Thank you. I agree, conservatives do a lousy job on environmental issues where they could hold the moral high ground. It's a tragedy created by years of acting on the defensive and allowing their thinking to be distorted accordingly.
There was a lot of grumbling about the California reformulated gasoline regs when they were being discussed, but again, the corporate attitude was, "we can pass on the cost to the consumer." On the oxygenate issue, you make very good points. Oxygenates really aren't necessary in California because of our mild climate (for those who are unaware, carbon monoxide emissions, which are suppose to be controlled by oxygenates, are mainly a concern in cold weather months). But they are required by federal RFG regulations, and no one (certainly not the Air Resource Board!) has been willing or able to contend that the oxygenate standards are largely unnecessary in California. But if oxygenates are required, the only short-term alternative to MTBE was ethanol, and ethanol cannot be added to gasoline at the refinery due water separation that occurs in the pipeline (MTBE makes for a better mix, and hence is transportable). Also, ethanol increases the volatility of gasoline (which MTBE doesn't--it's volatility neutral), resulting in greater NOx emissions (I think it was NOx...it's been a few years). Of course, at the time, the massive groundwater contamination caused by MTBE wasn't foreseen. The most logical thing is to exempt California from the oxygenate mandate, but that's something the feds need to be approached on.
All-in-all, I've come to view environmental regulations as important and necessary. I remember around 1970, and I compare it with today, and considering the huge increase in mobile sources alone over the last 30 years, we've done an incredible job cleaning the air. Our efforts to improve air quality in Caifornia are a huge success. I know a lot of conservatives belly-ache about environmental regs, but let's face it...nobody wants to return to the muck and haze of 30 years ago, particularly in places like the South Coast District and the south Bay Area.
But air quality's only part of the story. My wife and I were at the coast this past weekend, and much of the wildlife one now sees there -- albatross, sealions, elephant seals -- simply weren't on the coast 30 years ago, not in the numbers they are today. I think the environmental laws have been a boon to the quality of life in California, and largely worth the cost. The problem today is trying to pinch that final part-per-billion out of some emission in the air or water. As you said, there just aren't easy ways to do it. Have we put scrubbers on fast-food restraunt vents, or have we outlawed backyard barbeques yet? Years ago, the idea of reducing an emission by a part-per-billion was unheard of. Today, technology allows it. But at what cost? That's the eternal question. However, I have to admit that I consider myself an environmentalist...I don't think I'm a "wacko" however.
All in all, your analysis is sound. And I daresay, your knowledge of the issues outstrips my own. Arnold's platform on the environment is pretty mainstream -- neither that revolutionary, nor questioning of questionable existing policies. Let's face it -- it was probably written by a former Wilson official at CalEPA.