Newsom's podcast sidekick: a single-use plastic water bottle
Johnny had Ed. Conan had Andy. And Gov. Gavin Newsom? A single-use plastic water bottle.
In most of the YouTube video recordings of Newsom's new podcast, 'This is Gavin Newsom,' a single-use plastic water bottle lurks on a table nearby.
Sometimes, it is accompanied by a single-use coffee cup. Other times, it stands alone.
Typically, such product placement would raise nary an eyebrow. But in recent weeks, environmentalists, waste advocates, lawmakers and others have been battling with the governor and his administration over a landmark single-use plastic law that Newsom signed in 2022, but which he has since worked to defang — reducing the number of packaged single-use products the law was designed to target and potentially opening the door for polluting forms of recycling.
Anti-plastic advocates say it's an abrupt and disappointing pivot from the governor, who in June 2022, decried plastic pollution and the plague of single-use plastic on the environment.
'It's like that whole French Laundry thing all over again,' said one anti-plastic advocate, who didn't want to be identified for fear of angering the governor. Newsom was infamously caught dining without a mask at the wine country restaurant during the COVID-19 lockdown.
Newsom's efforts to scale back SB 54, the state's single-use plastic recycling law, has dismayed environmentalists who have long considered Newsom one of their staunchest allies.
'Our kids deserve a future free of plastic waste and all its dangerous impacts ... No more,' Newsom said in 2022, when he signed SB 54. 'California won't tolerate plastic waste that's filling our waterways and making it harder to breathe. We're holding polluters responsible and cutting plastics at the source.'
Asked about the presence of the plastic water bottle, Daniel Villaseñor, the governor's deputy director of communications, had this response:
'Are you really writing a story this baseless or should we highlight this video for your editor?' Villaseñor said via email, attaching a video clip showing this reporter seated near a plastic water bottle at last year's Los Angeles Times' Climate Summit. (The bottles were placed near chairs for all the panelists; this particular one was never touched.)
More than a half-dozen environmentalists and waste advocates asked to comment for this story declined to speak on the record, citing concerns including possible retribution from the governor's office and appearing to look like scolds as negotiations over implementing SB 54 continue.
Dianna Cohen, the co-founder and chief executive of Plastic Pollution Coalition, said that while she wouldn't comment on the governor and his plastic sidekick, she noted that plastic pollution is an 'urgent global crisis' that requires strong policies and regulations.
'Individuals — especially those in the public eye — can help shift culture by modeling these solutions. We must all work to embrace the values we want to see and co-create a healthier world,' she said in a statement.
On Thursday, Newsom dropped a new episode of 'This is Gavin Newsom' with independent journalist Aaron Parnas. In the video, there wasn't a plastic bottle in sight.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
37 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Gavin Newsom Challenges JD Vance: 'How About Saying It to My Face?'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. California Governor Gavin Newsom on Friday challenged Vice President JD Vance to a debate after the vice president visited Los Angeles and accused him of "egging on" violent disorder in the city. In a post on his X, formerly Twitter, account, the governor wrote: "...Since you're so eager to talk about me, how about saying it to my face?" Newsweek contacted Vance for comment on Saturday via email to the White House press office outside of regular office hours. Why It Matters U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have expanded their operations in Los Angeles and across the country as President Donald Trump seeks to deliver on his campaign promise to carry out the largest deportation operation in United States history. ICE conducted raids in Los Angeles and faced large protests in the city that largely remained peaceful with some instances of violence that prompted Trump to order the deployment of 4,000 members of California's National Guard and 700 U.S. Marines to assist in stopping violence, even as Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass insisted local law enforcement had the matter under control and a legal battle has pursued. The raids are following legal directive from federal authorities, but critics have raised concerns about the treatment of migrants by federal authorities as well as the tactics used by immigration agents during the raids. What To Know During his visit to Los Angeles on Friday to meet with troops, including Marines who have been deployed to protect federal buildings in the city, Vance said rioters had been "egged on" by Newsom and Bass, telling reporters: "The president has a very simple proposal to everybody in every city, every community, every town whether big or small. If you enforce your own laws and if you protect federal law enforcement, we're not going to send in the national guard because it's unnecessary. He added: "But if you let violent rioters burn great American cities to the ground, then of course we're going to send in federal law enforcement to protect the people the president was elected to protect." Vance also referred to Senator Alex Padilla, a California Democrat who was handcuffed and forcibly removed from a press conference DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was holding in Los Angeles earlier this month, as "Jose Padilla." Noem has said Padilla did not identify himself when he arrived at the conference, but Padilla disputes the claim. Responding on X, Newsom wrote: "Hey @JDVance — nice of you to finally make it out to California. Since you're so eager to talk about me, how about saying it to my face? Let's debate. Time and place?" In a separate X post, the governor shared a clip of Vance calling Padilla "Jose Padilla," adding: "JD Vance served with Alex Padilla in the United States Senate. Calling him 'Jose Padilla' is not an accident." California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks on March 26 in Los Angeles. Vice President JD Vance addresses the press following a tour of the multiagency Federal Joint Operations Center at the Wilshire Federal Building on June... California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks on March 26 in Los Angeles. Vice President JD Vance addresses the press following a tour of the multiagency Federal Joint Operations Center at the Wilshire Federal Building on June 20 in Los Angeles. More Frazer Harrison/WireImage/Scott Olson/GETTY What People Are Saying Referring to the Padilla incident, a Vance spokesperson previously told Newsweek that: "He must have mixed up two people who have broken the law." Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said: "Mr. Vice President, how dare you disrespect our senator. You don't know his name," Bass questioned. "But yet you served with him before you were vice president and you continue to serve with him today, because the last time I checked, the vice president of the United States is the president of the U.S. Senate." She added: "You serve with him today and how dare you disrespect him and call him 'Jose.' But I guess he just looked like anybody to you. Well, he's not just anybody to us. He is our senator." President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social last week: "I campaigned on, and received a Historic Mandate for, the largest Mass Deportation Program in American History. Polling shows overwhelming Public Support for getting the Illegals out, and that is exactly what we will do. As Commander-in-Chief, I will always protect and defend the Heroes of ICE and Border Patrol, whose work has already resulted in the Most Secure Border in American History. Anyone who assaults or attacks an ICE or Border Agent will do hard time in jail. Those who are here illegally should either self deport using the CBP Home App or, ICE will find you and remove you. Saving America is not negotiable!" What Happens Next? Vance has yet to respond to Newsom's offer of a debate and it remains to be seen if he will do so. In December 2023, Newsom debated against Florida's Republican Governor Ron DeSantis after the two went back-and-forth on their policies. Meanwhile, a U.S. appeals court on Thursday unanimously blocked a lower court ruling that put Newsom back in control of National Guard troops that Trump deployed to Los Angeles. The appeals court ruled that the president can keep control of the guardsmen while legal proceedings in the case continue.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Smerconish: Should the L.A. Dodgers have denied access to federal agents?
The L.A. Dodgers are taking a stand against the Trump administration's ICE raids. Los Angeles Times Writer Jack Harris sets the record straight about conflicting reports from the L.A. Dodgers and DHS officials.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court blocks Newsom's bid to reclaim control of National Guard from Trump
A federal appeals court has indefinitely blocked an effort by California Gov. Gavin Newsom to reclaim control of the National Guard troops President Donald Trump deployed to Los Angeles following unrest related to immigration enforcement. The three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that Trump appeared to have acted within his authority when he took control of 4,000 California National Guard troops under a law that has never been invoked without the consent of a state governor. Despite a debate over the level of violence accompanying the protests, the judges — two appointed by Trump and one by President Joe Biden — concluded that the law gives Trump enormous latitude to determine that the protests and related violence were interfering with execution of federal law. The judges said there are limits to the president's ability to call up the Guard, but there was enough evidence of civil unrest and danger to federal officials to justify Trump's actions. The ruling indefinitely sets aside a decision by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who last week issued a temporary restraining order against Trump's deployment of the Guard. Breyer is scheduled to hold another hearing in the case on Friday to consider Newsom's request for a longer-term block of both the Guard deployment and Trump's subsequent deployment of 700 Marines. The three judges on the panel were Trump appointees Mark Bennett and Eric Miller and Biden appointee Jennifer Sung. All three appeared skeptical of Newsom's position during oral arguments on Tuesday. Their Thursday night order was issued on a 'per curiam' basis, which means no judge was identified as the author of the opinion. Newsom, a Democrat, could ask a larger, 11-judge panel of the appeals court to take up the issue or seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court. Despite ultimately ruling for Trump, all three judges flatly rejected his administration's claim that the courts had no role in reviewing his call-up of the military to Los Angeles. Had Trump's call-up been 'obviously absurd or made in bad faith,' they said, courts would clearly have a role in assessing it. However, the appeals court said a line of legal precedents dating to the early 19th century indicated that the court's review of Trump's decision should be 'especially deferential' and that the president's orders should be upheld if they reflect 'a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a 'range of honest judgment.'' Newsom and his attorneys argued that Trump's involvement of the National Guard was likely to fuel more anger from protesters and inflame an already tense situation on the streets of L.A. But the appeals judges said those concerns were too remote to entitle the state to an order reversing Trump's action. 'California's concerns about escalation and interference with local law enforcement, at present, are too speculative. We do not know whether future protests will grow due to the deployment of the National Guard,' the court wrote. 'And we do not know what emergencies may occur in California while the National Guard is deployed.' There are signs that the protests and altercations with authorities have actually diminished in the days since the deployment. After imposing a curfew in downtown L.A last week, Mayor Karen Bass eased the curfew Monday and lifted it on Tuesday. The 9th Circuit judges also concluded that a technical aspect of the law — a requirement that Trump issue his order to call up the Guard 'through' Newsom — was not violated, even though the order was delivered to Newsom's subordinate. Even if it were a violation, they added, it wouldn't justify Breyer's ruling to rescind the order altogether. The appeals court panel had put a temporary hold on Breyer's ruling shortly after he issued it — an administrative measure to give the panel time to hear arguments. The decision Thursday grants the Trump administration's request to keep the hold in place as litigation proceeds. While it's not a final ruling on the legality of Trump's deployment order, by the time those issues are resolved by another panel of the appeals court, the Guard deployment could be over and the dispute could be moot.
