Green governator

The progression is logical enough: body builder, actor, businessman and finally “governator.” Yes, Arnold Schwarzenegger has done it all. After making a name for himself as a five-time Mr. Universe, “Ahnold” fulfilled the American dream by marrying a Kennedy and taking over California. \nThis very man who most likely spent his school days taking the lunch money from activist hippie-types is gaining a reputation for allowing environmentally friendly considerations to guide his policy decisions. In fact, Schwarzenegger seems to have taken a complete 180 in his ecological stance. \nFor example, in 1992 he bought the first Hummer manufactured for civilian use. In case you are unfamiliar with the vehicle, Hummers are the environmental anti-Christ, so to speak. These monstrosities are of such gargantuan proportions that they are classified as trucks and are, as a result, exempt from the U.S. fuel-economy regulations that apply to more efficient and smaller civilian vehicles. \nAt the moment, however, the Golden State is spearheading efforts to bring an element of environmental consciousness into governors’ mansions nationwide. Under Ahnold’s direction, the former global-warming capital of the world is generating number of noteworthy policies, including the California Global Warming Act, which would require a statewide reduction of greenhouse gases emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. \nBut is the Terminator a poser, capitalizing off the environmental movement by riding the green tide to power? Are his policies hypocritical, and if so, should Californians continue their support for him?\nThese questions have driven the recent barrage of criticism of celebrities who have ostensibly adopted an element of environmental consciousness in their lives. When stars such as Tom Hanks arrived at the 2003 Academy Awards in hybrid vehicles, viewers began to ask if Hollywood’s finest were sincere in their newfound green convictions, or if they were simply attempting to generate positive PR.\nWhat a cynical society we live in! If public figures make poor choices, we criticize their actions. When public figures make positive choices, we question their motives. We’ve created an atmosphere of skepticism and a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” mentality. Is it so bad the ex-Terminator has distanced himself from the trappings of an unnecessarily wasteful lifestyle? \nEven if their motives aren’t genuine and in fact do constitute a publicity stunt, is that so bad? Regardless of the means uses to get there, the results of such efforts deserve praise. In positions of such high visibility, every positive action they choose to take has the potential to inspire the millions who carefully eye their each and every move. If a little bit of societal manipulation is necessary to stall the AIDS crisis or to curb hunger and homelessness, such goals are noble and intrinsically meritorious.\nEven if a misrepresentation of values helps to drive the campaign to say “Hasta la vista, baby” to global warming, then so be it.