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.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
15 minutes ago
- New York Times
B-2 bombers head across the Pacific and Trump is scheduled to return to the White House as he considers strike on Iran.
Multiple U.S. Air Force B-2 bombers appeared to be airborne and heading west from the United States across the Pacific, and President Trump is scheduled to return to the White House late on Saturday afternoon from New Jersey as he deliberates about whether to join Israel's efforts to destroy Iran's nuclear sites. Air traffic control communications indicated that several B-2 aircraft — the planes that could be equipped to carry the 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs that Mr. Trump is considering deploying against Iran's underground nuclear facilities in Fordo — had taken off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. Some flight trackers said on social media that the destination of the aircraft is Guam, the U.S. territory, which has several military installations, although that could not be independently confirmed. The bombers appeared to be accompanied by refueling tankers for portions of the journey, the flight tracking data showed. Moving planes does not mean a final decision has been made about whether to strike. It is not unusual to shift military assets into position to provide options to the president and military commanders even if they are not ultimately deployed. The White House schedule for the weekend said that Mr. Trump would return from his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., and would meet with his national security team at 6 p.m. on Saturday and again on Sunday. Mr. Trump typically spends both weekend days out of town at one of his properties. A White House spokeswoman declined to comment. Mr. Trump has made clear he is weighing whether to have the U.S. join Israel's effort to curtail Iran's ability to acquire a nuclear weapon, a line he has drawn repeatedly over the years. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hundreds of Voice of America reporters fired as Trump guts agency
Hundreds of journalists for Voice of America (VOA) - most of its remaining staff - have been fired by President Donald Trump's administration, effectively shutting down the US-funded news outlet. The Trump administration, which has long accused VOA of left-wing bias, said the layoffs were because the agency was "riddled with dysfunction, bias and waste". Steve Herman, VOA's chief national correspondent, called the dismantling of the outlet, which was set up during World War Two to counter Nazi propaganda, a "historic act of self-sabotage". Among those axed were Persian-language reporters who had been on administrative leave, but were called back to work last week after Israel attacked Iran. According to the Associated Press news agency, the Persian reporters had left the office on Friday for a cigarette break, and were not allowed to re-enter the building after the termination notices went out. "Today, we took decisive action to effectuate President Trump's agenda to shrink the out-of-control federal bureaucracy," Kari Lake, whom the president appointed to run VOA, said in a statement on Friday announcing the layoffs of 639 employees. In total, more than 85% of the agency's employees - about 1,400 staff - have lost their jobs since March. She noted that 50 employees would remain employed across VOA, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, and VOA's parent company, the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM). A statement issued by three VOA journalists who have been suing to stop the elimination of the network said about the latest firings: "It spells the death of 83 years of independent journalism that upholds US ideals of democracy and freedom around the world." The move had been expected since March when Trump ordered VOA, as well as USAGM, which oversees VOA and funds outlets such as Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia, to be "eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law". The agencies have won acclaim and international recognition for their reporting in places where press freedom is severely curtailed or non-existent, from China and Cambodia to Russia and North Korea. But Dan Robinson, a former VOA news correspondent, wrote in an op-ed last year that the outlet had become a "hubris-filled rogue operation often reflecting a leftist bias aligned with partisan national media". Trump's criticisms of VOA come as part of his broader attacks against the US media, which studies suggest American news consumers view as highly polarised. The president has also urged his fellow Republicans to remove federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). 'Discarded like a dirty rag': Chinese state media hails Trump's cuts to Voice of America Judge halts Trump's shutdown of Voice of America
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
State says Miami can't move city election without voter input. Who's right?
Next week, the Miami City Commission is scheduled to take a final vote on a proposal to move the city from odd- to even-year elections, canceling the upcoming November election and pushing it to 2026 without voter approval. Depending on who you ask, the proposal could be viewed as a common-sense reform measure that will boost the city's low voter turnout, or a power grab by Miami's elected officials, who will get an extra year in office if the change is approved — including those who are term-limited. The issue hasn't just made waves in local political circles. It's raised legal questions that have traveled as far as Tallahassee, pitting the city against Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Florida attorney general. The strained relationship between the governor and Miami Mayor Francis Suarez — who has been lobbying behind the scenes for the election date change — likely doesn't help, either. But beyond the local political drama at play, one question remains: Is it legal for the city to delay its elections without voter input? Last week, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier issued a written opinion saying the city of Miami can't move its election date without voter approval, and DeSantis concurred in a social media post. Uthmeier handed down his opinion in response to a request from City Commissioner Miguel Angel Gabela. 'If the City of Miami is to amend its charter, either to move the date of municipal elections or to change the terms of office for elected officials, then the change may only proceed by a vote of the electors,' Uthmeier said. But in a written opinion the next day, City Attorney George Wysong argued that Miami commissioners were on solid legal ground to move the election date themselves. He cited not only a relevant state law but also a judge's decision in a similar dispute saying such a date change was allowable. In his opinion, Wysong relied in part on a recent case against the city of North Miami. Here's the background: In 2023, council members in North Miami voted to move the date of the local election from odd- to even-numbered years with the goal of attracting more voters to the polls when county, state and federal candidates would also be on the ballot. Council members approved a couple of ordinances to change both the city charter and code to move the local election date to November 2024 — triggering a lawsuit by a handful of North Miami residents. They argued that the date change could not be made without a referendum vote on the city charter because it extended the term limits of sitting council members and the mayor. Their legal challenge failed when a Miami-Dade Circuit Court judge sided with the North Miami Council members, saying their vote on moving the election date was allowed under Florida law. 'The statutory language is clear and unambiguous: the governing statutes authorize a municipality to change its election date, and extend the terms of its sitting council members as a consequence of the election date change, by ordinance and without approval by popular referendum,' Circuit Judge Reemberto Diaz ruled in May 2023. In his ruling, Diaz also cited Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi's legal opinion in 2013 involving a smaller Florida city, Arcadia. 'The Attorney General concluded that the City of Arcadia could amend its charter by ordinance to change the date of its election to coincide with federal, state, and county elections, and to extend the terms of its sitting officers resulting from the date change, without voter approval by referendum,' Diaz wrote. Diaz's decision, the first of its kind in the state of Florida, was affirmed by a three-judge panel of the Third District Court of Appeal in Miami-Dade County. The ruling, however, was not reviewed by the full appellate court or the Florida Supreme Court. Attorney Edward Guedes, who represented the city of North Miami in the case, said that because the appeals court simply upheld the trial court's ruling without elaborating in a written opinion of their own written, 'Technically that kind of decision is not binding precedent.' Nevertheless, Guedes said Florida law allows municipalities to change the election date via ordinance and without voter input. 'It is very, very clear that the Florida Legislature authorized this kind of election date-changing by cities, and to do so by ordinance notwithstanding a charter,' Guedes told the Miami Herald on Friday said. He emphasized that making the change, however, is 'a one-time shot.' 'This isn't just a mechanism for cities to abuse the process and sitting elected officials to continuously extend their terms in office, because it's a one-shot alignment,' Guedes said. 'Once you align, that's it. You're done.' Miami attorney Juan-Carlos Planas, who filed the lawsuit challenging the city of North Miami, said Diaz's ruling was wrong. Planas said the key state law cited by the North Miami Council members when they changed the local election date only applied to non-chartered towns and cities in Florida. Planas said a chartered city like North Miami required a referendum vote for a couple of fundamental reasons. Council members voted to change the city charter by switching the municipal election from odd- to even-numbered years without first holding a referendum vote on the charter itself. And, in doing so, they also extended the members' term limits, again without the referendum vote. Planas, who ran unsuccessfully as a Democrat for Miami-Dade supervisor of elections last year, said the city commissioners in Miami are making the same mistake. 'I do think the city of Miami has to change their charter first before the commissioners vote on changing the election date,' Planas told the Herald on Friday. 'But they have a problem: they can't change the city charter without a referendum vote of the people.' Guedes said changing the election date via ordinance only and without a change to the charter is legally sound, essentially making it so the provision of the charter specifying elections take place in odd years is 'no longer viable.' However, he noted that that approach 'could get complicated.' 'Not because I think the legal outcome will change,' Guedes said. 'It's just that it may create confusion.' Planas also said the Miami commissioners are compounding their mistake by changing the municipal election date by ordinance only, without addressing that it conflicts with the city charter. 'Why aren't they doing that?' he asked.
