well-known argument that businesses have been leaving the state. The report is here.

(New information at the end of this posting)

Well, the chatter is on its way to being true.

This morning, a bipartisan group of political heavyweights filed a proposed initiative to modify the state’s term limits law for members of the Legislature, changing the time of service from eight years in the Senate and six in the Assembly… to a total of 12 years in one house.

There probably won’t be many surprises in the details of the proposal, as it’s now been floated around the Capitol for months. The initiative, if it qualifies in time, could be on the now expected February 5 presidential primary ballot… thus possibly extending the terms of Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, Senate President pro Tempore Don Perata, and many others.

The two political strategists apparently behind the effort are Democrat Gale Kaufman, the top consligieri of Nunez, and Matthew Dowd, a former strategist for both Governor Schwarzenegger and President Bush.

[UPDATE 2:30 PM] In a conference call with reporters, Kaufman and Dowd said there is currently no formal coalition behind this initiative. But Kaufman made it clear that both Speaker Nunez and the influential California Chamber of Commerce have both done some recent research on the issue.

Click here for Kaufman’s comments on building a coalition.

The discussion also made it clear that any lawmaker, current or former, who has not used all of their legislative eligibility would be able to take advantage of some of the changes under this initiative. For example, a former Assembly member who served six years and then left Sacramento… could come back and serve another six years in the Assembly. But that same lawmaker could only serve one term in the Senate; in other words, the proposal encourages same-house service, not “seat jumpers.”

Click here for Dowd’s comments on how the initiative would foster bi-partisanship.

Polls have shown an awful lot of skepticism from voters on any changes to term limits, something Kaufman acknowledged [listen here]. But as she said, this may be the best chance to ask the question.

As for logistics, Kaufman guesses the group will have a little more than three months to get some 1.1 million signatures, an effort whose price tag she says will be as much as $2.5 million.

Former legislator Ross Johnson has been tapped by Governor Schwarzenegger to be the new chairman of the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state’s campaign finance watchdog agency.

Johnson represented Orange County in the Legislature for 26 years, and was Republican leader at different points in both the Assembly and Senate. The ex-legislator replaces outgoing FPPC chair Liane Randolph, whose term expired at the end of January.

Johnson was often outspoken on campaign finance issues, and was the plaintiff in the campaign finance lawsuit against then Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante during the 2003 recall campaign. The new chairman was also one of the architects of Proposition 34, the 2000 ballot measure designed by the Legislature to replace campaign contribution limits thrown out by the courts. The original limits were much more strict than those Johnson (and others) wrote into Prop 34.

Also tapped by the governor today for a seat on the FPPC is Tim Hodson, a former legislative staffer and current executive director of the Center for California Studies at CSU Sacramento.

Senate President pro Tempore Don Perata is often one of the more quotable legislators at the Capitol… not so much because of his position as top dog in the Senate, but more because he often says it like he feels, sans spin.

And the Oakland Democrat didn’t disappoint this afternoon, in a quick news conference before the Senate floor session.

* Perata, in true Godfather style, when asked about his reaction to the Democratic National Committee’s possible plan to take delegate votes away from California for moving the primary from June to February: “Well, I would tell all of those, my colleagues who are there, that next time they come to California and want something, I’m gonna remember that.”

* The pro tem also spoke out about his support for possible tougher restrictions on lobbying in Sacramento. Perata said the efforts at lobbying reform in DC might be worth considering here.

“We, in California, allow lobbyists to do certain things,” said Perata. “I would ban all of that, frankly. I don’t think you should take gifts from lobbyists. I don’t think there ought to be a $10 limit. I think it ought to be banned permanently.” [Listen to his comments here]

* And when asked about efforts to modify the state’s current term limits law, the Senate leader admitted that it might be an easier fight if new term limits rules didn’t apply retroactively to folks like him. Nonetheless, he argued that it makes sense for current legislators to also be beneficiaries of any changes.

“Too much is made about political self-interest,” he said. “I believe there’s a real problem with lack of continuity here [at the Capitol].” [Listen to his comments here]